FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Med Sci / Infection prevention and control practices of ambulatory vet...
Veterinary medicine and science2021; 7(4); 1059-1070; doi: 10.1002/vms3.464

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

Abstract: 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. We aimed to assess how ambulatory livestock and equine veterinarians follow IPC guidelines, when working on farms and in stables. 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. 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. 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.
© 2021 The Authors. Veterinary Medicine and Science Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-03-01 PubMed ID: 33645926PubMed Central: PMC8294370DOI: 10.1002/vms3.464Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research study investigated how effectively ambulatory veterinarians in Finland adhere to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines, specifically looking at aspects such as hand hygiene and the use of personal protective equipment.

Objective and Methodology of the Research

  • The study aimed to analyze the infection prevention and control practices of ambulatory livestock and equine veterinarians while they work on farms and in stables in Finland.
  • The researchers used a web-based questionnaire to gather demographic details and specific details about hygiene practices, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), cleanliness of PPE, and sanitation of medical equipment.
  • The focus was primarily on hand hygiene facilities and practices, and the study involved 129 veterinarians.

Key Findings of the Research

  • The results revealed that 66.9% of respondents claimed that hand-washing facilities were often sufficient on livestock farms. In contrast, only 21.4% felt the same about stables, revealing a significant disparity in hygiene facilities.
  • While 75.0% of veterinarians reported always washing their hands or using hand sanitizer before moving to the next farm, only 42.5% followed this practice before moving to the next stables.
  • The use of universal protective coats or coveralls was more prevalent in livestock practice (91.6%) than in equine practice (27.7%).
  • Moreover, 30.0% of veterinarians claimed to clean their stethoscopes less frequently than once a week, indicating potential risks of cross-contamination.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • The research found that adherence to IPC among Finnish ambulatory veterinarians varied, with better compliance observed in livestock practice.
  • This disparity might be related to the better hand-washing facilities available on farms than in stables.
  • The findings suggest that even in a high-income country such as Finland, there is a clear need for additional education on hygiene and IPC practices for veterinarians.
  • The study also stresses the requirement for noticeable improvement in hand-washing facilities, particularly in stables.

Cite This Article

APA
Verkola M, Järvelä T, Järvinen A, Jokelainen P, Virtala AM, Kinnunen PM, Heikinheimo A. (2021). Infection prevention and control practices of ambulatory veterinarians: A questionnaire study in Finland. Vet Med Sci, 7(4), 1059-1070. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.464

Publication

Veterinary medicine and science
ISSN: 2053-1095
NlmUniqueID: 101678837
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 7
Issue: 4
Pages: 1059-1070

Researcher Affiliations

Verkola, Marie
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Järvelä, Terhi
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Järvinen, Asko
  • Department of Infectious Diseases, Inflammation Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital and University of Helsinki, HUS, Finland.
Jokelainen, Pikka
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
  • Laboratory of Parasitology, Department of Bacteria, Infectious Disease Preparedness, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen S, Denmark.
Virtala, Anna-Maija
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Kinnunen, Paula M
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Heikinheimo, Annamari
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
  • Finnish Food Authority, Seinäjoki, Finland.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Finland
  • Hand Hygiene / statistics & numerical data
  • Horses
  • Infection Control / statistics & numerical data
  • Livestock
  • Personal Protective Equipment / statistics & numerical data
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Veterinarians / statistics & numerical data

Conflict of Interest Statement

PMK is affiliated to MSD Animal Health. This study was completed before joining the company, and MSD Animal Health has not had any influence on the content of this article.

