Temporal influences in non-elective cesarean sections and indication patterns

Purpose Elective (pre-labour) cesarean sections are, by design, concentrated during staffed hours, limiting the interpretability of overall temporal patterns. We examined whether the proportion of documented discretion-susceptible indications for non-elective (intrapartum) cesarean sections shifts with time of day and weekday, using the Robson classification for stratification. Methods We retrospectively analysed 5,850 cesarean sections at University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, 2015–2021, classified as elective ( n =2,851) or non-elective ( n =2,998) by documented decision timepoint. Among non-elective cases, we assessed threshold-susceptible ("soft") indications (protracted labour/arrest, non-reassuring fetal heart rate) by shift and weekend, adjusted for Robson group and gestational age. Guideline-defined absolute ("hard") indications served as a supportive comparison, with Holm correction for exploratory comparisons. Results Among non-elective cesarean sections, the proportion with documented discretion-susceptible indications was significantly higher during evening/night shifts (OR 2.63, 95%CI 2.20–3.14, p <0.001) and, less markedly, on weekends (OR 1.37, 95%CI 1.12–1.67, p =0.002), consistent across all five individual indicators for shift, and across two of five for weekend. Indications with limited clinical discretion showed no comparable variation (shift OR 0.99, p =0.92; weekend OR 0.77, p =0.16), except for placenta previa (Holm- p =0.023), discussed as a qualification rather than a validation of the primary interpretation. Conclusion The proportion of non-elective cesarean sections with documented discretion-susceptible indications was higher during evening/night shifts and weekends, while guideline-defined indications with limited discretion showed comparatively little variation. Because a population-based at-risk denominator was unavailable, these findings describe differences in documented indication composition among cesarean deliveries that occurred, rather than evidence that the intervention threshold itself changed. Whether this reflects clinical decision-making, documentation practice, or unmeasured case-mix factors warrants further investigation.