Dataset Information

Patient Characteristics and Perspectives of Firearm Safety Discussions in the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Firearm injury prevention discussions with emergency department (ED) patients provide a unique opportunity to prevent death and injury in high-risk patient groups. Building mutual understanding of safe firearm practices between patients and providers will aid the development of effective interventions. Examining ED patient baseline characteristics, perspectives on healthcare-based safety discussions, and experience with and access to firearms, will allow practitioners to craft more effective messaging and interventions.

Methods

Using an institutional review board-approved cross-sectional survey modified from a validated national instrument, we recruited 625 patients from three large, urban, academically affiliated EDs in the South to assess patient baseline characteristics, perspectives regarding firearms and firearm safety discussions, and prior violence history, as well as firearm access and safety habits. We compared the degree to which patients were open to discussions regarding firearms across a variety of provider types and clinical scenarios between those with and without gun access.

Results

Of the 625 patients consented and eligible for the study, 306 had access to firearms. The patients with firearm access were predominantly male, were more likely to have military experience, live in an urban or suburban region, and have experienced prior violence when compared to those without firearm access. Patients with and without gun access view firearm safety discussions with their healthcare provider as acceptable and analogous to other behavioral health interventions (i.e., helmet/seat belt use, alcohol/cigarette use). Patients were also accepting of these firearm safety discussions in many clinical contexts and led by multiple provider types. Of the patients with gun access, storage of each type of firearm was reviewed and the primary reason for ownership was for personal protection across all firearm types.

Conclusion

Patients in the ED indicate openness to firearm safety discussions delivered by a variety of providers and in diverse clinical scenarios. Healthcare providers engaging firearm owners in appropriate risk-benefit discussions using a trauma-informed approach is a critical next step in research and intervention.

SUBMITTER: Hudak L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8203031 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are important venues for the distribution of naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but less is known about patient perceptions on naloxone or best practices for patient education and communication. Our aim was to conduct an in-depth exploration of knowledge and attitudes toward ED naloxone distribution among patients who received a naloxone prescription.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 25 adult participants seen and discharged from three urban, academic EDs in Philadelphia, PA, with a naloxone prescription between November 2020 and February 2021. Interviews focused on awareness of naloxone as well as attitudes and experiences receiving naloxone in the ED. We used thematic content analysis to identify key themes reflecting patient attitudes and experiences.ResultsOf the 25 participants, 72% had previously witnessed an overdose and 48% had personally experienced a non-fatal overdose. Nineteen participants (76%) self-disclosed a history of substance use or overdose, and one reported receiving an opioid prescription during their ED visit and no history of substance use. In interviews, we identified wide variability in participant levels of knowledge about overdose risk, the role of naloxone in reducing risk, and naloxone access. A subset of participants was highly engaged with community harm reduction resources and well versed in naloxone access and use. A second subset was familiar with naloxone, but largely obtained it through healthcare settings such as the ED, while a final group was largely unfamiliar with naloxone. While most participants expressed positive attitudes about receiving naloxone from the ED, the quality of discussions with ED providers was variable, with some participants not even aware they were receiving a naloxone prescription until discharge.ConclusionsNaloxone prescribing in the ED was acceptable and valued by most participants, but there are missed opportunities for communication and education. These findings underscore the critical role that EDs play in mitigating risks for patients who are not engaged with other healthcare or community health providers and can inform future work about the effective implementation of harm reduction strategies in ED settings.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) crowding is an increasing problem associated with adverse patient outcomes. ED expansion is one method advocated to reduce ED crowding. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of ED expansion on measures of ED crowding.MethodsThis was a retrospective study using administrative data from two 11-month periods before and after the expansion of an ED from 33 to 53 adult beds in an academic medical center. ED volume, staffing, and hospital admission and occupancy data were obtained either from the electronic health record (EHR) or from administrative records. The primary outcome was the rate of patients who left without being treated (LWBT), and the secondary outcome was total ED boarding time for admitted patients. A multivariable robust linear regression model was used to determine whether ED expansion was associated with the outcome measures.ResultsThe mean (±SD) daily adult volume was 128 (±14) patients before expansion and 145 (±17) patients after. The percentage of patients who LWBT was unchanged: 9.0% before expansion versus 8.3% after expansion (difference = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.16% to 1.4%). Total ED boarding time increased from 160 to 180 hours/day (difference = 20 hours, 95% CI = 8 to 32 hours). After daily ED volume, low-acuity area volume, daily wait time, daily boarding hours, and nurse staffing were adjusted for, the percentage of patients who LWBT was not independently associated with ED expansion (p = 0.053). After ED admissions, ED intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, elective surgical admissions, hospital occupancy rate, ICU occupancy rate, and number of operational ICU beds were adjusted for, the increase in ED boarding hours was independently associated with the ED expansion (p = 0.005).ConclusionsAn increase in ED bed capacity was associated with no significant change in the percentage of patients who LWBT, but had an unintended consequence of an increase in ED boarding hours. ED expansion alone does not appear to be an adequate solution to ED crowding.

