Download
1 / 122

Anatomy of a Land Grant Institution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 188 Views
  • Updated On :

Anatomy of a Land Grant Institution. Dorcas P. O’Rourke, D.V.M., M.S. Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care The University of Tennessee AAALAC Council on Accreditation. What is a land grant institution?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Anatomy of a Land Grant Institution' - lewis


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Anatomy of a land grant institution l.jpg

Anatomy of aLand Grant Institution

Dorcas P. O’Rourke, D.V.M., M.S.

Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care

The University of Tennessee

AAALAC Council on Accreditation


What is a land grant institution l.jpg
What is a land grant institution?

  • Colleges and universities designated by Congress and state legislatures to receive federal support as defined in the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890


Rationale for lgi development l.jpg
Rationale for LGI Development

  • Need for broad-based educational systems

  • LGIs to offer curricula in military tactics, agriculture, and mechanic arts

  • Provide practical education to industrial classes


First morrill act of 1862 l.jpg
First Morrill Act of 1862

  • Allowed public lands to be donated to states

  • Proceeds from sale of these public lands supported the LGIs


Hatch act of 1887 l.jpg
Hatch Act of 1887

  • Mandated creation of Agricultural Experiment Stations

  • Stations affiliated with LGIs

  • Scientific research to be conducted at experiment stations

  • Federal and state funds appropriated annually to support research


Smith lever act of 1914 l.jpg
Smith-Lever Act of 1914

  • Provided federal monies for support of cooperative extension efforts

  • Educational programs established to disseminate information obtained in experiment station research to local communities


Other landmark decisions l.jpg
Other Landmark Decisions

  • Six million dollar endowment to the University of Hawai’i in 1960 in lieu of federal land endowment

  • University of Guam, College of the Virgin Islands, Community Colleges of American Samoa and Micronesia, and Northern Marianas College achieved land grant status in 1972


Other landmark decisions cont l.jpg
Other Landmark Decisions (cont.)

  • Twenty-nine Native American colleges received land grant status and a 23 million dollar endowment in 1994


Lgis today l.jpg
LGIs Today

  • All states and territories have at least one LGI

  • Total of 105 LGIs which receive over $550 million annually in federal funding


Characteristics of traditional lgis l.jpg
Characteristics of Traditional LGIs

  • Complex, decentralized animal care programs

  • Varied, multiple funding sources, including Hatch and LGI appropriations

  • Unique programs, such as veterinary medicine and agricultural sciences

  • Separate programs with overlapping research focus

  • Multiple lines of authority


Lgis and aaalac accreditation l.jpg
LGIs and AAALAC Accreditation

  • Single vs. multiple accredited units

  • ILAR Guide for most species

  • Ag Guide and principles of the first three chapters of the ILAR Guide applicable to food and fiber animals


The ohio state university l.jpg
The Ohio State University

  • Single office for animal management and veterinary care for the accredited program

  • Single IACUC (sub-IACUC for food and fiber animals)

  • Single AAALAC accreditation (excluding food and fiber animals)


University of wisconsin l.jpg
University of Wisconsin

  • Multiple animal care programs with multiple veterinarians, with compliance oversight in the institutional veterinarian’s office

  • Multiple IACUCs

  • Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag component not accredited)


University of missouri l.jpg
University of Missouri

  • Multiple animal care programs, with many facility managers hired by and reporting to the institutional veterinarian’s office, and all veterinarians reporting to the institutional veterinarian (including ag)

  • Single IACUC

  • Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag component not accredited; soon to apply for single accreditation, including ag)


University of illinois l.jpg
University of Illinois

  • Decentralized management of animal facilities and centralized oversight of all areas (including ag) through the institutional veterinarian’s office and IACUC

  • Centralized veterinary care for lab animals; decentralized veterinary care (with institutional oversight) for food and fiber animals.

