Dataset Information

Management of veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia in small animals: A survey of English-speaking practitioners in Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe how small animal anaesthesia and analgesia is performed in English-speaking Canada, document any variation among practices especially in relation to practice type and veterinarian's experience and compare results to published guidelines.

Design

Observational study, electronic survey.

Sample

126 respondents.

Procedure

A questionnaire was designed to assess current small animal anaesthesia and analgesia practices in English-speaking Canadian provinces, mainly in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The questionnaire was available through SurveyMonkey® and included four parts: demographic information about the veterinarians surveyed, evaluation and management of anaesthetic risk, anaesthesia procedure, monitoring and safety. Year of graduation and type of practice were evaluated as potential risk factors. Exact chi-square tests were used to study the association between risk factors and the association between risk factors and survey responses. For ordinal data, the Mantel-Haenszel test was used instead.

Results

Response rate over a period of 3 months was 12.4% (126 respondents out of 1 016 invitations). Current anaesthesia and analgesia management failed to meet international guidelines for a sizable number of participants, notably regarding patient evaluation and preparation, safety and monitoring. Nearly one third of the participants still consider analgesia as optional for routine surgeries. Referral centres tend to follow guidelines more accurately and are better equipped than general practices.

Conclusions and clinical relevance

A proportion of surveyed Canadian English-speaking general practitioners do not follow current small animal anaesthesia and analgesia guidelines, but practitioners working in referral centres are closer to meet these recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Lalonde S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478190 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCanine leishmaniosis (CanL) can be appropriately managed following international recommendations. However, few studies have assessed the preferred protocols in real-life veterinary practice and whether these are in line with the guidelines. This survey aimed to investigate the current trends in the clinical management of CanL among veterinary practitioners in Portugal, taking into consideration different scenarios of infection/disease and the awareness of and application by veterinary practitioners of the current guidelines.MethodsA questionnaire-based survey was conducted online using an electronic platform. The following topics were surveyed: (i) general characteristics of the responding veterinarian; (ii) the preferred protocols used for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of CanL, considering different theoretical scenarios of infection/disease; and (iii) the responding veterinarian's current knowledge and application of the existing guidelines on CanL. After internal validation, the survey was distributed online, for 2 months, via Portuguese social network veterinary groups. Data were collected for descriptive analysis.ResultsEighty-six replies were obtained. Analysis of the results showed that the preferred diagnostic techniques varied widely according to the theoretical scenario of infection/disease. In general daily practice, serology testing (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) was the most used tool (67.4%). The preferred matrices used for PCR test were lymph nodes (62.3%) and/or bone marrow (59.0%). Regarding treatment, for subclinical infection/stage I CanL, 51.2% of the respondents did not prescribe any medical treatment, but 98.8% proceeded with both monitoring and preventive measures. Among those who prescribed a treatment (n = 42), most chose domperidone (47.6%). For the treament of stages IIa, IIb and III CanL, allopurinol/meglumine antimoniate (MA) was chosen by 69.8, 73.3 and 51.2% of respondents, respectively, followed by allopurinol/miltefosine (20.9, 19.8 and 38.4%, respectively). In contrast, dogs with stage IV CanL were mostly treated with allopurinol/miltefosine (48.8%) rather than with allopurinol/MA (23.3%). The use of repellents was the preferred preventive strategy (98.8%). About 93.0% of responders were aware of the existence of guidelines, and most of these veterinarians consulted the guidelines of the LeishVet group and the Canine Leishmaniosis Working Group; however, 31.3% reported that they did not follow any specific recommendations.ConclusionsOf the veterinarians responding to the survey, most reported following international guidelines for the clinical management of CanL. While allopurinol/MA was the preferred therapeutic protocol for the treatment of stages II/III CanL, allopurinol/miltefosine was the first choice for the treatment of stage IV CanL, possibly due to the unpredictable effect of MA on renal function. This study contributes to a better understanding of the trends in practical approaches to the treatment of CanL in Portugal.

Project description:ObjectivesWiki systems are becoming increasingly important in university teaching. Not much is known about the opinion of lecturers of veterinary medicine regarding the active participation of students in teaching, their opinion on wiki systems and their motivation to use them in courses and to improve the quality of information. The objective of the present study was to evaluate how lecturers of veterinary medicine estimate learning management systems and the production of text or material by students in courses, if they rate wiki systems as an appropriate tool for teaching, if they would use wiki systems for their courses and if they are willing to improve the quality of information.MethodsThe data collection was carried out as an online survey using a five-point Likert scale. Lecturers of veterinary medicine in Germany, Austria and Switzerland were contacted (n=approx. 1700) out of which 139 completed (8.2%) the survey.ResultsMost lecturers use LMS and consider it to be suitable for providing course material. Half of all respondents indicated that they believe that students achieve greater learning success by developing their own learning material. In courses 23.0% of their students develop own materials. The majority of lecturers considered wiki systems as an appropriate and complementary tool for teaching (53.6%). A collection of wiki articles is seen as useful (56.6%), particularly when experts review the contents. One third of the lecturers would use wiki systems for the creation of material by students, but 82.5% have not yet used them in teaching. One third is willing to participate in the review of articles with regard to their quality.ConclusionThe results show that many lecturers are willing to use veterinary wiki systems and that they regard them useful for teaching. According to the opinion of the majority of lecturers, the creation of material by students can lead to greater learning success and wiki systems are suitable for this purpose. We are about to develop strategies to support the implementation of wiki systems into veterinary education and a peer review system supported by lecturers. In a further project the actual learning success provided by the active use of wiki-systems by students will be evaluated.