Project description:BackgroundParents take neonates to the emergency department for many reasons, often nonurgent, pressuring an already burdened system. We aimed to characterize these visits and families to identify potential strategies to decrease neonatal emergency department visits.MethodsWe developed and implemented a survey that explored characteristics of neonates and parents/guardians evaluated in the emergency department, perspectives of parents and use of health care services. Parents presenting with a neonate to the emergency department in 5 large academic hospitals in Ontario were surveyed between December 2013 and June 2015. We used descriptive statistics to report survey data and explored correlations between factors.ResultsA total of 1533 surveys were completed. The most common reasons for presenting were jaundice (441 [28.8%]) and feeding issues (251 [16.4%]). The majority of respondents (73.9% [1104/1494]) had received advice before going to the emergency department. In most cases (86.4% [954/1104]), this was from a health care provider, who frequently advised going to the emergency department. Although most parents (86.8% [1280/1475]) reported high confidence in caring for a sick or injured child, 42.3% (643/1519) were unsure of the severity, and most (90.4% [578/639]) of these parents felt that the infant required assessment immediately or the same day. Of parents who felt the condition was not serious, 83.2% (198/238) thought that same-day evaluation was required. Nearly half of respondents (44.4% [621/1400]) said they would have gone to their health care provider with a same-day appointment, and 28.1% (344/1225) would have gone to their care provider with a next-day appointment.InterpretationParents' reported confidence in caring for sick or injured infants does not match the perceived urgency of neonatal conditions, which likely contributes to emergency department overuse. Any system to decrease nonurgent emergency department use by neonates would need to be immediately responsive, providing same-day help.

Project description:Aim of the study: Poor safety culture, bad teamwork, non-functional inter-departmental working relationships and increased cognitive demands are associated with higher amounts of adverse events in hospitals. To improve patient safety, one of the first steps is to assess safety culture among health care providers in an institution. Considering the sparsity of studies addressing patient safety culture in Europe and Switzerland, the aim of the present study was to assess patient safety culture in the emergency department of a University Hospital in Switzerland. Methods: We employed the Hospital Survey On Patient Safety Culture, developed by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 140 questionnaires were distributed to nurses and physicians. Two weeks after the first questionnaire, we performed a sensitization campaign addressed to health care providers, and then repeated the survey. We calculated composite scores for each question category and percentages of positive responses for each dimension. For group comparisons such as possible differences relating to education and duration of employment and to compare results of the first and second survey we used T-tests. The results were compared to other published surveys outside of Switzerland. Results: Particularly positive assessments were found for the categories "nonpunitive response to errors", "teamwork within units", "supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety" and, compared to other hospitals, also "staffing". The lowest average percent positive responses were found in the categories "frequencies of reported event", "teamwork across units" and "handoffs and transitions". Nurses and health care personnel with a longer employment history had an overall more negative assessment of patient safety culture, when compared to physicians and personnel with a shorter duration of employment, respectively. Conclusions: The present study has identified strengths and potential weaknesses in the safety culture of a large university hospital emergency department in Switzerland. The results provide opportunities for improvement of patient safety in particular in the reporting of adverse events, in interaction across units and patient transitions. Furthermore, as we employed a standardized self-assessment tool similar to previously published studies, the work contributes to the establishment of a benchmark for hospital safety culture at the national, European and international level.