  • Single IACUC

  • Single AAALAC accreditation, including ag food and fiber animals


Clemson university l.jpg
Clemson University

  • All veterinary care and oversight provided by institutional veterinarian’s office

  • Single IACUC

  • Single AAALAC accreditation


Key to successful aaalac accreditation in lgis l.jpg
Key to Successful AAALAC Accreditation in LGIs

  • Ensure adequate veterinary care and compliance oversight

  • Ensure clear lines of authority

  • Ensure strong institutional commitment to the animal care and use program


Accreditation for agricultural programs analysis of the arguments for and against l.jpg

Accreditation for Agricultural Programs: Analysis of the Arguments For and Against

Neal R. Merchen, Ph.D.

Professor and Interim Head

Department of Animal Sciences

University of Illinois


General challenges agricultural animal programs l.jpg
General Challenges – Arguments For and AgainstAgricultural Animal Programs

  • Complex lines of accountability/authority

  • Teaching activities - impact on H-H programs and biosecurity

  • Decentralized management

    • Faculty involved in management/oversight

    • “Cultural resistance” to centralized oversight

  • Disconnect between clinical veterinary service and oversight by IV


Why be accredited arguments for l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments FOR

  • AAALAC website

  • Points from experience at U. of Illinois


Why be accredited arguments for26 l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments FOR

  • Symbol of quality

    • Value in external validation of quality

  • Demonstrates accountability

    • Validates commitment to humane and ethical animal care and use


Why be accredited arguments for27 l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments FOR

  • (?) Enhances quality of agricultural research

  • (?) Recruiting tool for faculty, students, researchers

    • No discernable impact

  • (?) Enhances funding opportunities.

    • Limited impact for funding of ag production research


Why be accredited arguments for28 l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments FOR

  • Exercise in self-assessment

    • Engage all participants

    • Re-evaluation of practices

  • Improves sensitivity to concerns of public

  • Encourages standardization of practices

  • Improves record-keeping


Why be accredited arguments against l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments AGAINST

  • Costs

    • Funding, human resources

    • Transaction costs for preparation

    • Repair, renovation of facilities

    • Ongoing costs


University of illinois college of aces agricultural animal program infrastructure l.jpg
University of Illinois – Arguments For and AgainstCollege of ACES Agricultural Animal Program Infrastructure

  • Daily census 12 to 14,000 animals

  • 10 livestock units at 3 locations

  • 50 academic staff and animal caretakers

  • 150 animal buildings

  • Extensive documentation


Why be accredited arguments against31 l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments AGAINST

  • Difficulties in collaboration among principals

    • IACUC

    • Institutional veterinarian

    • Clinical veterinarians

    • Faculty

    • Animal care staff

      “Complex lines of accountability and authority”

      - Build consensus opinions/agendas


Why be accredited arguments against32 l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments AGAINST

  • Poor relationship between ag animal care program to local oversight of animal care program

    • Biggest reason for disinterest by ag animal units

    • Lack of communication/mutual understanding


Why be accredited arguments against cont l.jpg
Why Be Accredited? Arguments For and AgainstArguments AGAINST (cont.)

  • Poor relationship between ag animal care program to local oversight of animal care program

    • Imbalance in institutional authority among IACUC, IV, IO

    • Poor representation of ag animal programs on IACUC

    • AAALAC used as a “club”


Greatest opportunities aaalac accreditation of ag animal programs l.jpg
Greatest Opportunities – Arguments For and AgainstAAALAC Accreditation of Ag Animal Programs

  • Establishes independent seal of quality assurance

  • Demonstrates accountability

  • Self-assessment may improve practices

  • Professionalism/pride/esprit de corps of animal caretakers


Greatest challenges institutions aaalac l.jpg
Greatest Challenges - Arguments For and Against Institutions/AAALAC

  • Resources

  • Develop effective working groups among IV, IACUC, IO, ag animal programs

  • Improve communication between AAALAC and ag animal professionals

  • Clarify role of AAALAC to ag animal professionals


Trends in deficiencies l.jpg

Trends in Deficiencies Arguments For and Against

Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M.

