An intervention to improve safe firearm storage for adolescents presenting with suicide ideation or attempt in a pediatric emergency department

Reducing firearm access for youth at risk for suicide in a pediatric emergency department

Background

Firearm-related suicide is the second leading cause of pediatric firearm death. Lethal means counseling (LMC) can improve firearm safe-storage practices for families with youth at risk of suicide.

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of pediatric emergency department (ED) behavioral mental health (BMH) specialists providing LMC to caregivers of youth presenting with BMH complaints and to test for changes in firearm safety practices, pre-post ED LMC intervention, as measures of preliminary efficacy.

Methods

Prospective pilot feasibility study of caregivers of youth presenting to a pediatric ED with BMH complaints. Caregivers completed an electronic survey regarding demographics and firearm safe-storage knowledge/practices followed by BMH specialist LMC. Firearm owners were offered a free lockbox and/or trigger lock. One-week follow-up surveys gathered self-reported data on firearm safety practices and intervention acceptability. One-month interviews with randomly sampled firearm owners collected additional firearm safety data. Primary outcomes were feasibility measures, including participant accrual/attrition and LMC intervention acceptability. Secondary outcomes included self-reported firearm safety practice changes. Feasibility benchmarks were manually tabulated, and Likert-scale acceptability responses were dichotomized to strongly agree/agree vs. neutral/disagree/strongly disagree. Descriptive statistics were used for univariate and paired data responses.

Results

In total, 81 caregivers were approached; of which, 50 (81%) caregivers enrolled. A total of 44% reported having a firearm at home, 80% completed follow-up at one week. More than 80% affirmed that ED firearm safety education was useful and that the ED is an appropriate place for firearm safety discussions. In total, 58% of participants reported not having prior firearm safety education/counseling. Among firearm owners (n = 22), 18% reported rarely/never previously using a safe-storage device, and 59% of firearm owners requested safe storage devices.At 1-week follow-up (n = 40), a greater proportion of caregivers self-reported asking about firearms before their child visited other homes (+28%). Among firearm owners that completed follow-up (n = 19), 100% reported storing all firearms locked at one week (+23% post-intervention). In total, 10 caregivers reported temporarily/permanently removing firearms from the home.

Conclusion

It is feasible to provide LMC in the pediatric ED via BMH specialists to families of high-risk youth. Caregivers were receptive to LMC and reported finding this intervention useful, acceptable, and appropriate. Additionally, LMC and device distribution led to reported changes in safe storage practices.

Integration of extreme risk protection orders into the clinical workflow: Qualitative comparison of clinician perspectives

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPO) seek to temporarily reduce access to firearms for individuals at imminent risk of harming themselves and/or others. Clinicians, including physicians, nurse practitioners, and social workers regularly assess circumstances related to patients' risk of firearm-related harm in the context of providing routine and acute clinical care. While clinicians cannot independently file ERPOs in most states, they can counsel patients or contact law enforcement about filing ERPOs. This study sought to understand clinicians' perspectives about integrating ERPO counseling and contacting law enforcement about ERPOs into their clinical workflow. We analyzed responses to open-ended questions from an online survey distributed May-July of 2021 to all licensed physicians (n = 23,051), nurse practitioners (n = 8,049), and social workers (n = 6,910) in Washington state. Of the 4,242 survey participants, 1,126 (26.5%) responded to at least one of ten open-ended questions. Two coders conducted content analysis. Clinicians identified barriers and facilitators to integrating ERPOs into the clinical workflow; these influenced their preferences on who should counsel or contact law enforcement about ERPOs. Barriers included perceptions of professional scope, knowledge gaps, institutional barriers, perceived ERPO effectiveness and constitutionality, concern for safety (clinician and patient), and potential for damaging provider-patient therapeutic relationship. Facilitators to address these barriers included trainings and resources, dedicated time for counseling and remuneration for time spent counseling, education on voluntary removal options, and ability to refer patients to another clinician. Participants who were hesitant to be the primary clinician to counsel patients or contact law enforcement about ERPOs requested the ability to refer patients to a specialist, such as social workers or a designated ERPO specialist. Results highlight the complex perspectives across clinician types regarding the integration of ERPO counseling into the clinical workflow. We highlight areas to be addressed for clinicians to engage with ERPOs.