Lisa C Lindley, Christina N Policastro, Radion Svynarenko, Heather A Davis, Lora Humphrey Beebe
{"title":"Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws.","authors":"Lisa C Lindley, Christina N Policastro, Radion Svynarenko, Heather A Davis, Lora Humphrey Beebe","doi":"10.1177/15271544241262744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gun violence is a leading public health concern in the US; subsequently, firearm-related violence prevention is a top priority for policymakers. Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a state-level attempt to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths. These court-issued orders prohibit people found to be dangerous to themselves or others from temporarily purchasing or possessing a firearm. Six states (Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New York) and the District of Columbia have passed or amended their laws to include nurses as ERPO petitioners. The study's purpose was to conduct a review of state ERPO laws that included nurses as petitioners. Using a legal mapping approach, information on nurse ERPO petitioning was extracted from the seven jurisdictions. ERPO laws with nurse petitioners were passed between 1999 and 2023. Nurse petitioners included advanced practice registered nurse (n = 3), clinical nurse specialists (n = 3), nurse practitioner (n = 3), professional nurse (n = 2), and register nurse (n = 1). Psychiatric/mental health (n = 2) and school nurses (n = 2) were specified. Statutes differed in the handling of disclosed health information as part of the ERPO petition, as well as how health information would be handled by the court (e.g. sealed by the court, confidential by the court, returned to provider/disposed of post-hearing/order.) Three statutes exempted petitioners from civil and/or criminal liability, if petitions were submitted in good faith. Two of these states extended protection from liability to all petitioners, while one only referenced petitioners who were healthcare providers. The study findings have important policy, clinical, and research implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":53177,"journal":{"name":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","volume":" ","pages":"182-188"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15271544241262744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Gun violence is a leading public health concern in the US; subsequently, firearm-related violence prevention is a top priority for policymakers. Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a state-level attempt to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths. These court-issued orders prohibit people found to be dangerous to themselves or others from temporarily purchasing or possessing a firearm. Six states (Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New York) and the District of Columbia have passed or amended their laws to include nurses as ERPO petitioners. The study's purpose was to conduct a review of state ERPO laws that included nurses as petitioners. Using a legal mapping approach, information on nurse ERPO petitioning was extracted from the seven jurisdictions. ERPO laws with nurse petitioners were passed between 1999 and 2023. Nurse petitioners included advanced practice registered nurse (n = 3), clinical nurse specialists (n = 3), nurse practitioner (n = 3), professional nurse (n = 2), and register nurse (n = 1). Psychiatric/mental health (n = 2) and school nurses (n = 2) were specified. Statutes differed in the handling of disclosed health information as part of the ERPO petition, as well as how health information would be handled by the court (e.g. sealed by the court, confidential by the court, returned to provider/disposed of post-hearing/order.) Three statutes exempted petitioners from civil and/or criminal liability, if petitions were submitted in good faith. Two of these states extended protection from liability to all petitioners, while one only referenced petitioners who were healthcare providers. The study findings have important policy, clinical, and research implications.
期刊介绍:
Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that explores the multiple relationships between nursing and health policy. It serves as a major source of data-based study, policy analysis and discussion on timely, relevant policy issues for nurses in a broad variety of roles and settings, and for others outside of nursing who are interested in nursing-related policy issues.