Explore the vast range of titles available.

A growing body of research has found there to be disproportionate physical restraint and chemical sedation use for historically marginalized populations in the emergency department (ED). This association has been examined with regard to patient race, ethnicity, sex, and age. Preliminary research has highlighted the ways in which unhoused status may also relate to the use of physical restraint and chemical sedation in the ED. Given the adverse health outcomes associated with these methods in the ED, further research is needed to explore the relationship between patient housing status and physical restraint/chemical sedation use in more depth. We conducted a cross-sectional study of all ED visits among patients aged 18 years of age and older presenting to eight hospitals within a regional healthcare network in New England between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics and mixed effects logistic regression models nesting by patient were used to characterize the relationship between housing status and likelihood of restraint and/or sedation use. Restraint orders were found in 3,160 (5.7%) visits by unhoused patients, compared to 44,155 (1.5%) for housed patients. Unhoused status was significantly associated with restraint/sedation use (adjusted odds ratio =  1.45, 95% CI 1.36-1.54). Our study identified a significant association between housing status and ED restraint and sedation use after adjusting for demographic factors and chief complaints. This finding has important implications pertaining to the care of unhoused patients in the ED and for examination of structural factors like housing status and their impact on psychiatric emergency care.

The use of physical restraint exposes patients and staff to negative effects, including death. Therefore, teaching nursing staff to develop the improve knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding physical restraint has become necessary. A quasi-experimental pre-post design was used to evaluate the effect of educational intervention on nurses' knowledge, attitude, intention, practice and incidence rate of physical restraint in 12 wards of a hospital using a self-reported questionnaire and a restraint order form in Malaysia. The educational intervention, which included a one-day session on minimising physical restraint use in hospital, was presented to 245 nurses. The results showed a significant increase in the mean knowledge, attitude sand practice score and a significant decrease in the mean intention score of nurses to use physical restraint after intervention. There was a statistically significant decrease in the incidence rate of physical restraint use in the wards of the hospital except geriatric-rehabilitation wards after intervention. •The knowledge, attitudes and intentions of nurses towards physical restraint use are essential factors that may contribute to this practice.•The best approach to improve knowledge and attitudes towards the use of physical restraint is through educational interventions.•Educational intervention could improve nurses' knowledge, attitude, and practice and reduce their intention to use physical restraint.•Reduction in physical restraint use indicates the effectiveness of the educational intervention.

Risk-based firearm laws are a firearm injury prevention strategy. However, evidence for their efficacy in reducing firearm injury is mixed. There is agreement that the magnitude of their effect depends on implementation and efficacy would improve with better implementation. Local context and processes are key to evaluating outcomes of these laws. To contribute to the evidence base we conducted a case study of Firearm Restraining Order (FRO) implementation in Lake County, Illinois. The details of Illinois FRO policy are, similar those of other locations with notable exceptions that in Illinois roommates are allowed to petition and medical care providers are not. The study examined data from court documents related to 42 FRO petitions filed between January 2021 and June 2024. Lake County is similar to other locations studied in terms of respondent demographics including age, race and gender. It differs in the distribution of types of incidents precipitating FROs. Lake County has a greater share of emergency FROs petitioned due to threats related to harm to others, while other locations studied typically have a higher burden of self-harm threat incidents triggering FRO initiation. The share of initiating incidents related to mass shooting threats is similar to that of other locations studied. In Lake County, IL most petitioners are law enforcement officers with few petitions made by others enabled by the law. This too is similar to that of other jurisdictions. Our study finds that in Lake County the EFRO petition process generally proceeds within established policy timelines and the majority of FRO cases resulted the issuance of plenary FROs. Two implementation areas identified for further investigation include the low level of intimate partner notification when an emergency FRO is petitioned and the volume of emergency FRO dismissals due to lack of petitioner appearance at plenary FRO hearings.

PurposeDomestic violence (DV) is a problem of global significance and remains a gendered issue that disproportionately affects women and children. Prevalence studies on women’s experiences of DV suggest that around 50% of victims identify as mothers. The effects of DV on mothers and children are well documented, raising implications for their protection. Civil protection orders are a legal tool used to reduce and prevent experiences of DV. Research on protection order effectiveness is mixed with research suggesting that the ongoing relationship between a respondent and aggrieved parent around child contact presents ongoing opportunities for re-victimization. This study contributes to the scant literature on the implications of protection orders on parental responsibilities.MethodThe study draws on surveys with duty lawyers and focus groups with police officers. A thematic analysis was used to examine perceptions and experiences of ‘no contact’ protection orders and respondent parent non-compliance where mutual children are involved.ResultsFindings suggest that ambiguous ‘no contact’ conditions and a lack of clarity around their implications for child contact play a key role in respondent parent non-compliance, ranging from uninformed non-compliance to the strategic use of children as a form of coercive control in non-compliance.ConclusionFindings raise implications for specialist legal advice and support for parents affected by DV to sit alongside protection order court proceedings. Findings highlight the need for greater system accountability to ensure court-issued protection orders take a family-centred approach that align with parental responsibilities and ensure child and adult victims’ safety and wellbeing.

