Search

Non-human great apes are the closest living relatives of humans, showing high degree of anatomical and physiological similarities. However, their anaesthesia currently carries widely different risks, the reason of which is poorly understood. Both human and veterinary anaesthesia underwent significant development in the last decades, and scientific research supporting this also increased. To date, there hasn’t been a review of the scientific literature of non-human great ape anaesthesia. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically explore the existing peer-reviewed and “grey” literature regarding general anaesthesia of non-human great apes both in a free ranging setting and in human care. Literature searching will be conducted using the CAB Abstracts, Medline and Zoological Record databases, as well as relevant conference proceedings.

Background: UK veterinary practitioners are reported to be fearful of client complaints but their experiences have not been formally captured. Understanding how complaints impact veterinary practitioners is key to mitigating detrimental consequences.Methods: A qualitative exploration of how UK veterinary practitioners experience and respond to adverse events was conducted. Data was collected via focus groups and interviews, which were transcribed and simultaneously analysed. Coding and theme development was inductive, rather than restricted by preconceived theories. Results: Twelve focus groups and fifteen individual interviews took place. One theme identified focused on the impact of client complaints. Practitioners experienced unintentional distraction and disengagement from clinical work, as well as employing defensive strategies as a direct result of complaints. The vexatious nature of some complainants was highlighted, along with concerns about practice and regulatory complaint management, lack of appropriate support, discriminatory behaviours and the influence of ‘trial by media’. Conclusions: Client complaints present a threat to practitioner mental health and workforce sustainability, as well as having implications for patient safety. Mitigating these effects is a complex and multifaceted undertaking but fairness, transparency and timeliness of practice and regulatory complaint investigation must be prioritised, along with provision of tailored support for those facing complaints.

The freshwater and marine ornamental fish industry is a primary route of hazard introduction and emergence, including aquatic animal diseases and non-native species. Prevention measures are key to reducing the risk of hazard incursion and establishment, but there is currently little understanding of the biosecurity practices and hazard responses implemented at post-border stages of the ornamental fish supply chain. This study addresses this knowledge gap, using questionnaires to collate information on actual biosecurity behaviours and hazard responses practised by ornamental fish retailers and hobbyist communities in England. Actual behaviours varied considerably within retailers and hobbyists, suggesting that reliance on preventative practices by individuals in the post-border stages of the ornamental fish supply chain is likely to be ineffective in minimizing the risk of hazard incursion and establishment. Resources should be allocated towards improving and enforcing robust pre- and at-border control measures, such as risk-based surveillance of ornamental fish imports at border controls. In addition, these findings should be used to implement targeted awareness-raising campaigns and help create directed training on biosecurity practices for individuals involved in the post-border stages of the ornamental supply chain.

Results from scientific research can help provide optimal care. Daily decisions should lead to effective diagnostic procedures and therapeutic interventions with optimal risk:benefit ratios. It is therefore important to be able to select and evaluate scientific literature relevant to the field and/or patient. Critical evaluation aids in identification of strengths and weaknesses of a study and its relevance and validity in the clinic1; relevant information for critical evaluation is typically found in the methods and results sections.

Background: Quality improvement (QI) methods are a continuous process of iterative tests to improve the quality of a service or product. Using common language has been linked to the successful implementation of QI in human healthcare. This study aimed to assimilate and achieve consensus on veterinary-specific definitions for terms associated with quality care and QI methods in UK veterinary practice. Methods: A four-round modified eDelphi process with a panel of 50 UK veterinary practice stakeholders was used to generate consensus. The panel selected or suggested the definition they best felt ‘fitted’ each term. Consensus was reached if there was>70% agreement, and terms were eliminated if there was