Associate Director, AAALAC International


Standards used l.jpg
Standards Used Arguments For and Against


Farm animal position statement l.jpg
Farm Animal Position Statement Arguments For and Against


Aaalac international land grant institutions l.jpg

AAALAC International Arguments For and Against& Land Grant Institutions

Approximately 28% are accredited


Of those lgis state universities that are accredited l.jpg

Of those LGIs/State Universities that are accredited…. Arguments For and Against

38% have Campus-wide accreditation


The animal care and use program l.jpg
The Animal Care and Use Program Arguments For and Against


Institutional policies l.jpg
Institutional Policies Arguments For and Against

  • OHSP

  • IACUC

  • Adequate Veterinary Care

  • Administrative Organization


Animal management l.jpg
Animal Management Arguments For and Against

  • Animal Space Provisions

  • Support Service

  • Sanitation Practices

  • Caging/Housing System

  • Aseptic surgery

  • Husbandry Practices

  • Identification/Record Keeping

  • Vermin Control


Veterinary care l.jpg
Veterinary Care Arguments For and Against

  • Preventive Medicine

  • Disease Diagnosis, Control, Treatment

  • Surgical & Postsurgical Care

  • Anesthesia/Analgesia

  • Euthanasia


Physical plant l.jpg
Physical Plant Arguments For and Against

  • HVAC

  • Survival Surgery Support

  • Facility Maintenance

  • Personnel Safety Concerns

  • General Storage Conditions

  • Sanitation of Facilities


Physical plant cont l.jpg
Physical Plant Arguments For and Against(cont.)

  • Illumination

  • Emergency Power

  • Physical Plant Design

  • Security


Trend data l.jpg
Trend Data Arguments For and Against

  • Data extracted from January 1993 through January 2002 meetings of the Council on Accreditation, equating to the three most recent site visits for each institution (or less if they were new to the AAALAC program)


Mandatory deficiencies identified l.jpg
Mandatory Deficiencies Identified Arguments For and Against

  • Range of zero to nine mandatory items in a letter

  • 59% of letters reviewed had no mandatory items for correction, i.e., institution granted Full Accreditation after site visit

  • No significant correlation between number of mandatory items identified and whether program was Campus-wide or University-limited

  • No correlation between number of mandatory items and whether institution had a medical school or health sciencecenter


Suggestions for improvement identified l.jpg
Suggestions for Arguments For and AgainstImprovement Identified

  • Range of zero to 20 SFIs in a letter

  • 24% of letters reviewed had no SFIs

  • No significant correlation between number of SFIs identified and whether program was Campus-wide or University-limited

  • No correlation between number of SFIs and whether institution had a medical school or health sciencecenter


Mandatory item vs suggestion for improvement l.jpg
Mandatory Item vs. Arguments For and AgainstSuggestion For Improvement

  • Mandatory Item = a deficiency which must be corrected for Full Accreditation to be awarded or continued

  • Suggestion for Improvement (SFI) = items which the Council feels are desirable to upgrade an already acceptable or even commendable program


Land grant institution program deficiencies l.jpg
Land Grant Institution Arguments For and AgainstProgram Deficiencies


Comparison of lgis with all accredited institutions l.jpg
Comparison Of LGIs Arguments For and Againstwith all Accredited Institutions


Land grant institution suggestions for improvement l.jpg
Land Grant Institution Arguments For and AgainstSuggestions for Improvement


Common deficiencies l.jpg
Common Deficiencies Arguments For and Against


Comparison of lgis with all accredited institutions56 l.jpg
Comparison Of LGIs Arguments For and Againstwith all Accredited Institutions


Identified concerns l.jpg
Identified Concerns Arguments For and Against


Accreditation challenges iacuc issues l.jpg

Accreditation Challenges Arguments For and AgainstIACUC Issues

Christine M. Parks, D.V.M., Ph.D.Director, RARCUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonAAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti


