Are we doing enough to control infection risk in Australian small animal veterinary practice? Findings from a mixed methods study

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.

Antimicrobial resistance and self-reported hand hygiene awareness before and after an infection prevention and control programme: A 7-year analysis in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital

Infection prevention and control (IPC) in veterinary medicine is crucial to protect patients, owners, staff, and the public. An IPC programme is recommended for every animal hospital. The objective of this retrospective longitudinal study was to describe the changes in bacterial and multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial isolates and self-reported hand hygiene awareness and practices after an IPC programme to assess the long-term effect of this programme in small animal veterinary medicine. The IPC programme was implemented at our veterinary teaching hospital in April 2018, which included the establishment of an infection control task force, regular IPC lectures and poster campaigns, infrastructure improvement, and manual refinement. Laboratory-based surveillance was retrospectively conducted before and after the programme (January 2016-December 2022). Level and slope changes in bacterial isolates were evaluated using interrupted time-series analysis. Self-reported hand hygiene awareness and practices were assessed using an annual questionnaire. Additionally, hygiene product purchases during the study period were investigated. The monthly number of total and MDR bacterial isolates decreased significantly after the programme (MDR level change: -0.426; 95% confidence interval: -0.744, -0.109; P = 0.009; and MDR slope change: -0.035; 95% confidence interval: -0.058, -0.011; P = 0.003). Additionally, awareness of hand hygiene before touching animals improved after the programme. Overall self-reported hand hygiene practices improved, and hygiene product purchases significantly increased. These results suggested that the IPC programme may have long-term effects regarding reducing total and MDR bacterial isolates and improving hand hygiene awareness in veterinary medicine.

Educational intervention to improve infection prevention and control practices in four companion animal clinics in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention and control (IPC) practices vary among companion animal clinics, and outbreaks with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) have been described.

AIM

To investigate the effect of an IPC intervention (introduction of IPC protocols, IPC lectures, hand hygiene campaign) in four companion animal clinics.

METHODS

IPC practices, environmental and hand contamination with antimicrobial-resistant micro-organisms (ARM) and hand hygiene (HH) were assessed at baseline, and 1 and 5 months after the intervention.

RESULTS

Median IPC scores (% maximum score) improved from 57.8% (range 48.0-59.8%) to 82.9% (range 81.4-86.3%) at 1-month follow-up. Median cleaning frequency assessed by fluorescent tagging increased from 16.7% (range 8.9-18.9%) to 30.6% (range 27.8-52.2%) at 1-month follow-up and 32.8% (range 32.2-33.3%) at 5-month follow-up. ARM contamination was low in three clinics at baseline and undetectable after the intervention. One clinic showed extensive contamination with ARM including CPE before and after the intervention (7.5-16.0% ARM-positive samples and 5.0-11.5% CPE-positive samples). Mean HH compliance improved from 20.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.2-22.8%] to 42.5% (95% CI 40.4-44.7%) at 1-month follow-up and 38.7% (95% CI 35.7-41.7%) at 5-month follow-up. Compliance was lowest in the pre-operative preparation area at baseline (11.8%, 95% CI 9.3-14.8%) and in the intensive care unit after the intervention (28.8%, 95% CI 23.3-35.1%). HH compliance was similar in veterinarians (21.5%, 95% CI 19.0-24.3%) and nurses (20.2%, 95% CI 17.9-22.7%) at baseline, but was higher in veterinarians (46.0%, 95% CI 42.9-49.1%) than nurses (39.0%, 95% CI 36.0-42.1%) at 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The IPC intervention improved IPC scores, cleaning frequency and HH compliance in all clinics. Adapted approaches may be needed in outbreak situations.

