"Before I Could Get Him, He Fell": Experiences, Concerns, and Fall Prevention Strategies of Parents With Young Children.

Little is known about parents' perceptions and prevention strategies regarding childhood falls. In this qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, we sought to describe parental reports of child fall experiences, concerns, and prevention strategies in the home. Sixteen parents with at least one child younger than 18 months were asked about their awareness of fall risks, falls experienced by the child, fall concerns, prevention strategies, and where in the home the child spends time throughout the day. Seven themes emerged: (1) "falls are unexpected," (2) "role of the physical environment," (3) "children's temperament and developmental stage," (4) "physical barriers and baby products," (5) "addressing walking surfaces," (6) "modifying the height of a fall," and (7) "supervision." Parents are aware of in-home fall hazards and actively use strategies to lessen fall risk. Anticipatory guidance should promote evidence-based and evidence-informed prevention strategies and augment effective strategies some parents use to lower fall risk.

Extreme risk protection orders in response to threats of multiple victim/mass shooting in six U.S. states: A descriptive study.

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws, are a potential tool to prevent firearm violence, including mass shootings, but little is currently known about the extent of their use in cases of mass shooting threats or about the threats themselves. We collected and abstracted information from ERPO cases from six states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington). Ten percent (N = 662) of all ERPO cases (N = 6787) were in response to a threat of killing at least 3 people. Using these cases, we created a typology of multiple victim/mass shooting threats, the most common of which was the maximum casualty threat. The most common target for a multiple victim/mass shooting threat was a K-12 school, followed by businesses, then intimate partners and their children and families. Judges granted 93% of petitions that involved these threats at the temporary ERPO stage and, of those cases in which a final hearing was held, judges granted 84% of final ERPOs. While we cannot know how many of the 662 ERPO cases precipitated by a threat would have resulted in a multiple victim/mass shooting event had ERPO laws not been used to prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms, the study provides evidence at least that ERPOs are being used in six states in a substantial number of these kinds of cases that could have ended in tragedy.

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response.

BACKGROUND: Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State's ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention. METHODS: We systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data. RESULTS: Seventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. The 75 petitions filed described respondents' risk as to "themselves only" in 30 cases (40%), to "others only" in 20 cases (27%) and "to themselves and others" in 25 cases (33%). Five cases where the threat was to "others only" met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts' reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases detail firearms removed and/or include receipts for removed firearms in 61 cases (81%) either as part of ERPO precipitating events (n = 13, 17%) or in conjunction with ERPO service (n = 48, 64%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Washington's ERPO law is being applied when someone is threatening violence to self or others, or brandishing a gun and at least one other risk factor is present. The early experience of King County provides insight into how this law is being implemented in one jurisdiction and how courts are evaluating such cases.