Institutional policies59 l.jpg
Institutional Policies Arguments For and Against

  • Lack of institutional commitment

  • Institutional official not empowered to commit necessary resources

  • Need to establish clear lines of authority and oversight of the program

  • Inconsistencies in procedures and practices between centralized and satellite areas


Iacuc participation l.jpg
IACUC Participation Arguments For and Against

  • Inadequate oversight of animals in satellite or study areas

  • Inadequate program oversight

  • Lack of participation of nonaffiliated member

  • Organizational structure presented potential conflict of interest


Policies training and documentation l.jpg
Policies, Training and Documentation Arguments For and Against

  • Inadequate personnel training and documentation

  • No policies for rodent surgery, analgesia/anesthesia, environmental enrichment, dog exercise

  • No or inadequate IACUC training


Iacuc semiannual review l.jpg
IACUC Semiannual Review Arguments For and Against

  • Review did not include evaluation and inspection of all housing and laboratory areas

  • Review did not include evaluation of programmatic issues

  • No plan and schedule for correcting deficiencies


Iacuc semiannual review63 l.jpg
IACUC Semiannual Review Arguments For and Against

  • Inadequate oversight of farm units

  • Inadequate evaluation of remote sites, and other sites such as slaughter house or feed mill


Protocol review issues l.jpg
Protocol Review Issues Arguments For and Against

  • Inadequate intensity of protocol review including: pain and distress; exceptions from the Guide; euthanasia techniques; use of analgesia; justification of animal numbers; endpoints

  • Need to ensure all animals covered by a protocol (holding, breeding, sentinels)


Protocol review issues cont l.jpg
Protocol Review Issues Arguments For and Against(cont.)

  • Process errors, such as: protocol approval outside committee procedures; chair acting outside of authority; definition of major changes; documentation lapses

  • Inadequate annual review

  • Safety issues not addressed

  • Failure to match numbers of animals approved with number used


Occupational health and safety at land grant institutions an aaalac perspective l.jpg

Occupational Health and Safety Arguments For and Againstat Land Grant Institutions:An AAALAC Perspective

Wendy J. Underwood, D.V.M., M.S.Attending VeterinarianEli Lilly and Company

AAALAC Council on Accreditation


What mandates the creation of an ohs program l.jpg
What mandates the creation Arguments For and Againstof an OHS program?

  • PHS Policy: The ILAR Guide

  • The AG Guide

  • OHSA: CFR 29

  • ILAR: “Occupation Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Research Animals”.


What do the guides say l.jpg
What do the ‘ Arguments For and AgainstGuides’ say?

  • The ILAR Guide: “An occupational health and safety program must be part of an overall animal care and use program

  • The Ag Guide: “An occupational health and safety program must be established for individuals who work with agricultural animals.”


What are the required components of an ohsp l.jpg
What are the required Arguments For and Againstcomponents of an OHSP?

  • Risk Assessment and hazard identification

  • Medical surveillance

  • Training

  • Personnel hygiene

  • PPE

  • Facilities

  • Procedures and monitoring


What are the hallmarks of a good ohsp l.jpg
What are the ‘hallmarks’ Arguments For and Againstof a good OHSP?

  • Strong administrative support

  • Sound implementation strategies

  • Effective coordination of components


Ohs findings at land grant institutions l.jpg
OHS Findings at Arguments For and AgainstLand Grant Institutions


Programmatic issues 20 l.jpg

Inadequate: Arguments For and Against

Oversight

Implementation

Notification

Not offered to all

Intensity

Involvement by health specialists

Need to ensure that the program conforms to the guide.

Program does not reflect actual practices.

Not applied to field study areas.

