8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of Physician Self-reported Knowledge and Use of Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Law

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What do Maryland physicians know about extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), and what are the barriers and facilitators to ERPO use in clinical settings?

          Findings

          In this survey study of 92 physicians, respondents’ knowledge of ERPOs was low, but after reading a brief description, most reported treating patients who would qualify for an ERPO and a willingness to use ERPOs. A clinical coordinator to process ERPO petitions, training, access to legal counsel, and the ability to participate in court hearings remotely would help address barriers to ERPO use.

          Meaning

          Maryland physicians’ knowledge of ERPOs, barriers to ERPO use, and strategies for addressing identified barriers may provide important insights to better support ERPO use by physicians.

          Abstract

          This survey study assesses Maryland physicians’ knowledge, past use, and likely future use of extreme risk protection orders, barriers to their use, and strategies to address those barriers.

          Abstract

          Importance

          On October 1, 2018, Maryland’s extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law took effect. This was the first ERPO law in the United States to authorize clinicians to initiate a civil court process to temporarily prohibit people behaving dangerously and at risk of engaging in violence from purchasing and possessing firearms. This is the first publication reporting results from a survey of physicians about ERPOs.

          Objectives

          To assess Maryland physicians’ knowledge, past use, and likely future use of ERPOs, and to identify barriers to physicians’ use of ERPOs and strategies to address those barriers.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This survey study conducted at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, surveyed physicians, including emergency medicine physicians, pediatricians, and psychiatrists, using a 15-question online instrument between June 15, 2019, and July 1, 2019. Data analysis was performed in July 2019.

          Exposure

          Maryland’s ERPO law.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Knowledge, use, and likely use of ERPOs, barriers to use, and strategies to address those barriers.

          Results

          Ninety-two of 353 physicians invited (26.1%) completed the survey; 1 respondent reported having filed an ERPO petition. Sixty-six respondents (71.7%) described themselves as not at all familiar with ERPOs. After reading a brief description of the ERPO law, 85 respondents (92.4%) indicated that they encounter patients whom they would consider for an ERPO at least a few times per year. Fifty-five respondents (59.8%) reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to file an ERPO petition when they identify a qualifying patient. Respondents identified time as the main barrier to using ERPOs (not enough time to complete paperwork, 57 respondents [62.6%]; not enough time to attend hearing at courthouse, 64 respondents [70.3%]), followed by concern that filing an ERPO would negatively affect their relationship with the patient (36 respondents [39.6%]). Having a coordinator to manage the process (80 respondents [87.0%]), training (79 respondents [85.9%]), participating in court hearings remotely (68 respondents [73.9%]), and having access to legal counsel (59 respondents [64.1%]) were all selected by large majorities of respondents as strategies to address barriers to ERPO use.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Awareness of ERPOs among physicians in the sample was low. Physicians are treating patients who would qualify for an ERPO, and respondents in the sample indicated a willingness to use ERPOs. Training, providing access to legal counsel, designating a clinician to process petitions, and allowing clinicians to participate remotely in court hearings were strategies respondents identified to address barriers to ERPO use. These survey findings identify concrete solutions for addressing barriers to physician use of ERPOs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981–2015

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings

            Urgent, individualized interventions to reduce firearm access, such as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs, colloquially known as "red flag" orders), provide a rapid, focused response when risk for imminent firearm violence is high. Studies to date suggest such interventions are most commonly used to prevent suicide and are effective. Authorizing legislation has often been enacted after public mass shootings but, to our knowledge, there have been only 2 reported cases of ERPO use in efforts to prevent mass shootings. California enacted the nation's first ERPO statute, which took effect in January 2016. The authors are evaluating that statute's implementation and effectiveness and are seeking to obtain court records for all 414 cases occurring in 2016 to 2018. Based on 159 records received thus far, this article presents an aggregate summary and individual histories for a preliminary series of 21 cases in which ERPOs were used in efforts to prevent mass shootings. Most subjects were male and non-Hispanic white; the mean age was 35 years. Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms. Four cases arose primarily in relation to medical or mental health conditions, and such conditions were noted in 4 others. Fifty-two firearms were recovered. As of early August 2019, none of the threatened shootings had occurred, and no other homicides or suicides by persons subject to the orders were identified. It is impossible to know whether violence would have occurred had ERPOs not been issued, and the authors make no claim of a causal relationship. Nonetheless, the cases suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere. Further evaluation would be helpful.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Assessment of suicide risk.

              K Hawton (1987)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                20 December 2019
                December 2019
                20 December 2019
                : 2
                : 12
                : e1918037
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Gun Policy and Research, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [2 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [4 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [5 ]Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [6 ]Department of Mental Health, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 1, 2019.
                Published: December 20, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18037
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Frattaroli S et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH, Center for Gun Policy and Research, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Fifth Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205 ( sfratta1@ 123456jhu.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Frattaroli and Ms Omaki had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Frattaroli, Hoops, McCourt, Nestadt, Omaki, Shields, Wilcox.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Frattaroli, Hoops, Irvin, Nestadt, Omaki, Shields, Wilcox.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Frattaroli, Nestadt, Omaki.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Hoops, Omaki.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Frattaroli, Irvin, Nestadt, Shields, Wilcox.
                Supervision: Frattaroli, Nestadt.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Frattaroli reported receiving a grant from the Bloomberg American Health Initiative outside the submitted work and being a founding member of the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, which developed the extreme risk protection order concept and recommends that states adopt extreme risk protection order laws. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research for provided the open access fee for this article, and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg American Health Initiative supported our previous work on extreme risk protection orders that informs this article.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi190679
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18037
                6991220
                31860108
                2be88a10-8725-41a0-b5a7-bef916f36ac3
                Copyright 2019 Frattaroli S et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 11 September 2019
                : 1 November 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article