Dataset Information

Exotic pets in Ireland: 1. Prevalence of ownership and access to veterinary services.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There has been increasing concern expressed about the welfare of exotic pets worldwide. For the purposes of this article, an exotic pet is considered to be a non-domesticated species, where there are knowledge gaps on good practice (minimum standards of care), veterinary diagnostics and treatments. The categories of exotic pets included in this study were: small mammals (< 20 kg), large mammals (> 20 kg), birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, mice, rats, and ferrets were excluded from the study. An online survey of pet owning staff at University College Dublin was conducted between July and August 2020 to provide the first empirical data for Ireland. In this pilot study (the first in this thematic series) we aim to characterise exotic pet ownership, the challenges and benefits of keeping exotic pets, and access to veterinary services from the pet owner's perspective.

Results

Using an online survey this pilot study gathered evidence from 83 domestic and 32 exotic pet owners within the staff (n = ~ 3600 FTE) at University College Dublin, the largest third level institution in Ireland. The prevalence of exotic pet ownership was determined to be 34.4 % of households with more than 10 % of pet owning households owning only exotic pets. Fish (n = 15), reptiles (n = 13) and birds (n = 8) were the most common types of exotic pets. Thirty-four per cent of exotic pet owners never sought veterinary services, the most common reasons were due to lack of local veterinary specialists (n = 10) and good owner knowledge (n = 8). However identifying appropriate guidance on the animals' needs was a common challenge for exotic pet owners (n = 13). A reasonable monthly cost of caring for an exotic ranged from €20-180, depending on the species.

Conclusions

This pilot study contains important implications for veterinary education to support the veterinary community with providing services to the exotic pet owning community. Policy issues with exotic pet ownership also need to be considered and further research into the proposed strategies to support the health and welfare of exotic pets should be carried out such as the introduction of white lists and guidelines on responsible pet ownership.

SUBMITTER: Goins M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153849 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been increasing concern expressed about the welfare of exotic pets worldwide. For the purposes of this article, an exotic pet is considered to be a non-domesticated species, where there are knowledge gaps on good practice (minimum standards of care), veterinary diagnostics and treatments. The categories of exotic pets included in this study were: small mammals (< 20 kg), large mammals (> 20 kg), birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, mice, rats, and ferrets were excluded from the study. An online survey of veterinary professionals conducted between July and August 2020 provides the first empirical data for Ireland. In this pilot study (the second in this thematic series) we aim to characterise the provision of veterinary services to exotic pets from the veterinary professionals' perspective, explore the main concerns of veterinary professionals towards exotic pet ownership, and their recommendations to support responsible exotic pet ownership.ResultsUsing an online survey this pilot study gathered evidence from 63 veterinary professionals currently working in private practice in Ireland. The prevalence of veterinary services for exotic pets in Ireland was determined to be 82% of small and mixed animal clinics of respondents' practices ranging from 9.1 to 100% for different categories of exotic pets. The most common issues encountered in practice with exotic pets were related to nutrition, environment, and behaviour followed by clinical diseases such as respiratory, infectious, and gastrointestinal issues. The most common concerns veterinary professionals had with exotic pet ownership related to the lack of owner knowledge as well as the lack of veterinary knowledge and accessible resources. The most common strategic initiatives indicated by veterinary professionals included black or white lists (to prohibit and permit the keeping of exotic pet species respectively), licensing for owners and increased availability of CPD for veterinary professionals.ConclusionsMore than four in every five veterinary professionals in small or mixed animal practices surveyed were willing to treat exotic pets and in many cases they already were. A scaffold for best practice is required to support the health and welfare of exotic pets and responsible ownership. Keystones include veterinary education to support veterinary professionals with daily practice, establishing a white list of exotic species that are suitable as pets, registration at the point of purchase to enable traceability for biosecurity purposes and research to identify care standards to support the health and welfare of exotic pets.

Project description:Background:Veterinary regulators require veterinary nursing students to demonstrate clinical competence prior to registration and practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in common with other medical professions, there is no one broadly accepted definition of competence. Studies in nursing have revealed that practicing nurses may view newly qualified colleagues as lacking competence, leading to disillusionment with nursing training programmes. Similar studies are lacking in veterinary nursing, despite the profession having recently undergone a similar transition from workplace-based training to undergraduate education. Methods:A mixed methods explanatory study surveyed 66 Irish registered veterinary nurses and 31 first year veterinary nursing students at two Irish third level institutions to obtain their views on what constitutes veterinary nursing competence and when veterinary nurses develop it. The surveys were followed by student focus groups and semi-structured one-on-one interviews with registered veterinary nurses. Content analysis was employed to analyse the surveys, while the focus groups and interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis. Results:Students perceived competence primarily as the ability to provide patient care, and they expected it to develop close to the time of graduation. RVNs held a broader definition of competence, incorporating leadership skills and confidence as well as patient care provision. RVNs expected it to take approximately two years of workplace-based experience post-graduation for a veterinary nurse to develop competence. In addition, RVNs recognised that anxiety felt by many newly qualified veterinary nurses during this period could be attenuated by mentorship from more experienced colleagues. Conclusions:Irish RVNs and veterinary nursing students perceive competence differently, similar to previous findings from the nursing profession. Educators and regulators should provide explicit descriptions of terms such as 'competence' to avoid confusion and possible disillusionment amongst veterinary nursing stakeholders.

Project description:Veterinarians are faced with significant conflicts of interest when issuing certificates for the transport and slaughter of acutely injured and casualty livestock. In a recent Policy Delphi study, emergency and casualty slaughter certification was a key concern identified by veterinary professionals in Ireland. In this case study (the third in a series of three resulting from a research workshop exploring challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland; the other two case studies investigate clinical veterinary services and the on-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials), we aim to provide a value-based reflection on the constraints and opportunities for best practice in emergency and casualty slaughter certification in Ireland.Using a qualitative focus group approach, this study gathered evidence from relevant stakeholders, namely a representative from the regulatory body, local authority veterinarians with research experience in emergency slaughter, an animal welfare research scientist, official veterinarians from the competent authority, a private veterinary practitioner, and a member of a farming organisation. Results revealed a conflict between the responsibility of private veterinary practitioners (PVPs) to safeguard the welfare of acutely injured bovines on-farm and the client's commercial concerns. As a consequence, some PVPs may feel under pressure to certify, for example, an acutely injured animal for casualty slaughter instead of recommending either on-farm emergency slaughter or disposal by the knackery service. Among Official Veterinarians, there are concerns about the pressure within processing plants to accept acutely injured livestock as casualty animals. Confusion pertaining to legislation and definition of fitness to travel also contribute to these dilemmas.Conflicts of interest arise due to the gap between governance and provision to facilitate on-farm emergency slaughter of livestock. Increased availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by Food Business Operators (FBOs) would mitigate the need to certify acutely injured animals fit for transport and slaughter and thereby safeguard animal welfare. In the absence of nationwide availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by FBOs, consideration should be given to methods to encourage all those involved in the food chain to prioritise animal welfare when in conflict with the commercial value of the animal. Training and guidelines for PVPs on the regulatory landscape and ethical decision-making should become available. The reintroduction of the fallen animal scheme should be considered to support farm animal welfare.

Project description:ImportanceFor-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population.ObjectiveTo determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report).ExposuresThe primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities.Main outcomes and measuresAccess to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome.ResultsAmong 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.