Programmatic Issues 20%


Risk assessment and hazard identification 35 l.jpg

Lack of Arguments For and Against

risk assessment

first aid kits

identification of hazardous materials

proper signage

Potential health risks not identified (Q fever)

Lack of

confined space policy

lone operator policy

lock Out/Tag Out

documentation of all personnel involved in program

Allergen exposure

Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification 35%


Personnel training 6 l.jpg
Personnel Training 6% Arguments For and Against

  • Inadequate training

  • Need to provide training on

    • Zoonoses

    • Allergens

    • Sharps disposal

    • Heavy equipment

    • Ergonomics


Experimentation involving hazards 20 l.jpg

Lack of or inappropriate biohazard signs Arguments For and Against

Exhaust air not filtered

Non filtered vacuums

Lack of respirator use

Inappropriate storage of volatile gases

No mechanism to ensure people following policy

Protocols not reviewed by safety committee

Inappropriate handling of medicated feeds

Experimentation involving hazards 20%


Personnel hygiene 16 l.jpg
Personnel Hygiene 16% Arguments For and Against

  • Lack of water, sinks, towels, etc. to wash

  • Uncertified safety showers, eye stations, or chemical hoods

  • Washer and dryer for cleaning work clothing installed in soiled area

  • No provision for cleaning work clothes


Slide77 l.jpg

Not available Arguments For and Against

Not offered

Not used

Inappropriate

Lack of

hearing protection

respiratory protection

Lack of monitoring mechanism for PPE use

Policy not enforced

Lack of policy

PPE


Medical surveillance 3 l.jpg
Medical Surveillance 3% Arguments For and Against

  • Tetanus immunization not offered

  • No program to evaluate Q fever


Broad ohsp issues at land grant institutions l.jpg
Broad OHSP Issues Arguments For and Againstat Land Grant Institutions

  • Lack of an OHS program for Ag facilities

  • Lack of opportunity for inclusion

  • Absence of safety professionals

    • Industrial Hygienists

    • Biosafety Officers

    • Safety Officers


More common ohsp issues at land grant institutions l.jpg

PPE: No boots, safety glasses or work clothes in barn areas Arguments For and Against

Zoonoses: ringworm, crypto, erysipelas, flue

No tetanus immunization

Storage issues: gas, diesel, formalin, kerosene

Poor or no biohazard signage

Confined Space Entry

Lone Operator

Heavy equipment training

First aid kits

Physical injury and ergonomics

More Common OHSP Issues at Land Grant Institutions


Ohs findings mandatory or suggestions l.jpg
OHS Findings: Arguments For and AgainstMandatory or Suggestions?


Accreditation challenges animal management l.jpg

Accreditation Challenges Arguments For and AgainstAnimal Management

Joy A. Mench, Ph.D.

Professor of Animal ScienceUniversity of California – Davis

AAALAC Council on Accreditation


The guide l.jpg
The Guide Arguments For and Against

A good management program provides the environment, housing and care that permit animals to grow, mature, reproduce and maintain good health; provides for their well-being; and minimizes variations that can affect research results”


The guide84 l.jpg
The Guide Arguments For and Against

  • “Many factors should be considered in planning for adequate and appropriate physical and social environment, housing, space and management”

    • Species, strain, breed and individual characteristics of animal; ability of animals to form social groups; availability and suitability of enrichments; design and construction of housing; project goals and experimental design

  • Goal of housing to maximize species-typical behavior and minimize stress-induced ones


Husbandry management l.jpg
Husbandry & Management Arguments For and Against

  • Behavioral Management

  • Husbandry

  • Population management

  • IACUC oversight of husbandry

    • Role of IACUC in husbandry program


Husbandry management86 l.jpg
Husbandry & Management Arguments For and Against

  • Routine husbandry and management issues do not generally appear to pose significant challenges at Land-Grant Institutions

    • Relatively rare as mandatory issues, but there are several common areas of suggested improvements


Behavioral management l.jpg
Behavioral Management Arguments For and Against

  • Provide opportunity for animal to express species-typical postures, behaviors, and activity

  • Lack of social enrichment for social species

    • Pair or group-housing; visual, olfactory, auditory contact


Feed and water l.jpg
Feed and Water Arguments For and Against

  • Food quality

    • Feed grade

    • Feed storage times

    • Feed storage conditions (vermin/contamination)

    • Feed provision conditions (floor feeding)

  • Water

    • Automatic water lines


Sanitation l.jpg
Sanitation Arguments For and Against

  • Cage sanitation schedules not in conformance with Guide

  • No (or too infrequent) mechanism for ensuring effectiveness of sanitation (e.g., microbiological monitoring, other appropriate methods)

  • Cluttered and dirty rooms

  • Rusted equipment


Other husbandry issues l.jpg
Other Husbandry Issues Arguments For and Against

  • Lack of effective vermin control program

    • A particular problem at farm locations, with bulk feed storage areas, open feed troughs

  • No formal (or inadequate) Disaster Plan—most cited deficiency!

