Article 1
Development, dissemination and survey evaluation of layered education for healthcare professionals to support implementation of firearm injury and mortality prevention strategies in emergency care settings, New York, USA. Harrison LK, Sathya C, Shekher-Kapoor M, Butkus S, Kapoor S. Inj Prev. 2024 Oct 22, 2024.
Multiple professional organizations, including the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have outlined the importance of expanding the knowledge base and provision of care surrounding firearm injury risk screening and intervention. Nevertheless, there seems to be a gap between evidence-based practices and actual implementation within healthcare organizations.
The authors used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to develop both the education and implementation of a firearm injury and mortality prevention (FIMP) strategy across three Emergency Departments. Expert consensus identified screening and documentation as priorities. Through the engagement of multiple key stakeholders (including patient and public involvement), the authors developed a multi-faceted protocol addressing education of team members providing screening as well as intervention education for team members interacting with patients who screened positive. Screening and intervention addressed both firearm access and risk. Education materials were disseminated by various means including via email and flyers containing a QR code. The authors used pre and post surveys of participants to evaluate the program and learning objectives.
From March 2021 to May 2022, 267 participants completed the screening education and 67 participants completed intervention education. Of those undergoing screening education, there was an increase in familiarity with FIMP strategies as well as with the 5L’s of Firearm Safety. With regard to the participants who completed the intervention education, all those who responded on the post-survey either agreed or strongly agreed they could both screen for firearm access/violence risk and provide brief interventions using motivational interviewing.
The authors' overall demonstrated that a FIMP program consisting of screening and intervention education successfully achieved outlined objectives in learning and implementation.
Article 2
The impact of injury control research centers: Advancing the field of injury and violence prevention. Baker W, Skillman M, Rocha L, et al. J Safety Res. 2024 Feb:88:56-67.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) provides funding for the Injury Control Research Center (ICRC) Program which began in 1987. The funded Centers are tasked to further the field by translating scientific advances to practical applications through a number of means. These include 1) innovative and multidisciplinary research 2) outreach at the local, regional, and state level 3) training of researchers, public health professionals and students at various career stages and 4) development of tools and resources. The authors sought to evaluate the output of these centers from 2012 to 2019 by developing a database of the cumulative accomplishments of the ICRCs and reviewing respective required interim progress reports.
Over the study period, ten funded centers received a total of $49 Million USD and reported a total of 3,238 accomplishments over 26 topic areas. With regard to research, there were 3,505 peer-reviewed publications (over 500 annual) produced, with the most frequently addressed topic areas encompassing drug overdose, suicide, and acute care/non-TBI related trauma. Regarding Outreach, over 3600 various stakeholder partnerships were facilitated with a diversity of groups, ranging from academic institutions, public health agencies, and healthcare organizations. Training accomplishments included educating 3,131 students, post-doctorates, and junior faculty. Finally, over 300 tools were developed by the ICRCs.
Although a number of limitations of the study exist, including examining only two funding cycles, the self-reporting of data, and the lack of quantitative attribution of accomplishments to funding, the authors demonstrate a tangible benefit of the ICRCs in contributing to the field of injury and violence prevention.
