FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Vet Sci / Internal audits as a tool to assess the compliance with bios...
Frontiers in veterinary science2023; 10; 960051; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.960051

Internal audits as a tool to assess the compliance with biosecurity rules in a veterinary faculty.

Abstract: The present paper proposes a tool to follow up the compliance of staff and students with biosecurity rules, as enforced in a veterinary faculty, i.e., animal clinics, teaching laboratories, dissection rooms, and educational pig herd and farm. Unassigned: Starting from a generic list of items gathered into several categories (personal dress and equipment, animal-related items, infrastructures, waste management, management of material/equipment and behavior), a checklist was created for each sector/activity mentioned above, based on the rules and procedures compiled in the Faculty biosecurity standard operating procedures. Checklists were created as Excel™ files. For each sector, several sheets were elaborated, i.e., one per specific activity: for example, the following sheets were created for the equine clinic: class 1-2 hospitalization (class 1 = non-infectious conditions; class 2 = infectious disease with a low or non-existent risk of transmission), class 3 hospitalization (class 3 = infectious disease with a moderate risk of transmission; these patients are suspected of having an infectious disease and being contagious for other patients and/or for humans) and consultation. Unassigned: Class 4 area, which corresponds to the isolation unit and aims at housing patients suffering from infectious diseases with a significant risk of transmission (including notifiable conditions), was not audited at that period, as it was undergoing renovation works. The audit relied on observations performed by a unique observer to ensure standardization. Observed items were presented as yes/no and multiple-choice questions. A scale from 0 to 3 or 4 (depending on the item) allowed scoring each item, i.e., 0 corresponding to 100% compliance with the procedure and the highest score to the worst situation. A median and average global score was also estimated by category and by activity. Unassigned: The methodology described in the present paper allows estimating the compliance with biosecurity standard operating procedures in a specific sector and/or for a given activity. The identification of criteria needing improvement is a key point: it helps prioritizing actions to be implemented and awareness raising among people concerned. Regular internal auditing is an essential part of a biosecurity plan, the frequency being conditioned by the risk linked to a specific activity or area (i.e., more frequent audits in risky situations).
Copyright © 2023 Humblet and Saegerman.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-03-02 PubMed ID: 36937021PubMed Central: PMC10018162DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.960051Google 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

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 paper presents a tool for monitoring staff and students’ compliance with biosecurity rules in veterinary facilities such as animal clinics, labs, and educational farms. The tool is a checklist system created in Excel and is based on the biosecurity standard operating procedures.

Development of the Audit Tool

  • The study began by compiling a generic list of items for the biosecurity audit, categorized as personal dress and equipment, animal-related items, infrastructures, waste management, management of material/equipment and behavior.
  • Based on the biosecurity standard operating procedures of the Faculty, a checklist was created for each area of activity, including animal clinics, teaching laboratories, dissection rooms, and the educational pig herd and farm.
  • These checklists were prepared in Excel files, with different sheets corresponding to different activities within a sector. In the case of the equine clinic, separate sheets were created for three classes of hospitalization based on the risk of disease transmission and consultation.
  • The class 4 area, designated for patients with infectious diseases possessing significant transmission risk, wasn’t audited at this time due to renovation.

Audit Procedure and Scoring

  • The audit relied on a single observer to ensure standardization. Each item on the checklist was presented as a yes/no or multiple-choice question.
  • An item’s compliance with procedures was scored on a scale of 0 to 3 or 4 depending on the item, where 0 represented full compliance and the highest score indicated the worst possible status.
  • In addition to individual item scores, a global score was computed for each category and activity, represented as both a median and an average.

Significance of the Audit Tool

  • This methodology allows for the estimation of compliance with biosecurity procedures within a given sector or activity, and helps identify areas that need improvement.
  • The audit results can be used to prioritize actions to be taken and to raise awareness among the concerned individuals.
  • Internal audits are a crucial part of a biosecurity plan, and the frequency of audits should be determined based on the risk associated with a particular activity or area.

