Zoonotic disease risk perceptions in the British veterinary profession

Abstract

In human and veterinary medicine, reducing the risk of occupationally-acquired infections relies on effective infection prevention and control practices (IPCs). In veterinary medicine, zoonoses present a risk to practitioners, yet little is known about how these risks are understood and how this translates into health protective behaviour. This study aimed to explore risk perceptions within the British veterinary profession and identify motivators and barriers to compliance with IPCs. A cross-sectional study was conducted using veterinary practices registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Here we demonstrate that compliance with IPCs is influenced by more than just knowledge and experience, and understanding of risk is complex and multifactorial. Out of 252 respondents, the majority were not concerned about the risk of zoonoses (57.5%); however, a considerable proportion (34.9%) was. Overall, 44.0% of respondents reported contracting a confirmed or suspected zoonoses, most frequently dermatophytosis (58.6%). In veterinary professionals who had previous experience of managing zoonotic cases, time or financial constraints and a concern for adverse animal reactions were not perceived as barriers to use of personal protective equipment (PPE). For those working in large animal practice, the most significant motivator for using PPE was concerns over liability. When assessing responses to a range of different "infection control attitudes", veterinary nurses tended to have a more positive perspective, compared with veterinary surgeons. Our results demonstrate that IPCs are not always adhered to, and factors influencing motivators and barriers to compliance are not simply based on knowledge and experience. Educating veterinary professionals may help improve compliance to a certain extent, however increased knowledge does not necessarily equate to an increase in risk-mitigating behaviour. This highlights that the construction of risk is complex and circumstance-specific and to get a real grasp on compliance with IPCs, this construction needs to be explored in more depth.

Infection control practices employed within small animal veterinary practices—A systematic review

“…Common zoonotic diseases, which include dermatophyte (fungal) infections, are easily managed (Australian Infectious Diseases Advisory Panel, ). Infection with more severe zoonotic pathogens is considered a low risk by many veterinary staff (Robin, Bettridge, & McMaster, ; Sellens et al, ). This perception influences the lack of PPE utilized or enforced by veterinary staff (Dowd et al, ).…”

Establishing research priorities to improve the One Health efficacy of Australian general practitioners and veterinarians with regard to zoonoses: A modified Delphi survey

“…Australian veterinarians are at risk of exposure to a number of potentially fatal or debilitating chronic zoonotic diseases. Recent studies in both Australia and overseas have shown that many veterinarians do not use effective PPE [ [28] , [29] , [30] ], and the opinion of the expert panel suggests that this is still an area of concern. It is unclear why members of the expert panel did not place the same importance on PPE for GPs, given that in recent history GPs in Australia and elsewhere have also had significant risk of exposure to EIDs of zoonotic origin transmitted in healthcare settings, such as Ebola and SARS.…”

Accidental exposure to Brucella abortus vaccines and occupational brucellosis among veterinarians in Minas Gerais state, Brazil

“…and was corroborated by a study involving British veterinarians, in which even with a forecast of 30% adherence, the minimum number of participants required was not reached (Robin, Bettridge, & McMaster, 2017). On the other hand, the use of online platforms makes epidemiological surveys less expensive and faster than classical methodologies.…”