Zoonotic disease risk perceptions and infection control practices of Australian veterinarians: Call for change in work culture

Abstract

This is an author-produced PDF of an article published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine, AbstractThis study was conducted to determine the perceptions of zoonotic disease risk among Australian veterinarians, the infection control practices they use to protect themselves from zoonotic diseases, and the factors influencing their use of these protective practices. A questionnaire was designed and piloted prior to its administration to veterinarians at the annual Australian Veterinary Association Conference in May 2011. The questionnaire comprised 21 closed, semi-closed and open questions. Data from the questionnaire were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression analyses to determine significant factors for veterinarians' use of personal protective equipment (PPE).A total of 344 veterinarians completed the questionnaire of which 63.7% were women, 63.2% worked in small/companion animal practice, and 79.9% worked in private veterinary practice. Of the respondents, 44.9% reported contracting a zoonosis during their careers with 19.7% reporting a suspected case and 25.2% reporting a confirmed incidence. Around 40-60% of veterinarians perceived exposure to zoonosis likely or very likely in a variety of situations. With reference to current national industry guidelines, the reported use of PPE was less than "adequate" for most scenarios except for performing postmortems, surgery or dental procedures. No PPE was used by 60-70% of veterinarians for treating respiratory and neurological cases and by 40-50% when treating gastrointestinal and dermatological cases. Workplace conditions need improvement as 34.8% of workplaces did not have isolation units for infected animals, 21.1% did not have separate eating areas for staff, and 57.1% did not have complete PPE kits for use. Veterinarians were more likely to use PPE if they had undertaken postgraduate education, perceived that zoonosis exposure from animals and procedures was likely, consciously considered PPE use for every case they dealt with and believed that liability issues and risks encouraged use of PPE. In contrast, those working in private practices, those who tended to 'just hope for the best' when trying to avoid zoonotic diseases, and those who were not aware of industry guidelines were less likely to use PPE.The results suggest that veterinarians' perceptions and workplace policies and culture substantially influence their use of PPE. Efforts should be made to encourage veterinarians and their workplaces to use infection control practices to protect themselves and their staff from zoonotic diseases.

Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity

“…Teaching veterinarians to treat every sick horse with a fever or respiratory symptoms as a potential threat to human health has also involved a major cultural shift: from overalls to Hazmat suits, and from an easy familiarity with the bodies of sick animals to hyper-vigilance (Dowd et al, 2013). Perhaps because two of the four people who have died of HeV were veterinarians who went off to work one day and caught the disease, some veterinarians have quit equine practice (Mendez et al, 2012), and many now refuse to treat unvaccinated horses (Mendez et al, 2013).…”

Survey ofAustralian equine veterinarians evaluating their biosecurity training and perceptions and opinions about the management of the 2007 equine influenza outbreak

“…The findings of this study are supported by a previous study with Australian veterinarians, which also suggested the need for more practical biosecurity training as it found little uptake of appropriate personal protective equipment use in practice. 11 Younger veterinarians may have lower levels of biosecurity compliance similar to younger horse owners 19 . Implementing biosecurity measures might be perceived as a greater inconvenience by younger veterinarians due to the associated costs in terms of time and effort, making it less practical for them to perform than for older veterinarians.…”

It shouldn’t happen to a dog … or a veterinarian: clinical paradigms for canine vector-borne diseases

“…Despite this, and the potential for contracting zoonotic infections, about half of the veterinarians questioned at a national veterinary conference perceived that they were at low level of risk of being exposed to zoonotic diseases from various animal species and procedures [61]. The reasons for this perception are not clear but maybe reflect a certain complacency that the species 'barrier' may protect them whilst working with pets.…”

“…The reasons for this perception are not clear but maybe reflect a certain complacency that the species 'barrier' may protect them whilst working with pets. Indeed, the same study found that small animal practitioners were three times less likely than their large animal colleagues to use adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) [61]. In the USA, Bartonella seroreactivity and bacteraemia were documented in approximately one half (49.5%) and a quarter (23.9%) of the individuals, respectively, of persons (n=192) who reported animal exposure, most of whom also reported animal scratches and/or bites [60].…”

“…For example, co-infection of a female veterinarian by Bartonella henselae, Anaplasma platys, and Candidatus Mycoplasma haematoparvum was reported recently and, importantly in this context, the latter two organisms were known previously to only infect dogs [62]. The emergence of infectious viral hepatitis and HIV resulted in the universal adoption of comprehensive protective practices within the human medical community [63]; maybe this case should serve as a reminder that there is much to understand about risks to veterinarians, and this paradigm calls for a cultural change in work practices and attitudes in regard to vector-borne infections [61].…”