Cite This Article

APA
Humblet MF, Saegerman C. (2023). Internal audits as a tool to assess the compliance with biosecurity rules in a veterinary faculty. Front Vet Sci, 10, 960051. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.960051

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 10
Pages: 960051
PII: 960051

Researcher Affiliations

Humblet, Marie-France
  • Unit Biosafety, Biosecurity and Environmental Licenses, Department for Occupational Protection and Hygiene, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Saegerman, Claude
  • Veterinary Science Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Research Unit (UREAR-ULiège), Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals and Health Center (FARAH), Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 36 references
  1. World Organization for Animal Health. Glossary. 2021.
  2. Saegerman C, Dal Pozzo F, Humblet M-F. Reducing hazards for humans from animals: emerging and re-emerging zoonoses. Ital J Publ Health (2012) 9:13–24.
    doi: 10.2427/6336google scholar: lookup
  3. 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
  4. Sánchez A, Prats-van der Ham M, Tatay-Dualde J, Paterna A, de la Fe C, Gómez-Martín Á, Corrales JC, Contreras A. Zoonoses in Veterinary Students: A Systematic Review of the Literature.. PLoS One 2017;12(1):e0169534.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169534pmc: PMC5215727pubmed: 28052113google scholar: lookup
  5. Escudero C, Diaz I, Aparicio M, Piñeiro C. Biosecurity audits: conception structure. 2021.
  6. Anonymous. Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (“Animal Health Law”). 84:1–235.
  7. Biosecurity Biosecurity Unit–Faculty of Veterinary Medicine ULiège. Biosecurity SOPs applied to the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Liège University. 2019.
  8. Liège Université—Médecine Vétérinaire. General Biosecurity SOP—user guide: scenarios. 2019.
  9. Saegerman C, Humblet M-F. Chapter 17: biosecurity in veterinary practices and clinics. Biosecurity in animal production and veterinary medicine: from principles to practice 2019 p. 243–281.
    doi: 10.1079/9781789245684.0453google scholar: lookup
  10. Sheridan L. Considerations for isolation and barrier nursing. Vet Nursing J (2009) 24:12–4.
    doi: 10.1080/17415349.2009.11013071google scholar: lookup
  11. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice, Third Edition - an Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Lesson 2: Summarizing Data. 2012.
  12. Royden A, Ormandy E, Pinchbeck G, Pascoe B, Hitchings MD, Sheppard SK, Williams NJ. Prevalence of faecal carriage of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli in veterinary hospital staff and students.. Vet Rec Open 2019;6(1):e000307.
    doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2018-000307pmc: PMC6327872pubmed: 30687506google scholar: lookup
  13. Gait R, Soutar RH, Hanson M, Fraser C, Chalmers R. Outbreak of cryptosporidiosis among veterinary students.. Vet Rec 2008 Jun 28;162(26):843-5.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.162.26.843pubmed: 18587060google scholar: lookup
  14. Galuppi R, Piva S, Castagnetti C, Sarli G, Iacono E, Fioravanti ML, Caffara M. Cryptosporidium parvum: From foal to veterinary students.. Vet Parasitol 2016 Mar 30;219:53-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.02.001pubmed: 26921039google scholar: lookup
  15. Benschop J, Booker CM, Shadbolt T, Weston JF. A Retrospective Cohort Study of an Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis among Veterinary Students.. Vet Sci 2017 May 24;4(2).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci4020029pmc: PMC5606607pubmed: 29056688google scholar: lookup
  16. Heinrich ER, KuKanich KS, Davis E, White BJ. Public health campaign to promote hand hygiene before meals in a college of veterinary medicine.. J Vet Med Educ 2014 Autumn;41(3):301-10.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0913-124R1pubmed: 24981423google scholar: lookup
  17. World Health Organization. Health product and policy standards. 2022.
  18. Morley PS, Morris SN, Hyatt DR, Van Metre DC. Evaluation of the efficacy of disinfectant footbaths as used in veterinary hospitals.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005 Jun 15;226(12):2053-8.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.2053pubmed: 15989190google scholar: lookup
  19. Amass SF, Arighi M, Kinyon JM, Hoffman LJ, Schneider JL, Draper DK. Effectiveness of using a mat filled with a peroxygen disinfectant to minimize shoe sole contamination in a veterinary hospital.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006 May 1;228(9):1391-6.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.228.9.1391pubmed: 16649945google scholar: lookup