Massive Spread of OXA-48 Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in the Environment of a Swiss Companion Animal Clinic

Background: Companion animal clinics contribute to the spread of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms (ARM) and outbreaks with ARM of public health concern have been described. Methods: As part of a project to assess infection prevention and control (IPC) standards in companion animal clinics in Switzerland, a total of 200 swabs from surfaces and 20 hand swabs from employees were collected during four days in a medium-sized clinic and analyzed for extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and methicillin-resistant staphylococci (MRS). Results: A total of 22 (11.0%) environmental specimen yielded CPE, 14 (7.0%) ESBL-E, and 7 (3.5%) MRS; MR Staphylococcus aureus were isolated from two (10.0%) hand swabs. The CPE isolates comprised Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter hormaechei, Citrobacter braakii, and Serratia marcescens. Whole genome sequencing revealed that all CPE carried closely related bla_OXA-48 plasmids, suggesting a plasmidic spread within the clinic. The clinic exhibited major deficits in surface disinfection, hand hygiene infrastructure, and hand hygiene compliance. CPE were present in various areas, including those without patient contact. The study documented plasmidic dissemination of bla_OXA-48 in a companion animal clinic with low IPC standards. This poses a worrisome threat to public health and highlights the need to foster IPC standards in veterinary clinics to prevent the spread of ARM into the community.

Hand Hygiene Evaluation Using Two Different Evaluation Tools and Hand Contamination of Veterinary Healthcare Workers in a Swiss Companion Animal Clinic

Hand hygiene (HH) is the most important measure to prevent nosocomial infections. HH compliance in companion animal clinics has been reported to be poor. The present study compared an online application with the WHO evaluation form to assess the WHO five moments of HH in a Swiss companion animal clinic. In 202 hand swabs from 87 staff members, total viable count (TVC) before and after patient contact was evaluated and the swabs were tested for selected antimicrobial resistant microorganisms of public health importance. HH compliance (95% confidence interval) was 36.6% (33.8–39.5%) and was similar when assessed with the two evaluation tools. HH differed between hospital areas (p = 0.0035) and HH indications (p < 0.0001). Gloves were worn in 22.0% (18.0–26.6%) of HH observations and were indicated in 37.2% (27.3–48.3%) of these observations. Mean TVC before patient contact was lower (0.52 log CFU/cm²) than after patient contact (1.02 log CFU/cm²) but was similar before patient contact on gloved and ungloved hands. Three hand swabs (1.5% (0.4–4.3%)) were positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Gloving should not be regarded as a substitute for HH. Overall, HH in companion animal medicine should urgently be fostered.

Infection prevention and control practices of ambulatory veterinarians: A questionnaire study in Finland

BACKGROUND

Veterinarians face the risk of contracting zoonotic pathogens. Infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines stress the importance of proper hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent transmission of these pathogens.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess how ambulatory livestock and equine veterinarians follow IPC guidelines, when working on farms and in stables.

METHODS

We studied hygiene practices of livestock and equine ambulatory veterinarians (n = 129) in Finland. A web-based questionnaire was used to obtain demographic information and information regarding hand-hygiene facilities and practices, use and cleaning of PPE and cleaning of medical equipment.

RESULTS

According to 66.9% of the respondents, hand-washing facilities were often adequate on livestock farms, but only 21.4% reported that this was the case in stables (p < .001). While 75.0% reported washing their hands or using hand sanitizer always before moving on to the next farm, only 42.5% reported doing this before moving on to the next stables (p < .001). Universal protective coat or coverall use was more common in livestock practice than in equine practice (91.6% vs. 27.7%, p < .001). Stethoscope cleaning was reported to happen less frequently than once a week by 30.0% of the respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Finnish veterinarians' self-reported IPC adherence was far from uniform. IPC was more commonly followed in ambulatory livestock practice perhaps facilitated by better hand-washing facilities on farms than in stables. The study suggests that education of veterinarians is still needed and that hand-washing facilities need to be improved even in a high-income country.

Hand hygiene compliance in companion animal clinics and practices in Switzerland: An observational study

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is one of the most important measures to prevent healthcare‐associated infections. Data on HH compliance in companion animal veterinary institutions in Europe are sparse.

Methods: This observational study assessed HH according to WHO standards in three large and two medium‐sized clinics and two primary care practices in Switzerland. Associations with HH indication, professional group, clinical area and institution were determined using a generalized linear mixed effects model.

Results: Based on 2056 observations, overall HH compliance [95% confidence interval] was 32% [30%‐34%]. HH compliance was highest in the consultation area (41% [38%‐45%]) and after contact to body fluids (45% [40%‐50%]), and lowest in the pre‐OR area (20% [15%‐24%]) and before clean/aseptic procedures (12% [9%‐15%]). Veterinarians showed a higher HH compliance (37% [34%‐40%]) than veterinary nurses (25% [22%‐28%]). HH compliance was lower before clean/aseptic procedures compared to all other indications (all p < 0.015 except ‘before touching a patient’ in medium‐sized clinics/practices, p = 0.095) and higher in the consultation area compared to all other areas in large clinics (all p < 0.04).

