Search

Racehorse welfare is gaining increasing public attention, however scientific evidence in this area is lacking. In order to develop a better understanding of racehorse welfare, it must be measured and monitored. This is the first study to assess racehorse welfare using scientific objective methods across a training season. The aim of this study was threefold, firstly to investigate welfare measures which could be used in the first welfare assessment protocol for racehorses. Secondly, to understand the effect that a racing and training season had on individual racehorses and thirdly to identify risk factors for both good and poor welfare. Thirteen racehorse training yards were visited at the beginning and the peak of the racing season in England. Behavioral observations along with individual environmental and animal-based welfare measures were carried out on 353 horses in 13 training yards selected for variability. In our sample the horses were generally in good physical health: 94% of horses recorded as an ideal body condition score, no horses had signs of hoof neglect and 77.7% had no nasal discharge. The overall prevalence of external Mouth Corner Lesions was 12.9% and was significantly higher for Flat racing than Jump racing horses. The majority of horses (67.5%) showed positive horse human interactions. When stabled 54.1% horses had physical social contact and nasal discharge was not associated with increased physical contact. The training season significantly affected Human Reactivity Tests, Horse Grimace Scale scores and time spent resting and feeding. A total of 14.5% of horses displayed stereotypic behavior on at least two occasions. Horses with windows in their stables spent more time surveying their surroundings. Overall, in this population of racehorses, horses spent around a third of their daytime feeding (33.7%) followed by time spent standing resting (22.6%). The welfare assessment protocol used in this study is suitable for use in industry to collect welfare data on racehorses., Competing Interests: 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., (Copyright © 2023 Annan, Trigg, Hockenhull, Allen, Butler, Valenchon and Mullan.)

Clinical ethics support services (CESS) are employed in healthcare to improve patient care and help team members develop skills to recognize and navigate ethically challenging situations (ECS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of ethics rounds, one form of CESS, on veterinary team members. An anonymous, online mixed-methods survey incorporating a 15-item instrument designed to assess the outcomes of moral case deliberation originally developed for human healthcare workers (the Euro-MCD 2.0), was developed. The survey was administered to veterinary team members prior to and following participation in a 90-min virtual ethics rounds session. A total of 23 sessions of virtual ethics rounds were held. In total, 213 individuals participated, and 89 completed both surveys (response rate 41.8%). Most respondents were female ( n = 70, 81%). Most were veterinarians ( n = 51, 59%), followed by other veterinary team members (practice manager, animal attendant) ( n = 18, 21%), veterinary nurses or animal health technicians ( n = 10, 12%) and veterinary students ( n = 8, 9%). Age ranged from 20 to 73 (median 41, IQR 32-52, n = 87). While there was no statistically significant difference between overall modified Euro-MCD 2.0 scores between T1 and T2, there were statistically significant changes in 7 out of 15 Euro-MCD 2.0 items in the domains of moral competence and moral teamwork. Reflexive thematic analysis of free-text responses identified themes including the types, impact and barriers to resolving ECS, the impacts of ethics rounds on veterinary team members and constraints preventing veterinary team members from speaking up in the face of ECS. While participants largely described the impact of ethics rounds as beneficial (for example, by facilitating clarification of thinking about ECS, allowing participants to see ECS from the perspective of others and providing a safe space for discussion), reflecting on ECS could be stressful for participants. Active participation in ethics rounds may be inhibited in the context of power imbalance, or in settings where bullying occurs. Overall, carefully facilitated ethics rounds has the potential to improve the ability of veterinary team members to identify and navigate ECS, and potentially mitigate moral distress., Competing Interests: 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., (Copyright © 2022 Quain, Mullan and Ward.)

Ethically challenging situations (ECS) are commonly encountered in veterinary settings. The number of ECS encountered by some veterinary team members may increase during a crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for experiencing an increase in the frequency of ECS in the months following the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, utilizing data from a global survey of veterinarians, veterinary nurses and animal health technicians collected from May to July 2020. In this study, descriptive analyses were performed to characterize veterinary team members who responded to the survey ( n = 540). Binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with an increase in ECS encountered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Being a veterinary nurse or animal health technician, working with companion animals, working in the USA or Canada, and being not confident or underconfident in dealing with ECS in the workplace were factors associated with an increase in ECS encountered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results suggest a need to explore the ECS encountered by veterinary team members, particularly veterinary nurses and animal health technicians working in companion animal practice, in depth. Identification of risk factors may facilitate better preparation of veterinary team members for managing ECS, and minimizing the negative impact of ECS on the well-being of those who care for animals., Competing Interests: 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., (Copyright © 2021 Quain, Mullan and Ward.)

Ethically challenging situations (ECS) are common in veterinary settings and can lead to moral stress. However, there is no published information about how a global pandemic affects the frequency and types of ECS encountered by veterinary team members. An online mixed methods survey was developed to determine the frequency, stressfulness and types of ECS experienced by veterinarians, animal health technicians and veterinary nurses since the advent of the global COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Responses from 540 veterinary team members from 22 countries were analyzed. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the median frequency of ECS encountered by respondents increased from several times per month to several times per week (Spearman Rank Correlation 0.619, P < 0.0001). The most common ECS (encountered at least several times per week) were: challenging decisions about how to proceed when clients have limited finances (64.4%), conflict between personal well-being and professional role (64.3%), conflict between the interests of clients and the interests of their animals (59.6%). These were followed by challenging decisions about what counts as an essential veterinary service (48.1%); conflict between well-being of family/household members and professional role (46.3%); and challenging decisions about whether to perform non-contact veterinary visits (46.3%). The most stressful ECS (reported to be very or maximally stressful) were: conflicts between the interests of clients and the interests of their animals (50.2%), other (42.9%), conflicts between the interests of my employer and my own interests (42.5%), challenging decisions about how to proceed when clients have limited finances (39.4%), conflict between personal well-being and professional role (38.0%), and conflict between well-being of family/household members and professional role (33.6%). Thematic analysis of free-text responses revealed biosecurity, client financial limitations, animal welfare, working conditions, and client relations as prominent themes. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study to describe the impacts of the pandemic on ECS experienced by veterinary teams globally. It identifies an increase in the frequency of ECS associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and a number of stressors unique to the pandemic. We identified a number of resources and strategies that may help veterinary team members navigate ethical challenges that may emerge in their daily work, as well as in the context of global crises., Competing Interests: 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., (Copyright © 2021 Quain, Mullan, McGreevy and Ward.)