  20. Dunowska M, Morley PS, Patterson G, Hyatt DR, Van Metre DC. Evaluation of the efficacy of a peroxygen disinfectant-filled footmat for reduction of bacterial load on footwear in a large animal hospital setting.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006 Jun 15;228(12):1935-9.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.228.12.1935pubmed: 16784389google scholar: lookup
  21. Stockton KA, Morley PS, Hyatt DR, Burgess BA, Patterson G, Dunowska M, Lee DE. Evaluation of the effects of footwear hygiene protocols on nonspecific bacterial contamination of floor surfaces in an equine hospital.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006 Apr 1;228(7):1068-73.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.228.7.1068pubmed: 16579786google scholar: lookup
  22. Hartmann FA, Dusick AF, Young KM. Impact of disinfectant-filled foot mats on mechanical transmission of bacteria in a veterinary teaching hospital.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013 Mar 1;242(5):682-8.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.242.5.682pubmed: 23402417google scholar: lookup
  23. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance.. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999 Jan;12(1):147-79.
    doi: 10.1128/CMR.12.1.147pmc: PMC88911pubmed: 9880479google scholar: lookup
  24. Portner JA, Johnson JA. Guidelines for reducing pathogens in veterinary hospitals: disinfectant selection, cleaning protocols, and hand hygiene.. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2010 May;32(5):E1-11; quiz E12.
    pubmed: 20949420
  25. Traverse M, Aceto H. Environmental cleaning and disinfection.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2015 Mar;45(2):299-330, vi.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2014.11.011pmc: PMC7114656pubmed: 25555560google 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. Rutala WA Weber DK the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. CDC Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008. 2019.
  28. Anderson ME, Weese JS. Video observation of sharps handling and infection control practices during routine companion animal appointments.. BMC Vet Res 2015 Aug 6;11:185.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-015-0503-9pmc: PMC4527249pubmed: 26245350google scholar: lookup
  29. Riley CB, McCallum S, MacDonald JA, Hill KE. A prospective observational study of needle-handling practices at a University Veterinary Teaching Hospital.. N Z Vet J 2016 Mar;64(2):117-20.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2015.1100100pubmed: 26425795google scholar: lookup
  30. Dvorak G–Center for Food Security and Public Health (Iowa State University). Disinfection 101. 2008.
  31. McCord K, Stanton K, Botle D, Hyatt D, Lunn K. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus spp. contamination of stethoscopes in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital. J Vet Intern Med (2010) 24:762.
  32. O'Flaherty N, Fenelon L. The stethoscope and healthcare-associated infection: a snake in the grass or innocent bystander?. J Hosp Infect 2015 Sep;91(1):1-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.04.010pubmed: 26092471google scholar: lookup
  33. Chin RP, García M, Corsiglia C, Riblet S, Crespo R, Shivaprasad HL, Rodríguez-Avila A, Woolcock PR, França M. Intervention strategies for laryngotracheitis: impact of extended downtime and enhanced biosecurity auditing.. Avian Dis 2009 Dec;53(4):574-7.
    doi: 10.1637/8873-041309-Reg.1pubmed: 20095159google scholar: lookup
  34. Vercken C, Paillot R. Biosecurity audit and tailored grassland and facility biosecurity measures to reduce the occurrence of Rhodococcal infection in breeding centres. Eq. Vet. J. - Special Issue: Proceedings of the 11th International Equine Infectious Diseases Conference 2021.
  35. Humblet MF, Vanderschueren P, Grignet C, Cassart D, Korsak N, Saegerman C. Observations as a way to assess the compliance of veterinary students with biosecurity procedures.. Rev Sci Tech 2017 Dec;36(3):767-777.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.36.3.2712pubmed: 30160703google scholar: lookup
  36. Food Standards Agency. Auditing meat establishments. 2022.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Saegerman C, Parisi G, Niemi J, Humblet MF, Ron-Román J, Souley Kouato B, Allepuz A, Porphyre V, Rodrigues da Costa M, Renault V. Evaluation Survey on Agreement with Existing Definitions of Biosecurity with a Focus on Livestock.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Apr 30;13(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13091518pubmed: 37174555google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.