Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws

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 fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Policy, politics & nursing practice politics & nursing practice, 2024-08, Vol.25 (3), p.182-188
Hauptverfasser: Lindley, Lisa C., Policastro, Christina N., Svynarenko, Radion, Davis, Heather A., Beebe, Lora Humphrey
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 188
container_issue 3
container_start_page 182
container_title Policy, politics & nursing practice
container_volume 25
creator Lindley, Lisa C.
Policastro, Christina N.
Svynarenko, Radion
Davis, Heather A.
Beebe, Lora Humphrey
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/15271544241262744
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084776606</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_15271544241262744</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3099865934</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c250t-8f48000648dffc79ba1ce2197b675c777b950503d4ad02fb88367c698278aef33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1OwzAQhC0EoqXwAFyQJS5cUmzH9jrcqqr8SIVWBc6Rk2yqlLYpdiLg7UnUAhKIvewevpkdDSGnnPU5B7jkSgBXUgrJhRYg5R7pcqVEAFKb_fYWELRAhxx5v2DNGOCHpBNGTLWCLpk91M6jp9bTKVZFVZRrdP6KDugY53ZJ7-1mU6zntMzpY2UrpKP3yuEK6azwL3TqygrTVkQnLkNHx_bNH5OD3C49nux2jzxfj56Gt8F4cnM3HIyDVChWBSaXpgmkpcnyPIUosTxFwSNINKgUAJJIMcXCTNqMiTwxJtSQ6sgIMBbzMOyRi63vxpWvNfoqXhU-xeXSrrGsfRwyIwG0ZrpBz3-hi7J26yZdQ0WR0SoKZUPxLZW60nuHebxxxcq6j5izuC08_lN4oznbOdfJCrNvxVfDDdDfAt7O8eft_46fHyuFeA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3099865934</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Lindley, Lisa C. ; Policastro, Christina N. ; Svynarenko, Radion ; Davis, Heather A. ; Beebe, Lora Humphrey</creator><creatorcontrib>Lindley, Lisa C. ; Policastro, Christina N. ; Svynarenko, Radion ; Davis, Heather A. ; Beebe, Lora Humphrey</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1527-1544</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1552-7468</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-7468</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/15271544241262744</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39056274</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Advanced practice nurses ; Clinical research ; Courts ; Criminal liability ; Firearms ; Gun violence ; Health care industry ; Health information ; Information ; Mapping ; Mental health ; Nurse specialists ; Nurses ; Petition ; Policy making ; Public health ; Risk reduction ; School nurses ; Specialists ; Statutes</subject><ispartof>Policy, politics &amp; nursing practice, 2024-08, Vol.25 (3), p.182-188</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c250t-8f48000648dffc79ba1ce2197b675c777b950503d4ad02fb88367c698278aef33</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2960-7896</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15271544241262744$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15271544241262744$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27843,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39056274$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lindley, Lisa C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Policastro, Christina N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svynarenko, Radion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Heather A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beebe, Lora Humphrey</creatorcontrib><title>Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws</title><title>Policy, politics &amp; nursing practice</title><addtitle>Policy Polit Nurs Pract</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Advanced practice nurses</subject><subject>Clinical research</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Criminal liability</subject><subject>Firearms</subject><subject>Gun violence</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health information</subject><subject>Information</subject><subject>Mapping</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Nurse specialists</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Petition</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Risk reduction</subject><subject>School nurses</subject><subject>Specialists</subject><subject>Statutes</subject><issn>1527-1544</issn><issn>1552-7468</issn><issn>1552-7468</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1OwzAQhC0EoqXwAFyQJS5cUmzH9jrcqqr8SIVWBc6Rk2yqlLYpdiLg7UnUAhKIvewevpkdDSGnnPU5B7jkSgBXUgrJhRYg5R7pcqVEAFKb_fYWELRAhxx5v2DNGOCHpBNGTLWCLpk91M6jp9bTKVZFVZRrdP6KDugY53ZJ7-1mU6zntMzpY2UrpKP3yuEK6azwL3TqygrTVkQnLkNHx_bNH5OD3C49nux2jzxfj56Gt8F4cnM3HIyDVChWBSaXpgmkpcnyPIUosTxFwSNINKgUAJJIMcXCTNqMiTwxJtSQ6sgIMBbzMOyRi63vxpWvNfoqXhU-xeXSrrGsfRwyIwG0ZrpBz3-hi7J26yZdQ0WR0SoKZUPxLZW60nuHebxxxcq6j5izuC08_lN4oznbOdfJCrNvxVfDDdDfAt7O8eft_46fHyuFeA</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Lindley, Lisa C.</creator><creator>Policastro, Christina N.</creator><creator>Svynarenko, Radion</creator><creator>Davis, Heather A.</creator><creator>Beebe, Lora Humphrey</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2960-7896</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws</title><author>Lindley, Lisa C. ; Policastro, Christina N. ; Svynarenko, Radion ; Davis, Heather A. ; Beebe, Lora Humphrey</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c250t-8f48000648dffc79ba1ce2197b675c777b950503d4ad02fb88367c698278aef33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Advanced practice nurses</topic><topic>Clinical research</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Criminal liability</topic><topic>Firearms</topic><topic>Gun violence</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health information</topic><topic>Information</topic><topic>Mapping</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Nurse specialists</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Petition</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Risk reduction</topic><topic>School nurses</topic><topic>Specialists</topic><topic>Statutes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lindley, Lisa C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Policastro, Christina N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svynarenko, Radion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Heather A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beebe, Lora Humphrey</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Policy, politics &amp; nursing practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lindley, Lisa C.</au><au>Policastro, Christina N.</au><au>Svynarenko, Radion</au><au>Davis, Heather A.</au><au>Beebe, Lora Humphrey</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws</atitle><jtitle>Policy, politics &amp; nursing practice</jtitle><addtitle>Policy Polit Nurs Pract</addtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>182</spage><epage>188</epage><pages>182-188</pages><issn>1527-1544</issn><issn>1552-7468</issn><eissn>1552-7468</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>39056274</pmid><doi>10.1177/15271544241262744</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2960-7896</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1527-1544
ispartof Policy, politics & nursing practice, 2024-08, Vol.25 (3), p.182-188
issn 1527-1544
1552-7468
1552-7468
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3084776606
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List; PAIS Index
subjects Advanced practice nurses
Clinical research
Courts
Criminal liability
Firearms
Gun violence
Health care industry
Health information
Information
Mapping
Mental health
Nurse specialists
Nurses
Petition
Policy making
Public health
Risk reduction
School nurses
Specialists
Statutes
title Nurses as Petitioners: A Legal Mapping of State Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T03%3A52%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nurses%20as%20Petitioners:%20A%20Legal%20Mapping%20of%20State%20Extreme%20Risk%20Protection%20Order%20Laws&rft.jtitle=Policy,%20politics%20&%20nursing%20practice&rft.au=Lindley,%20Lisa%20C.&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=182&rft.epage=188&rft.pages=182-188&rft.issn=1527-1544&rft.eissn=1552-7468&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/15271544241262744&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3099865934%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3099865934&rft_id=info:pmid/39056274&rft_sage_id=10.1177_15271544241262744&rfr_iscdi=true