ArticleHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia
Optimizing Emergency Department Care for People With Bleeding Disorders: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Interventions for Improvement.
Article in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency department (ED) care is critical for managing acute bleeding events in people with bleeding disorders. Despite international guidelines recommending haemostatic treatment within 30-60 min, delays and deviations from best practices are common and associated with poorer outcomes.
objectiveIdentify barriers to guideline-concordant ED management of bleeding disorders, evaluate interventions, assess clinical impact, and highlight knowledge gaps to inform future research.
methodsFive databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to 21 March 2025, following established scoping review guidelines and a pre-registered protocol. Eligible studies examined barriers or interventions for improving ED care. Data were independently screened and extracted by two reviewers, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.
resultsSeventeen studies out of 3541 met inclusion criteria. Common barriers included electronic medical record (EMR) limitations, absence of standardized protocols, limited healthcare professional education, and inadequate communication with haematology. Delayed time to therapy (n = 8, range 1.4-5.6 h) was frequently reported; additional impacts included failure to administer haemostatic therapy for confirmed/suspected bleeding, non-indicated diagnostic testing, and patient mortality. Most interventions combined EMR enhancements with education. All interventions were associated with improved outcomes, including reduced time to therapy (n = 4, range 0.4-2.5 h). Perspectives of people with bleeding disorders and caregivers were infrequently incorporated.
conclusionThis review provides the first comprehensive synthesis of barriers and interventions in ED care for people with bleeding disorders, identifying critical gaps in timely treatment, interdisciplinary coordination, and stakeholder engagement. These findings provide a foundation for future quality improvement research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.