ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Are we doing enough to control infection risk in Australian small animal veterinary practice? Findings from a mixed methods study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Managing risk effectively within small animal veterinary practice is integral for staff, patient and client safety. Veterinary personnel are exposed to many risks, including bites, scratches, sharps injuries and exposure to zoonotic diseases and multi-resistant organisms. Patients may also be exposed to healthcare-associated infections, including multi-resistant organisms. While veterinary owners/managers have a duty of care under legislated Workplace Health and Safety requirements, all staff have a responsibility to contribute to assessing and minimizing risk. The application of standard and transmission precautions will help with risk minimization. This study aimed to determine how small animal veterinary staff understand and perceive infection prevention and control risk and to provide recommendations to assist with risk mitigation. Methods: A mixed methods design was used. A digital questionnaire was administered to small animal veterinary staff in Australia to identify knowledge, attitudes and practices of risk related behaviors. Follow up focus groups were conducted with small animal practitioners to explore factors supporting and preventing veterinary staff from implementing recommended practices identified in the questionnaire. Results: Small animal veterinary staff acknowledged they participated in many high-risk activities, including recapping needles and eating and drinking in patient care areas. Injuries were common, with 77% of staff receiving a bite or scratch, and 22% receiving a sharps injury in the preceding six months. Less than one in five of these incidents was reported. Staff agreed effective infection prevention and control was the responsibility of all staff, but a designated staff member should take responsibility for managing it. The practice owner/manager was integral to supporting and promoting recommended strategies, contributing to a positive workplace culture and improving safety for staff and patients. Conclusion: Small animal veterinary staff have some understanding of how to identify, report, manage and mitigate risk but were limited by their knowledge of infection prevention and control principles.
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.