Timeliness of hemostatic therapy administration for patients with bleeding disorders in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with bleeding disorders (PwBD) often face delays in receiving hemostatic therapies within the recommended 60-min window upon presenting to the emergency department, potentially exacerbating their conditions. We aimed to investigate the emergency department workflow for managing PwBD to identify inefficiencies and barriers to timely treatment. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with hemophilia and von Willebrand disease (VWD) presenting to the emergency department from 2019 to 2022. Data were collected on patient demographics, disease type, severity, treatment type, and prescriber specialty. Time from triage to medication administration was the primary outcome. Statistical comparisons and Firth's penalized logistic regression were performed. Among 241 emergency department visits in 122 PwBD, 50% of the 86 bleeding events were treated with hemostatic therapies. Only 11% received them within 60 min. The median time from emergency department triage to administration of hemostatic therapies was 175 min [interquartile range (IQR) 93-364] for clotting factor concentrates (CFCs) and 206 min (IQR 152-269) for desmopressin. Important delays were observed in patient rooming, physician initial assessment, ordering and administration of hemostatic therapies. Patients triaged more urgently may have experienced higher odds of receiving hemostatic therapies in 60 min or less, though regression analysis did not identify statistically significant predictors of treatment beyond 60 min. This study highlights the urgent need for targeted interventions to address systemic challenges and mitigate treatment delays for PwBD in Canadian emergency department settings. Future research should focus on prospective evaluations of intervention effectiveness and the role of patient self-management in reducing emergency department dependency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".