Assessment of Reasons for Ownership and Attitudes About Policies Among Firearm Owners With and Without Children.

Importance: Given the dangers that firearms in the home pose to children, it is critical to engage parents in effective firearm safety counseling. This requires a broader understanding of how the presence of children in the home is associated with motivations surrounding gun ownership. Objective: To examine the association of having children in the home and gun owners' attitudes and beliefs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study analyzed data from the National Lawful Use of Guns Survey conducted in 2019. A representative sample of 3698 adult gun owners nationwide were randomly invited to participate, with a 56.5% survey response rate. Survey responses were weighted to account for survey nonresponse and selection bias, and comparison groups were matched by age. Statistical analysis was performed in 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reasons for gun ownership, symbolic meaning of guns, and attitudes toward gun policies. Results: Of the 2086 respondents, 383 (18.4%) had children in the home, 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%-71.0%) were male, 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.7%) were Black, 76.3% (95% CI, 73.8%-78.6%) were White, 79.4% (95% CI, 77.5%-81.2%) were living in metropolitan areas, 51.3% (95% CI, 48.9%-53.8%) identified as Republican; 34.7% (95% CI, 32.6%-36.9%) were aged 60 years or older. Despite the majority of respondents feeling safe in their local communities (respondents with children: 93.4% [95% CI,: 89.3%-96.0%]; without children: 88.9% [95% CI, 87.0%- 90.6%]), 92.3% (95% CI, 87.0%-95.6%) of respondents with children stated the primary reason for gun ownership was to protect their family, compared with 68.6% (95% CI, 65.2%-71.8%) of respondents without children. On logistic regression analysis, having children in the home remained an independent factor associated with reasons for gun ownership. Gun owners with children were more likely than those without children to feel that guns make them feel more valuable to their family (23.5% [95% CI, 18.9%-28.8%] vs 17.0% [95% CI, 15.0%-19.2%]). Among those with children, 35.2% (95% CI, 30.0%-40.8%) believed gun laws should be more strict compared with 40.7% (95% CI, 38.1%- 43.3%) of those without children. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that acknowledging parental motivations for gun ownership is a pivotal component of educational efforts toward firearm injury prevention. These findings can guide clinicians to engage in effective individual counseling and community level efforts to reduce pediatric gun injuries.

Classification and team response to nonroutine events occurring during pediatric trauma resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Errors directly causing serious harm are rare during pediatric trauma resuscitation, limiting the use of adverse outcome analysis for performance improvement in this setting. Errors not causing harm because of mitigation or chance may have similar causation and are more frequent than those causing adverse outcomes. Analyzing these error types is an alternative to adverse outcome analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify errors of any type during pediatric trauma resuscitation and evaluate team responses to their occurrence. METHODS: Errors identified using video analysis were classified as errors of omission or commission and selection errors using input from trauma experts. The responses to error types and error frequency based on patient and event features were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine resuscitations were reviewed, identifying 337 errors (range, 2-26 per resuscitation). The most common errors were related to cervical spine stabilization (n = 93, 27.6%). Errors of omission (n = 135) and commission (n = 106) were more common than errors of selection (n = 96). Although 35.9% of all errors were acknowledged and compensation occurred after 43.6%, no response (acknowledgement or compensation) was observed after 51.3% of errors. Errors of omission and commission were more often acknowledged (40.7% and 39.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) and compensated for (50.4% and 47.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively) than selection errors. Response differences between errors of omission and commission were not observed. The number of errors and the number of high-risk errors that occurred did not differ based on patient or event features. CONCLUSIONS: Errors are common during pediatric trauma resuscitation. Teams did not respond to most errors, although differences in team response were observed between error types. Determining causation of errors may be an approach for identifying latent safety threats contributing to adverse outcomes during pediatric trauma resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.