A good example of such balancing is the \"serious questions\" test used in the Second Circuit and some other circuits.18 That approach rightly centers irreparable injury as the single most important consideration for the preliminary injunction.19 The normative analysis presented in this Article coheres with equitable doctrines. In the absence of statutory modification, the federal courts' power to grant equitable remedies is tied to traditional equity practice.20 As the Supreme Court recently said, \"When Congress empowers courts to grant equitable relief, there is a strong presumption that courts will exercise that authority in a manner consistent with traditional principles of equity. In these cases, there may be references to the preliminary injunction in the procedural history, the court may deny the preliminary injunction for lack of standing, the preliminary injunction may be moot because of other procedural actions (e.g., dismissal of the complaint), the plaintiff may seek to stay a preliminary injunction, or the court may refer to a preliminary injunction in the course of evaluating a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Outside of the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, state and local government defendants strongly predominated.) The dramatic differences in Table 4 lie behind the intense forum shopping by plaintiffs who chose district courts in the Fifth Circuit

Civil protection orders are individualized orders that survivors of intimate partner abuse and violence can pursue in addition to or independently of criminal charges. The efficacy of protection orders is defined in various ways in existing literature. One way to understand the effectiveness of these orders is to determine the extent to which they are violated, the willingness of survivors to report violations, and the legal system’s (i.e., police, criminal court, and civil court) responses to survivors’ reports. Research exists on the extent to which protection orders are violated, the extent to which violations are reported, and factors affecting enforcement of the orders. However, research has yet to examine the perceptions and behaviors of survivors who do not report order violations. Drawing on in-depth qualitative interviews with women who sought civil protection orders against abusive male partners, this research uses a legal consciousness framework to examine survivors’ perceptions of order violations, their decision-making processes regarding whether to report violations, and barriers to reporting the violations. The interviews reveal that not all survivors perceive contact as an order violation and, for those who do, not all survivors report the violations. Specifically, obstacles to reporting were related to survivors’ perceptions of the violations and accessibility to and usefulness of the legal system. Policy implications for both the civil and criminal justice systems to create more victim-centered and trauma-informed responses to survivors who experience protection order violations are discussed.

The extreme risk protection order (ERPO) was conceived initially as a civil restraining order to temporarily suspend access to firearms for individuals behaving dangerously who are not otherwise legally barred from gun possession by a felony conviction or other gun-disqualifying record. In practice, however, ERPOs in many states are being applied in a range of different kinds of cases in conjunction with discretionary criminal law enforcement and prosecution, essentially as a tool of deflection or diversion from the criminal legal system. In this article, we develop a typology of the discretionary uses of ERPOs by police officers, prosecutors, and judges, in cases where an ERPO may be initiated as an alternative to arrest, a diversion from prosecution, a mitigating intervention to soften criminal charging and sentencing (reducing incarcerations), a concurrent legal intervention, or as a complementary tool for robust law enforcement. We illustrate the typology with case vignettes from Indiana, Washington, Virginia, and Florida. Although many ERPO petitions are initiated in response to suicide threats, with or without the presence of public risk, the article invites the question of whether, in some cases, ERPOs can serve effectively as a mechanism of deflection or diversion from the criminal legal system and suggests that future research should carefully examine both the process and outcome of ERPOs used in this way.

Civil protection orders are one of the most widely used legal interventions for intimate partner violence. Every American state has legislation that allows victims to seek legal remedies through protection orders such as preventing abusers from contacting them, requiring perpetrators to stay away from specific locations, and ordering removal of firearms. However, judges do not grant every petition for a protection order. This study analyzed over 1000 civil protection order cases from Nebraska to identify how factors not prescribed in the legal statute contribute to a determination of whether victims receive protection. The results suggest that victims’ gender and the counties in which they file influence victims’ chances of obtaining a protection order. Male victims, victims with children with their abuser, and married victims are significantly less likely to receive protection orders, even after controlling for the severity, recency, and type of abuse. Both male and female victims who file their cases in metropolitan counties are more likely to receive protection orders than their nonmetropolitan counterparts.

There is currently unprecedented attention in Australia on the misidentification of women victim-survivors as family violence ‘predominant aggressors’—this focus has largely been oriented towards the role of the police. Less research has considered court responses to misidentification and specifically, the role that legal practitioners play in recognising and responding to clients who have been misidentified. This article addresses this key gap in the literature through an exploration of 18 legal practitioners’ experiences of representing misidentified clients in the civil protection order system in the Australian state of Victoria. The findings suggest that legal practitioners face a number of challenges when representing clients who have been misidentified and that the magistrates’ courts are ill-equipped to respond to misidentification. As a consequence, a culture of respondents consenting to orders that should never have been made against them is maintained. This article calls for a greater focus on the role that the courts can play in providing a ‘safety net’ for victim-survivors who have been misidentified.

Domestic violence is sequential, developmental and dynamic. The aim of this study was to examine whether, in the perceptions of students in Poland and Belarus, there is a relationship between involvement in violence and the legal and social consequences for the perpetrators. A total of 482 university students took part in the study, including 251 students from Poland and 231 students from Belarus. Statistically, Polish respondents were more frequently involved in domestic violence as witnesses and victims, which was confirmed by χ2 test. Based on the 95% confidence interval (CI), it can be concluded that the largest number of respondents from both countries surveyed who have been involved in violence as witnesses (85.2–94.8) indicated that an adequate punishment for perpetrators of violence is imprisonment. Students who have never been involved in domestic violence indicated social consequences as appropriate punishment for the use of violence more often than those who have been involved in violence as witnesses, victims or perpetrators. Witnesses and victims were not found to be in favour of more severe punishment or more serious moral and social consequences than perpetrators. The largest number of respondents indicated that the appropriate consequence of using violence should be imprisonment, followed by a restraining order and eviction from the place of residence.