Firearm Injury in America

In 2000, nearly 29,000 people in the U.S. died from firearm injury. The vast majority of these people died from suicide (58%) or homicide (38%). And for every person who died, at least two others were shot and survived, often with permanent disability. The Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP), founded in 1997, is a unique collaboration among health professionals, researchers and communities to address the magnitude and impact of firearm injury and violence. In this Issue Brief, FICAP presents an overview of firearm violence, and discusses public health approaches to reducing the toll of violent injury

Effective Trauma Center Partnerships to Address Firearm Injury: A New Paradigm

Background: Firearm violence is the second leading cause of injury-related death. This study examined the use of local trauma centers as lead organizations in their communities to address firearm injury. Methods: Three trauma centers in cities with populations less than 100,000 were linked with a university-based firearm injury research center. A trauma surgeon director and coordinator partnered with communities, recruited and directed advisory boards, established a local firearm injury surveillance system, and informed communities using community-specific profiles. Primary process and outcome measures included completeness of data, development of community-specific profiles, number of data-driven consumer media pieces, number of meetings to inform policy makers, and an analysis of problems encountered. Results: Local trauma centers in smaller communities implemented a firearm injury surveillance system, produced community-specific injury profiles, and engaged community leaders and policy makers to address firearm injury. Community-specific profiles demonstrated consistent firearm suicide rates (6.58–6.82 per 100,000) but variation in firearm homicide rates (1.08–12.5 per 100,000) across sites. There were 63 data-driven media pieces and 18 forums to inform community leaders and policy makers. Completeness of data elements ranged from 57.1% to 100%. Problems experienced were disconnected data sources, multiple data owners, potential for political fallout, limited trauma center data, skills sets of medical professionals, and sustainability. Conclusion: Trauma centers, when provided resources and support, with the model described, can function as lead organizations in partnering with the community to acquire and use community-specific data for local firearm injury prevention