Final Disposition and Quality Auditing of the Rehabilitation Process in Wild Raptors Admitted to a Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Catalonia, Spain, during a Twelve Year Period (1995–2007)

Abstract

BackgroundVariability in reporting and classification methods in previous published data of the final dispositions in the rehabilitation of wild raptors makes use of this data limited in trying to audit the quality of the rehabilitation process. Crude as well as stratified disposition rates are needed if quality auditing of the rehabilitation process is to be adequately performed.MethodologyFinal dispositions of 6221 hospitalized wild raptors admitted at a wildlife rehabilitation centre (WRC) of Catalonia during 1995–2007 were analyzed. These dispositions were calculated as the euthanasia (Er), unassisted mortality (Mr), release (Rr) and captivity rates (Cr)., time to death (Td) for dead and euthanized raptors, and length of stay for released (Tr) raptors was estimated. Stratified analyses by main causes of admission and clinical signs were performed.ResultsThe disposition for the total population were: Er = 30.6%, Mr = 19.1%, Rr = 47.2%, and Cr = 3%. By main causes of admission, Er was higher in the trauma category (34.2%), whereas Mr was found similar between trauma (37.4%) and non-trauma categories (34.8%). The highest Rr was observed for the orphaned group (77.9%). Furthermore, Cr was low in all the categories (<4%). By clinical signs, the highest Er was found in animals suffering musculoskeletal (37.9%) or skin (32.3%) lesions; Mr was high in infectious/parasitic diseases (66.7%) and in case of neurological symptoms (64.5%). The euthanized birds had a median Td = 1 day (P10 = 0-P90 = 59) for both trauma and non-trauma categories, and Td = 36 days for the orphaned young group (P10 = 0; P90 = 596). The median Td in the unassisted dead birds was 2 days for all the categories (P10 = 0-P90 = 31). Finally, the median Tr in the centre was variable among categories.Conclusions/SignificanceReporting of final dispositions in wildlife rehabilitation should include the crude and stratified rates (Er, Mr, Rr, and Cr), by causes and clinical presentation, as well as Td and Tr, to allow meaningful auditing of the rehabilitation process quality.

Morbidity, outcomes and cost-benefit analysis of wildlife rehabilitation in Catalonia (Spain)

“…According to these categories, four outcome indicators of the final dispositions of the rehabilitation process were considered and expressed as a rate between the number of cases of each category by the total number of admissions in a given period of time [13]: 1) Release rate (R r : number of animals released to the wild/total number of animals admitted), 2) Euthanasia rate (E r : number of animals euthanized/total number of animals admitted), 3) Mortality rate (M r : number of animals experiencing unassisted death during treatment/total number of animals admitted), and 4) Captivity rate (C r : number of animals kept permanently captive/total number of animals admitted).…”

Prognostic indicators associated with early mortality of wild raptors admitted to a wildlife rehabilitation centre in Spain

“…Despite the main objectives of wildlife rehabilitation, the improvement of rehabilitation protocols has allowed a better clinical recovery of patients, and also an improvement in the welfare of captive wild animals (Hern andez 1992;Cousquer 2005). However, outcomes in wildlife rehabilitation have been poor, with release rates lower than 50% reported in the majority of published studies (Kirkwood 2003;Ress & Guyer 2004;Rodr ıguez et al 2010;Molina-L opez et al 2013).…”

Specie-Specific Outcomes of Wild Raptors Attended at a Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Catalonia (1997-2005)

“…However, we also observed a high proportion of euthanized birds in B. bubo due to electrocutions. In fact, the worst R r was observed in electrocuted birds of any species (Molina-Lopez et al, 2013). As previously described, electric burns are usually associated with poor prognosis and the majority of the birds are euthanized due to the severity of the soft tissue damage (Cooper, 2008;2013).…”

“…In a previous paper (Molina-Lopez et al, 2013) we describe these issues for the whole population of wild raptors at a wildlife rehabilitation centre in Spain. The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes in a specie-specific base, in order to detect risk factors associated at this level.…”

“…The final outcomes were divided into four categories based on previous works (Molina-Lopez et al, 2013): Euthanized animals (based on humanitarian principle), dead animals (mortality with no human intervention), released animals to the wild (result of successful rehabilitation) and captive non-releasable animals (due to its poor prognosis of survivability in wilderness). The final dispositions were calculated by dividing the number of cases of each category by the total number of admissions in each species; in consequence all four categories were expressed as rates: Euthanasia rate (E r ), Mortality rate (M r ), Release rate (R r ) and Captivity rate (C r ).…”