Search

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, the veterinary disciplinary system is governmentally executed and was originally designed to provide an educational effect on veterinarians as part of maintaining quality standards.METHODS: Over 900 veterinarians were questioned (20% of the total number of veterinarians working in veterinary medicine in the Netherlands). It was ascertained whether or not they were aware of the disciplinary system, if it affected their way of working and what impact it had on their way of working after having faced a disciplinary case. Respondents were given the opportunity to express their opinions about the system and possible improvements.RESULTS: The risk of complaints was found to be significantly greater when a veterinarian owned a practice compared to veterinarians who were employees. Veterinarians with their own practice were generally older (male) veterinarians. Whether this was a direct effect or just the effect of having a longer career could not be answered. Multiple disciplinary procedures appeared to have no influence. In 13%, veterinarians indicated that the disciplinary system had led to a more defensive way of practicing medicine to avoid complaints.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Most veterinarians supported a disciplinary system as a tool for maintaining and improving the integrity and reputation of the profession as a whole. Recommendations to improve were (1) shortening the length of the procedure, (2) screening for validity, (3) using online systems for communication with the disciplinary council, (4) the option of mediation before getting involved in a full procedure and (5) instituting a complaint fee.

In most countries, a veterinary disciplinary system is in force to ensure the quality of the veterinary profession and to offer an objective platform for complaints. We present an analysis of 15 years of veterinary disciplinary verdicts (2001-2016) to compare facts and figures and identify which factors are of major influence on the outcome of the verdicts. Rulings were collected from both paper files and the digital database of the veterinary disciplinary council (VDC), categorized, and used to create a database that enabled a statistical analysis. The results showed that complaints pertaining to companion animals are filed predominantly by owners, whereas complaints about livestock are mostly filed by the governmental civil servant (CS). CS complaints mostly address compliance issues. For the complaints made by owners (client complaints, CCs), reporting, communication, and veterinary mistakes appeared to be of statistical significance. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of the complaints on veterinarians in general and how we can improve the veterinary disciplinary system.

Animals, including humans, frequently make decisions involving risk or uncertainty. Different strategies in these decisions can be advantageous depending the circumstances. Short sleep duration seems to be associated with more risky decisions in humans. Animal models for risk-based decision making can increase mechanistic understanding, but very little data is available concerning the effects of sleep. We combined primary- and meta-research to explore the relationship between sleep and risk-based decision making in animals. Our first objective was to create an overview of the available animal models for risky decision making. We performed a systematic scoping review. Our searches in Pubmed and Psychinfo retrieved 712 references, of which 235 were included. Animal models for risk-based decision making have been described for rodents, non-human primates, birds, pigs and honey-bees. We discuss task designs and model validity. Our second objective was to apply this knowledge and perform a pilot study on the effect of sleep deprivation. We trained and tested male Wistar rats on a probability discounting task; a "safe" lever always resulted in 1 reward, a "risky" lever resulted in 4 or no rewards. Rats adapted their preferences to variations in reward probabilities (p < 0.001), but 12 h of sleep deprivation during the light phase did not clearly alter risk preference (p = 0.21).

BACKGROUND: Current policies regulating the use of animals for scientific purposes are based on balancing between potential gain of knowledge and suffering of animals used in experimentation. The balancing process is complicated, on the one hand by plurality of views on our duties towards animals, and on the other hand by more recent discussions on uncertainty in the probability of reaching the final aim of the research and problems of translational failure.METHODS: The study combines ethical analysis based on a literature review with neuropsychiatry-related preclinical research as a case study.RESULTS: Based on the analysis and the case study we show that neuropsychiatry-related preclinical research is an especially interesting case from an ethical perspective. The 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) are used to minimize the negative consequences for the animals used in research. However, neuropsychiatric research is characterized by specific challenges in assessing the probability of success of reaching the final aim, due to our limited mechanistic knowledge of human neuropsychiatric illness. Consequently, the translational value of the currently used animal models may be difficult to prove, which undermines the validity of these models and complicated the ethical assessment.CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a combined approach that deals with both science and the ethical dimensions is necessary to address the problems of validity and translation in neuropsychiatry-related preclinical research. We suggest this approach to comprise first, improved experimental methods, e.g. by using systematic reviews, second, a more patients-based approach that leads to models that reflect interindividual variation better, and third, more interdisciplinary cooperation.