Surgeon views on firearm safety counseling in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Background Firearms are commonplace in the United States, and one proposed strategy to decrease risk of firearm injury is to have physicians counsel their patients about safe firearm ownership. Current rates of firearm safety counseling by surgeons who care for injured people are unknown. Methods This study utilized an anonymous cross-sectional survey derived from previously published survey instruments and was piloted (n = 13) at the annual meeting of The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (2022). The finalized survey was distributed using a quick response (QR) code during two sessions at the 2022 American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress. Eligible participants included the surgeons and surgical trainees that attended these sessions. Results One hundred and fourteen individuals completed the survey (20% response rate), and a majority were male (n = 71, 62.3%), attending surgeons (n = 108, 94.7%), and specialized in acute care surgery (n = 72, 63.2%). Few participants (n = 43, 37.7%) reported counseling patients on firearm safety as part of their routine clinical practice, however, the majority (n = 102, 89.5%) believed that surgeons should provide firearm safety counseling. Counseling rates did not vary significantly by age, gender, surgical specialty, or region of practice, but attitudes towards counseling did differ by firearm safety counseling practices (p = 0.03) and region of practice (0.04). Noted barriers to counseling included lack of time (n = 47, 41.2%), perceived lack of training (n = 43, 37.7%), and lack of firearm knowledge/experience (n = 36, 31.6%). Conclusions Most surgeon respondents did not provide firearm safety counseling to their patients despite the fact the majority believed they should. This suggests that counseling interventions which do not solely rely on surgeons for implementation could increase the number of patients who receive firearm safety guidance during clinical encounters. Level of Evidence Level III, Prognostic/Epidemiological