Conclusion: Effective HH training should urgently be promoted for all veterinary personnel with special emphasis on the importance of HH before clean/aseptic procedures.

"Prevention is the biggest success": Barriers and enablers to personal biosecurity in the thoroughbred breeding industry

Employees in the equine industry are at occupational risk of zoonoses such as Hendra virus and equine chlamydiosis through exposure to infected materials. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the views and experiences of employees, and the key drivers of infection control and personal biosecurity (PB) practices in the Thoroughbred breeding industry. Methods: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted in 2018 in New South Wales, Australia using interviews (9) and small group discussions (7). The 29 participants included veterinarians, veterinary nurses, foaling staff, stud managers and laboratory personnel working in a range of equine medicine settings. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed and analysed manually by at least two members of the research team. An iterative approach was used to derive themes. Results: Five main themes emerged: (i) greater awareness of current and emerging infectious risks promotes use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); (ii) currently available PPE is not comfortable, practical or well-suited to equine reproductive work in Australia's hot climate; (iii) creating supportive environments for PB reduces risk of exposure to infectious materials; (iv) strong leadership is required to implement sustainable change in workplace culture and practices; and (v) policy and economic factors play an important role in adopting biosecurity (BS) and PB measures in the workplace. Personnel working in the Australian Thoroughbred breeding industry face unique zoonotic risks in a challenging physical environment. A qualitative approach provided rich insights into social and physical factors motivating BS and PB in this occupational group. There is an opportunity for collaboration between Public Health services and industry partners to develop and implement strategies most likely to be effective in ensuring consistent uptake of PB measures in the workplace.

Contact precautions and hand hygiene in veterinary clinics

Hand hygiene, contact precautions, and other basic infection control measures are crucial in veterinary clinics, because these facilities can be community mixing pots of animals and people with a wide range of health and disease-carrier states. Veterinary staff must be knowledgeable and well trained regarding when and how to apply situation-appropriate contact precautions and to properly perform hand hygiene. The limited information on the use of contact precautions and hand hygiene practices among veterinary staff suggests that compliance is low. Improving the infection control culture in clinics and in veterinary medicine is critical to achieving better compliance with these practices.

A pre- and post-intervention study of infection control in equine hospitals in Sweden

Background

Detection of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in horses in Sweden has increased attention on infection control (IC) in equine hospitals. This study established baseline data on IC programmes within such settings, evaluated compliance with some IC procedures before and after an education intervention, and examined barriers to compliance.

The study was carried out between 2008 and 2011 in four Swedish equine hospitals. Data on current IC of each hospital, purchase data on hand sanitisers and disposable gloves per patient, and direct observations of compliance with procedures were monitored pre- and post-intervention. The intervention comprised a lecture on common IC and a review of each hospital’s current procedures. For comparison, retrospective purchase data were reviewed. A questionnaire on individual compliance, experiences and opinions of IC was issued to employees.

Results

Three hospitals completed the study, while the fourth reported its IC procedures and completed the questionnaire. Actual numbers of procedures, content and level of documentation differed among the hospitals. Similarities were poor or absent IC implementation strategy, lack of active surveillance of compliance with procedures and no monitoring of such as nosocomial infections. Among the hospitals which completed the study, two reported pre-intervention observation of compliance, while all three reported post-intervention observations. The purchase data showed trends for changes over time, although not uniformly related to the intervention. One hospital demonstrated a significant post-intervention increase in compliance with glove procedures, accompanied by a non-significant post-intervention increase in purchases figures. Compliance with dress code and personal appearance was high in all three hospitals (92-100%), while compliance with hand hygiene procedures was generally poorer. Barriers to compliance cited in the questionnaire (data from four hospitals) included insufficient supplies of hygiene products, lack of readily accessible places for cleaning, insufficient knowledge and high workload.

Conclusions

Potential for easily attainable improvements in IC, such as traceability of documents, implementation strategies and surveillance of efficacy, was revealed. Attention to hand hygiene implementation and improvement of logistics appeared important. Data on purchases per patient were readily available and therefore applicable for intra-hospital surveillance of IC trends over time.