ArticlePloS one2023
Integration of extreme risk protection orders into the clinical workflow: Qualitative comparison of clinician perspectives.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extreme Risk Protection Orders Among Military Service Members and Veterans.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Connecticut providers knowledge and attitudes towards use of extreme risk protection orders.Injury epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.