References

This article includes 37 references
  1. Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention.. J Hosp Infect 2009 Dec;73(4):305-15.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.04.019pubmed: 19720430google scholar: lookup
  2. Anderson ME. Contact precautions and hand hygiene in veterinary clinics.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2015 Mar;45(2):343-60, vi.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2014.11.003pubmed: 25532949google scholar: lookup
  3. Anderson ME, Sargeant JM, Weese JS. Video observation of hand hygiene practices during routine companion animal appointments and the effect of a poster intervention on hand hygiene compliance.. BMC Vet Res 2014 May 7;10:106.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-106pmc: PMC4108058pubmed: 24885304google scholar: lookup
  4. Australian Veterinary Association. Guidelines for veterinary personal biosecurity 2017. .
  5. Baker WS, Gray GC. A review of published reports regarding zoonotic pathogen infection in veterinarians.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009 May 15;234(10):1271-8.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.234.10.1271pubmed: 19442021google scholar: lookup
  6. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57(1), 289–300.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Brown L D, Cai T T, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Science 16(2), 101–133.
    doi: 10.1214/ss/1009213286google scholar: lookup
  8. BSAVA. BSAVA practice guidelines. Reducing the risk from MRSA and MRSP. .
  9. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America.. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002 Oct 25;51(RR-16):1-45, quiz CE1-4.
    pubmed: 12418624
  10. Contzen N, De Pasquale S, Mosler HJ. Over-Reporting in Handwashing Self-Reports: Potential Explanatory Factors and Alternative Measurements.. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0136445.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136445pmc: PMC4547747pubmed: 26301781google scholar: lookup
  11. Erasmus V, Daha TJ, Brug H, Richardus JH, Behrendt MD, Vos MC, van Beeck EF. Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care.. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010 Mar;31(3):283-94.
    doi: 10.1086/650451pubmed: 20088678google scholar: lookup
  12. Espadale E, Pinchbeck G, Williams NJ, Timofte D, McIntyre KM, Schmidt VM. Are the Hands of Veterinary Staff a Reservoir for Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria? A Randomized Study to Evaluate Two Hand Hygiene Rubs in a Veterinary Hospital.. Microb Drug Resist 2018 Dec;24(10):1607-1616.
    pmc: PMC6306656pubmed: 30332336doi: 10.1089/mdr.2018.0183google scholar: lookup
  13. Finnish Veterinary Association. Suomen eläinlääkärit. .
  14. Finnish Veterinary Association. Eläinlääkärit. Joka päivä. .
  15. Fujita H, Hansen B, Hanel R. Bacterial contamination of stethoscope chest pieces and the effect of daily cleaning.. J Vet Intern Med 2013 Mar-Apr;27(2):354-8.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.12032pubmed: 23425122google scholar: lookup
  16. Hugonnet S, Pittet D. Hand hygiene-beliefs or science?. Clin Microbiol Infect 2000 Jul;6(7):350-6.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2000.00104.xpubmed: 11168150google scholar: lookup
  17. Jackson J, Villarroel A. A survey of the risk of zoonoses for veterinarians.. Zoonoses Public Health 2012 May;59(3):193-201.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2011.01432.xpubmed: 21884033google scholar: lookup
  18. Kanamori H, Rutala WA, Weber DJ. The Role of Patient Care Items as a Fomite in Healthcare-Associated Outbreaks and Infection Prevention.. Clin Infect Dis 2017 Oct 15;65(8):1412-1419.
    doi: 10.1093/cid/cix462pubmed: 28520859google scholar: lookup
  19. Kinnunen P M, Matomäki A, Verkola M, Heikinheimo A, Vapalahti O, Kallio-Kokko H, Jokelainen P. Veterinarians as a risk group for zoonoses: Exposure, knowledge and protective practices in Finland. Submitted manuscript.
  20. KuKanich KS, Ghosh A, Skarbek JV, Lothamer KM, Zurek L. Surveillance of bacterial contamination in small animal veterinary hospitals with special focus on antimicrobial resistance and virulence traits of enterococci.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2012 Feb 15;240(4):437-45.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.240.4.437pubmed: 22309016google scholar: lookup
  21. Nöremark M, Sternberg-Lewerin S. On-farm biosecurity as perceived by professionals visiting Swedish farms.. Acta Vet Scand 2014 May 9;56(1):28.
    doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-56-28pmc: PMC4036743pubmed: 24886408google scholar: lookup
  22. Pittet D, Boyce J M. Hand hygiene and patient care: Pursuing the Semmelweis legacy. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 1(April), 9–20.
    doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70295-6pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  23. Sahlström L, Virtanen T, Kyyrö J, Lyytikäinen T. Biosecurity on Finnish cattle, pig and sheep farms - results from a questionnaire.. Prev Vet Med 2014 Nov 1;117(1):59-67.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.07.004pubmed: 25147126google scholar: lookup