    • Appropriate emergency contacts

    • Posting of procedures

    • Takes account of people and animals

    • “Official responder” (vet or colony manager)


Iacuc husbandry issues l.jpg
IACUC Husbandry Issues Arguments For and Against

  • Special Agricultural Practices

    • Castration, dehorning, molting, etc

    • If likely to cause pain or distress must be reviewed and approved by the IACUC, as per the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals


Accreditation challenges veterinary care issues l.jpg

Accreditation Challenges Arguments For and AgainstVeterinary Care Issues

Joseph D. Thulin, D.V.M., M.S.

Institutional Veterinarian and Director

Division of Animal Resources

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

AAALAC Council on Accreditation


Categorizing veterinary concerns l.jpg
Categorizing Veterinary Concerns Arguments For and Against

  • Program Organization

    • Corresponds to Chapter 1 of NRC Guide

    • Issues of institutional arrangements for veterinary care, responsibilities and authority of attending/institutional veterinarian, etc.

  • Program Design and Implementation

    • Corresponds to Chapter 3 of NRC Guide

    • Preventive medicine (quarantine, surveillance, treatment, control, etc.), surgery, pain management, euthanasia



Summary of mandatory items l.jpg
Summary of Mandatory Items Arguments For and Against


Summary of suggestions for improvement l.jpg
Summary of Suggestions Arguments For and Againstfor Improvement


Challenges in organization of veterinary care l.jpg

Challenges in Organization Arguments For and Againstof Veterinary Care


Examples of deficiencies identified by council l.jpg
Examples of Deficiencies Arguments For and AgainstIdentified by Council

  • Inadequate oversight to ensure adequate veterinary care.

  • Institution needs to establish suitable arrangements for provision of vet care consistent with Guide, Ag Guide and institutional policy.

  • Inadequate involvement of Attending Veterinarian in ag animal program.


Examples of deficiencies identified by council cont l.jpg
Examples of Deficiencies Arguments For and AgainstIdentified by Council(cont.)

  • Institution needs to implement an ag animal health program that delineates the lines of authority and responsibilities of veterinary care.

  • No formal communication between PI-veterinarians and Attending Veterinarian.

  • PI-veterinarian not providing adequate vet care.

  • Dairy manager initiating treatment w/o input from veterinarian.


Who is the attending veterinarian l.jpg
Who is the Attending Veterinarian? Arguments For and Against

  • The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated authority for activities involving animals at [the registered] facility…” (Animal Welfare Regs)

  • The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated program authority and responsibility for activities involving animals at the institution…” (PHS Policy)

  • The veterinarian who is responsible for the program of adequate veterinary care. (AWR, NRC Guide, Ag Guide)


Attending veterinarian cont l.jpg
Attending Veterinarian Arguments For and Against(cont.)

  • The Attending (Institutional) Veterinarian ideally should report to the Institutional Official.

  • An institution might have more than one AV; however, the lines of accountability and responsibilities among the veterinarians need to be clearly delineated.

  • PI-veterinarians pose special considerations such as conflict of interest and relationship to the AV.



Examples of deficiencies identified by council103 l.jpg
Examples of Deficiencies Care ProgramIdentified by Council

  • Inadequate notification of the veterinary staff about ill animals. (Most frequent deficiency.)

  • Daily observation of animals not conducted.

  • Inadequate treatment of health problems (e.g., feather picking in poultry).


