Survey of occupational hazards in Minnesota veterinary practices in 2012

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To identify the scope of occupational hazards encountered by veterinary personnel and compare hazard exposures between veterinarians and technicians working in small and large animal practices. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. POPULATION Licensed veterinarians and veterinary staff in Minnesota. PROCEDURES A survey of Minnesota veterinary personnel was conducted between February 1 and December 1, 2012. Adult veterinary personnel working in clinical practice for > 12 months were eligible to participate. Information was collected on various workplace hazards as well as on workplace safety culture. RESULTS 831 eligible people responded, representing approximately 10% of Minnesota veterinary personnel. A greater proportion of veterinarians (93%; 368/394) reported having received preexposure rabies vaccinations than did veterinary technicians (54%; 198/365). During their career, 226 (27%) respondents had acquired at least 1 zoonotic infection and 636 (77%) had been injured by a needle or other sharps. Recapping of needles was reported by 87% of respondents; the most common reason reported by veterinarians (41%; 142/345) and veterinary technicians (71%; 238/333) was being trained to do so at school or work. Recent feelings of depression were reported by 204 (25%) respondents. A greater proportion of technicians (42%; 155/365) than veterinarians (21%; 81/394) indicated working in an environment in which employees experienced some form of workplace abuse. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Veterinary personnel in Minnesota were exposed to several work-related hazards. Practice staff should assess workplace hazards, implement controls, and incorporate instruction on occupational health into employee training.

Work‐related injuries to animal care workers, Washington 2007–2011

“…One study of licensed clinical veterinarians in Minnesota and Wisconsin showed that almost 70% of veterinarians treated their injuries by either suturing lacerations, self‐prescribing antibiotics and even reducing their own fractures and/or dislocations [Landercasper et al, ]. More recently a study of clinical veterinary personnel in Minnesota found that up to 39% of respondents reported self‐medicating their injuries and illnesses, suggesting the pervasive and persistent nature of this behavior in the veterinary community [Fowler et al, ]. Similarly, occupational tasks associated with job titles may vary in terms of injury risk, with some higher risk tasks assigned to support personnel; this may explain some of the observed differences in claim rates between support staff and veterinarians.…”

“…Numerous studies assessing occupational hazards in the veterinary setting however, suggest that physical trauma experienced from animal bites are the most common physical injury reported in the profession [Landercasper et al, ; Jeyaretnam et al, ; Gabel and Gerberich ; Fritschi et al, ]. One study of veterinary personnel in Minnesota found equal proportions of reported injuries in the previous 12 months among veterinarians and non‐veterinarian support staff [Fowler et al, ]. That study however did not include other animal care professionals in the sample.…”

Review of hazards to female reproductive health in veterinary practice

“…Ultimately, the advent of surveillance systems to consistently and uniformly record injuries and illnesses among veterinary personnel will better characterize the hazards so that attention and resources can be prioritized for most effective risk reduction. 4,26,74,85 At present, best practices to mitigate these risks include environmental controls, written infection control policies that are consistently applied, staff training in the use of procedures and equipment to reduce risk, and use of appropriate personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, protective outerwear, and facial protection), with emphasis on groups that may be particularly vulnerable, such as pregnant women. 72,82,86,87 …”

Study on Giardia duodenalis and <i>Cryptosporidium</i> spp. infection in veterinarians in Poland

“…could be the effect of increased awareness of veterinarians, and may be related to environmental studies focused on the occurrence of the above-mentioned pathogens. However, in literature, there are many examples of occupational exposure of veterinarians to these parasitic protozoans [14,15,16,17], and for a comprehensive assessment regarding to veterinarians in Poland, further study with a larger group of participants are needed. The basic method of stool examination in the present study was DFA, PCR was used only to confirm the diagnosis.…”