  24. Sergeant E S G. Epitools epidemiological calculators. Ausvet .
  25. Smith JR, Packman ZR, Hofmeister EH. Multimodal evaluation of the effectiveness of a hand hygiene educational campaign at a small animal veterinary teaching hospital.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013 Oct 1;243(7):1042-8.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.243.7.1042pubmed: 24050573google scholar: lookup
  26. Stull JW, Bjorvik E, Bub J, Dvorak G, Petersen C, Troyer HL. 2018 AAHA Infection Control, Prevention, and Biosecurity Guidelines.. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2018 Nov Dec;54(6):297-326.
    doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-6903pubmed: 30376377google scholar: lookup
  27. Suokorpi A, Autio T, Ruotsalainen E, Björkstrand M, Rimhanen-Finne R. Miksi kryptosporidioositapaukset lisääntyvät Suomessa?. Duodecim 135, 1635–1643.
  28. Thomson K, Aaltonen H. Veterinary hygiene: A guideline for veterinary practices. .
  29. Traore O, Hugonnet S, Lübbe J, Griffiths W, Pittet D. Liquid versus gel handrub formulation: a prospective intervention study.. Crit Care 2007;11(3):R52.
    pmc: PMC2206398pubmed: 17477858doi: 10.1186/cc5906google scholar: lookup
  30. Traub-Dargatz JL, Weese JS, Rousseau JD, Dunowska M, Morley PS, Dargatz DA. Pilot study to evaluate 3 hygiene protocols on the reduction of bacterial load on the hands of veterinary staff performing routine equine physical examinations.. Can Vet J 2006 Jul;47(7):671-6.
    pmc: PMC1482439pubmed: 16898109
  31. Verkola M, Pietola E, Järvinen A, Lindqvist K, Kinnunen PM, Heikinheimo A. Low prevalence of zoonotic multidrug-resistant bacteria in veterinarians in a country with prudent use of antimicrobials in animals.. Zoonoses Public Health 2019 Sep;66(6):667-678.
    doi: 10.1111/zph.12619pubmed: 31232511google scholar: lookup
  32. Weese JS. Barrier precautions, isolation protocols, and personal hygiene in veterinary hospitals.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2004 Dec;20(3):543-59.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2004.07.006pmc: PMC7135499pubmed: 15519817google scholar: lookup
  33. Williams CJ, Scheftel JM, Elchos BL, Hopkins SG, Levine JF. Compendium of Veterinary Standard Precautions for Zoonotic Disease Prevention in Veterinary Personnel: National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians: Veterinary Infection Control Committee 2015.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015 Dec 1;247(11):1252-77.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.247.11.1252pubmed: 26594810google scholar: lookup
  34. World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care: A summary. .
  35. World Health Organisation (WHO). Minimum requirements for infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes. .
  36. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Terrestrial animal health code (28th ed.). .
  37. Wright JG, Jung S, Holman RC, Marano NN, McQuiston JH. Infection control practices and zoonotic disease risks among veterinarians in the United States.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008 Jun 15;232(12):1863-72.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.232.12.1863pubmed: 18598158google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 5 times.
  1. Kinnunen PM, Matomäki A, Verkola M, Heikinheimo A, Vapalahti O, Kallio-Kokko H, Virtala AM, Jokelainen P. Veterinarians as a Risk Group for Zoonoses: Exposure, Knowledge and Protective Practices in Finland. Saf Health Work 2022 Mar;13(1):78-85.
    doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2021.10.008pubmed: 35936209google scholar: lookup
  2. Saini V, Kalra P, Sharma M, Rai C, Saini V, Gautam K, Bhattacharya S, Mani S, Saini K, Kumar S. A Cold Chain-Independent Specimen Collection and Transport Medium Improves Diagnostic Sensitivity and Minimizes Biosafety Challenges of COVID-19 Molecular Diagnosis. Microbiol Spectr 2021 Dec 22;9(3):e0110821.
    doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.01108-21pubmed: 34878310google scholar: lookup
  3. Al Khathami A, Abbas AI, AlGhramah A, Alghamdi WS, AlOlyani AN, Ghaith KAA. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis following cataract surgery: a case series and lessons learned. J Surg Case Rep 2025 Feb;2025(2):rjaf069.
    doi: 10.1093/jscr/rjaf069pubmed: 40040760google scholar: lookup
  4. Kubde D, Badge AK, Ugemuge S, Shahu S. Importance of Hospital Infection Control. Cureus 2023 Dec;15(12):e50931.
    doi: 10.7759/cureus.50931pubmed: 38259418google scholar: lookup
  5. Agrawal I, Bromfield C, Varga C. Assessing and improving on-farm biosecurity knowledge and practices among swine producers and veterinarians through online surveys and an educational website in Illinois, United States. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1167056.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1167056pubmed: 37360407google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.