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience difficulty navigating complex care pathways. Sharing care between GPs and specialist services has been proposed to improve health outcomes in cancer survivors following hospital discharge. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups are known to have poorer outcomes following cancer treatment but little is known about their perceptions of shared care following surgery for CRC. This study aimed to explore how non-English-speaking and English-speaking patients perceive care to be coordinated amongst various health practitioners.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using data from face to face semi-structured interviews and one focus group in a culturally diverse area of Sydney with non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors. Participants were recruited in community settings and were interviewed in English, Spanish or Vietnamese. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by researchers fluent in those languages. Data were coded and analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty-two CRC survivors participated in the study. Participants from non-English-speaking and English-speaking groups described similar barriers to care, but non-English-speaking participants described additional communication difficulties and perceived discrimination. Non-English-speaking participants relied on family members and bilingual GPs for assistance with communication and care coordination. Factors that influenced the care pathways used by participants and how care was shared between the specialist and GP included patient and practitioner preference, accessibility, complexity of care needs, and requirements for assistance with understanding information and navigating the health system, that were particularly difficult for non-English-speaking CRC survivors.ConclusionsBoth non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors described a blend of specialist-led or GP-led care depending on the complexity of care required, informational needs, and how engaged and accessible they perceived the specialist or GP to be. Findings from this study highlight the role of the bilingual GP in assisting CALD participants to understand information and to navigate their care pathways following CRC surgery.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Canine leishmaniosis (CanL) is a parasitic zoonotic disease, endemic in the Mediterranean basin including Spain. While knowledge about CanL, its management, treatment, prevention and control mounts, it remains unclear whether all clinical veterinarians follow the same international recommendations, such as those of the LeishVet group. This study was thus designed to assess recent trends in the clinical management of CanL in veterinary clinics across Spain through a questionnaire-based survey. Results were compared with those of a prior national multicenter questionnaire administered by our research team in 2005. METHODS:A questionnaire consisting of 28 questions about CanL was developed using Google Forms and distributed by email to 1428 veterinary clinics in Spain. Questions were designed to obtain data on common clinical signs, techniques and complementary exams used to diagnose the disease, and on its monitoring, treatment and control measures. Data were collected in a database for statistical analysis. RESULTS:Completed questionnaires were returned by 295 clinics. Compared to the situation in 2005, responses indicate that clinical signs of CanL have not changed significantly, cutaneous lesions being still the most prevalent sign observed by practitioners. Quantitative serological techniques are considered an adequate approach to diagnosis, provided their results are supported by the findings of a thorough physical exam, as well as complementary tests (complete blood count, biochemical profile, plasma protein electrophoretogram and complete urinalysis). Treatment protocols and check-ups follow international recommendations. Finally, a multimodal approach is being endorsed to adequately control CanL including preventive measures such as annual serological check-ups and the combination of repellents and vaccines. Additionally, owners are being better informed about CanL by veterinarians, which translates to the improved control of this zoonosis. CONCLUSIONS:The clinical management of CanL has recently undergone significant changes owing to improvements in clinical knowledge of the disease, more unified international criteria, improved diagnostic techniques and their adequate interpretation, as well as a greater awareness of the disease transmitted to owners.

Project description:The 2015 NICE guidelines for suspected cancer recommend that English General Practitioners have direct access to diagnostic tests to investigate symptoms of cancer that do not meet the criteria for urgent referral. We aimed to identify the proportion of GPs in England with direct access to these tests.We recruited 533 English GPs through a national clinical research network to complete an online survey about direct access to laboratory, radiology, and endoscopy tests in the three months leading up to the release of the 2015 NICE guidance. If they had direct access to a diagnostic test, GPs were asked about the time necessary to arrange a test and receive a report. Results are reported by NHS sub-region and, adjusting for sampling, for England as a whole.Almost all GPs reported direct access to x-ray and laboratory investigations except faecal occult blood testing (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) and urine protein electrophoresis (89%, 95% CI 84-92%). Fewer GPs had direct access to CT scans (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) or endoscopy (colonoscopy 32%, 95% CI 28-37%; gastroscopy 72%, 95% CI 67-77%). There was significant variation in direct access between NHS regions for the majority of imaging tests-for example, from 20 to 85% to MRI. Apart from x-ray, very few GPs (1-22%) could access radiology and endoscopy within the timescales recommended by NICE. The modal request to test time was 2-4 weeks for routine radiology and 4-6 weeks for routine endoscopy with results taking another 1-2 weeks.At the time that the 2015 NICE guideline was released, local investment was required to not only provide direct access but also reduce the interval between request and test and speed up reporting. Further research using our data as a benchmark is now required to identify whether local improvements in direct access have been achieved in response to the NICE targets. If alternative approaches to test access are to be proposed they must be piloted comprehensively and underpinned by robust effectiveness data.