BACKGROUND: 911 Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) confer limited legal immunity to bystanders in possession of controlled substances who report emergency overdoses. While these laws may decrease opioid overdose mortality, current literature reduces GSLs to a small number of variables, overlooking substantial differences in implementation and statutory context which dramatically alter their applicability.
METHODS: We identified all state GSLs and their legislative history, characterizing features into four categories using a novel framework: breadth of protected activities, burden placed on Good Samaritans, strength of protection, and exemption in coverage. When protections depended on the nature of the controlled substance, heroin served as a common point of comparison.
RESULTS: GSLs vary substantially across states and time. Protections depend on the quantity of substances involved and may extend to the person experiencing the overdose or persons reporting their own overdose. Protected offenses range from possession of controlled substances to drug-induced homicide. In some states, Good Samaritans must complete substance use treatment or administer naloxone to retain protections. Immunity ranges from protection from arrest to merely procedural protections at trial, and may even exclude persons in possession of opioids. Exemptions target persons engaging in chronic substance use, such as persons invoking protection multiple times or previously reporting an overdose.
CONCLUSIONS: States offer Good Samaritans substantially different protections even when the statutes confer nominally comparable immunities. Accommodating this heterogeneity will enhance the validity of future studies into these laws and their efficacy.

The United States (US) and Canada are in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. Many people who use illicit drugs (PWUD) do not call an emergency number 911 at the scene of an overdose due to fear of arrest. In the US and Canada, when an individual calls 911, both emergency medical services (EMS) and police are notified to attend the overdose event. In response, many settings in North America have introduced drug-related \'Good Samaritan\' laws (GSLs) that aim to encourage PWUD to call 911 by providing legal immunity (mainly protections from drugs possessed for personal use) to those at the scene of the overdose. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these laws in increasing calls to 911.
We conducted a literature review of the published literature between 2005 and 2019 to examine the effectiveness of GSLs. Searches were referenced using keywords that included: \"good samaritan\", \"overdose\", \"emergency services\", and \"drug use\".
Among 68 articles identified, after eligibility screening, 12 publications were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria. These publications were largely quantitative observational studies (9/12), with a minority (3/12) being qualitative in design. Two major themes emerged: \"knowledge of GSLs and calling EMS\" and \"overdose-related hospital admissions and mortality assessment\".
At this time, the current body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of GSLs in increasing calls to EMS and reducing drug-related harms is limited and mixed. Studies show that PWUD have low levels of knowledge regarding GSLs while some evidence suggests their effectiveness in increasing calls to EMS at the scene of an overdose. Given the current overdose crisis, further investigation is warranted to establish the effectiveness of these laws in reducing drug-related harms.

Early bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been associated with better patient outcomes in cardiac arrest. Despite this, not all cases of cardiac arrest receive bystander intervention. Reasons for this gap include disparities in provision of bystander CPR between race, gender and age groups. Concern of legal liability for responders has also been described. We propose that bystanders are more likely to face litigation for lack of intervention compared to providing bystander CPR due to the presence of \'Good Samaritan\' statutes in all 50 states. This review of the legal literature seeks to quantify the number of cases brought against bystanders in the US over the past 30 years and explore the reasons behind them.
The Westlaw legal research database was searched for jury verdicts, settlements, and appellate opinions from all 50 states from 1989 to 2019 for personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits involving CPR. Of 506 cases manually reviewed by the authors, 170 were directly related to CPR. Case details including jurisdiction, location, date, plaintiff and defendant demographics, level of training of CPR provider, relationship to patient, motivation for the lawsuit, and case outcomes were recorded.
Our data show a significant difference in the number of cases of cases alleging battery versus negligence regarding provision of CPR. Of 170 cases, 167 were due to inadequate or untimely bystander CPR. Three cases alleging harm due to providing CPR were identified.
This study represents the largest single study of legal cases involving bystander CPR in the medical literature. The likelihood of litigation is significantly higher in cases with bystander CPR absent or delayed. The authors propose the inclusion of this data and reiteration of \'Good Samaritan\' statutes in all 50 states during CPR training to reassure and encourage public response to cardiac arrests.

暂无摘要。

To examine the effects of a harm reduction policy, specifically Good Samaritan (GS) policy, on overdose deaths.
Secondary data from multiple cause of death, mortality records paired with state harm reduction and substance use prevention policy.
We estimate fixed effects Poisson count models to model the effect of GS policy on overdose deaths for all, prescription, and illicit drugs, controlled substances, and opioids, while controlling for other harm reduction and substance use prevention policies.
We merge secondary data sources by state and year between 1999 and 2016.
We fail to identify a statistically significant effect of GS policy in reducing overdose deaths broadly.
While we are unable to identify an effect of GS policy on overdose deaths, GS policy may have important effects on first-stage outcomes not investigated in this paper. Given recent state policy changes and rapid increase in many categories of overdose deaths, additional research should continue to examine the implementation and effects of harm reduction policy specifically and substance use prevention policy broadly.

To reduce fatal drug overdoses, two approaches many states have followed is to pass laws expanding naloxone access and Good Samaritan protections for lay persons with high likelihood to respond to an opioid overdose. Most prior research has examined attitudes and knowledge among lay responders in large metropolitan areas who actively use illicit substances. The present study addresses current gaps in knowledge related to this issue through an analysis of data collected from a broader group of lay responders who received naloxone kits from 20 local health departments across Indiana.
Postcard surveys were included inside naloxone kits distributed in 20 Indiana counties, for which 217 returned cards indicated the person completing it was a lay responder. The survey captured demographic information and experiences with overdose, including the use of 911 and knowledge about Good Samaritan protections.
Few respondents had administered naloxone before, but approximately one third had witnessed a prior overdose and the majority knew someone who had died from one. Those who knew someone who had overdosed were more likely to have obtained naloxone for someone other than themselves. Also, persons with knowledge of Good Samaritan protections or who had previously used naloxone were significantly more likely to have indicated calling 911 at the scene of a previously witnessed overdose. Primary reasons for not calling 911 included fear of the police and the person who overdosed waking up on their own.
Knowing someone who has had a fatal or non-fatal overdose appears to be a strong motivating factor for obtaining naloxone. Clarifying and strengthening Good Samaritan protections, educating lay persons about these protections, and working to improve police interactions with the public when they are called to an overdose scene are likely to improve implementation and outcomes of naloxone distribution and opioid-related Good Samaritan laws.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To assess the responses of physicians to providing emergency medical assistance outside of routine clinical care. We assessed the percentage who reported previous Good Samaritan behaviour, their responses to hypothetical situations, their comfort providing specific interventions and the most likely reason they would not intervene.
METHODS: Physicians residing in North Carolina.
METHODS: Convenience sample of 1000 licensed physicians.
METHODS: Mailed survey.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted May 2015 to September 2015.
METHODS: Willingness of physicians to act as Good Samaritans as determined by the last opportunity to intervene in an out-of-office emergency.
RESULTS: The adjusted response rate was 26.1% (253/970 delivered). 4 out of 5 physicians reported previous opportunities to act as Good Samaritans. Approximately, 93% reported acting as a Good Samaritan during their last opportunity. There were no differences in this outcome between sexes, practice setting, specialty type or experience level. Doctors with greater perceived knowledge of Good Samaritan law were more likely to have intervened during a recent opportunity (p=0.02). The most commonly cited reason for potentially not intervening was that another health provider had taken charge.
CONCLUSIONS: We found the frequency of Good Samaritan behaviour among physicians to be much higher than reported in previous studies. Greater helping behaviour was exhibited by those who expressed more familiarity with Good Samaritan law. These findings suggest that physicians may respond to legal protections.