ArticleBMC veterinary research2015
Video observation of sharps handling and infection control practices during routine companion animal appointments.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Internal audits as a tool to assess the compliance with biosecurity rules in a veterinary faculty.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Factors Determining the Implementation of Measures Aimed at Preventing Zoonotic Diseases in Veterinary Practices.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Prevalence of Needlestick Injury and Its Potential Risk among Veterinarians in Nigeria.Veterinary medicine international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfection control in veterinary clinics is important for preventing pathogen spread between patients, staff and the public. There has been no direct evaluation of the use of many basic infection control practices, including sharps handling, environmental cleaning, and personal protective clothing (PPC), in companion animal clinics. The objective of this study was to describe these and other infection control practices associated with routine companion animal appointments in veterinary clinics in Ontario.
resultsVideo observation of practices was performed in 51 clinics for approximately 3 weeks each as part of another study evaluating the effect of a poster campaign on hand hygiene compliance. Two small wireless surveillance cameras were used: one in an exam room, one in what was considered the most likely location for hand hygiene to be performed outside the exam room following an appointment. Video footage was coded and analyzed for 47 clinics, including 2713 appointments and 4903 individual staff-animal contacts. Recapping of a needle was seen in 84% (1137/1353) of appointments in which use was observed. Only one apparent needlestick injury (NSI) was seen, during recapping. Exam tables were cleaned and floors were mopped following 76% (2015/2646) and 7% (174/2643) of appointments, respectively. Contact time with spray used to clean the exam table ranged from 0-4611 s (mean 39 s, median 9 s). Appropriate PPC was worn for 72% (3518/4903) of staff-animal contacts.
conclusionsAlthough there was significant room for improvement in sharps handling behaviours in participating clinics, the number of observed NSIs was low. Contact time with environmental disinfectants and use of PPC could also be improved, as well as other basic infection control practices. Education and motivation of veterinary staff to use these simple measures more effectively could potentially have a significant impact on infection control in veterinary clinics for relatively little cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.