Examples of deficiencies identified by council cont104 l.jpg
Examples of Deficiencies Care ProgramIdentified by Council(cont.)

  • Inadequate routine health care (e.g., dental work, physical exams, hoof trimming, etc.).

  • Medical records at farm units did not conform with Ag Guide.

  • Inadequate documentation of health problems and treatments.

  • Indiscriminate use of antibiotics.


Examples of deficiencies identified by council cont105 l.jpg
Examples of Deficiencies Care ProgramIdentified by Council(cont.)

  • 15% death rate of cows in a barn due to mastitis which had not been aggressively investigated.

  • Records of veterinary care provided by PI-veterinarians inadequate.

  • Malnourished/moribund piglet observed; had intended to leave with sow for next day or two.


Examples of deficiencies identified by council cont106 l.jpg
Examples of Deficiencies Care ProgramIdentified by Council(cont.)

  • Diagnostics services not used to ensure adequate veterinary care.

  • Inadequate aseptic techniques (sterilized instruments, hair removal, disinfection of site, sterile gloves, survival surgeries).

  • Inadequate documentation of surgical and postoperative care.


Adequate veterinary care l.jpg
Adequate Veterinary Care Care Program

  • NRC Guide requires effective programs for:

    • Preventive medicine.

    • Surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and control of disease, including zoonosis control.

    • Management of protocol-associated disease, disability, or other sequelae.

    • Anesthesia and analgesia.

    • Surgery and postsurgical care.

    • Assessment of animal well-being.

    • Euthanasia.


Adequate veterinary care cont l.jpg
Adequate Veterinary Care Care Program(cont.)

  • Under AWR also includes availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services.

  • Ag Guide requires a written and implemented program for disease prevention (including biosecurity), surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and end point resolution, and has stringent requirements for health and production record keeping.


Challenges in implementation of veterinary care l.jpg
Challenges in Implementation Care Programof Veterinary Care

  • Poorly organized programs typically have problems with implementation.

  • All personnel involved in veterinary care must be knowledgeable of institutional responsibilities.

  • Be cognizant of the relationships among the various standards/regulations, i.e., NRC Guide, Ag Guide, AWR, PHS Policy.


The physical plant in an aaalac international accredited agricultural facility l.jpg

The Physical Plant in an Care ProgramAAALAC International Accredited Agricultural Facility

John J. McGlone, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Animal Science

Texas Tech University

AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti


Outline l.jpg
Outline Care Program

  • Physical Plant Considerations (Sections of the Guide):

    • The physical environment

    • Physical Plant considerations

  • Problem areas

  • Opportunities


The physical environment l.jpg
The Physical Environment Care Program

  • Microenvironment & Macroenvironment

  • Housing

    • Primary enclosures

    • Sheltered or outdoor housing

    • Naturalistic environment

  • Space

  • Temperature & Humidity

  • Ventilation

  • Illumination

  • Noise


Physical plant considerations l.jpg
Physical Plant Considerations Care Program

  • In general, the building, room and pens or cages

  • The Physical Environment

    • p. 22-36 of the Guide

  • The Physical Plant

    • Ch 4, pp 71-80 of the Guide


Physical plant ch 4 l.jpg
Physical Plant (Ch 4) Care Program

  • Functional areas

  • Construction guidelines

    • Corridors

    • Animal room doors

    • Exterior windows

    • Floors, drainage, walls, ceilings

    • HVAC

    • Power and lighting, storage areas, noise control, facilities for sanitizing materials

  • Facilities for aseptic surgery


Physical plant problem areas l.jpg
Physical Plant Problem Areas Care Program

  • Physical plant issues represented

    • 10% of all mandatory items (32/320)

    • 15% of all suggestions for improvements (112/759)


Physical plant problem areas116 l.jpg
Physical Plant Problem Areas Care Program

  • All other issues were 3 or less and they were scattered over nearly every category and sub-category


Physical plant problem areas the big 4 issues l.jpg
Physical Plant Problem Areas – The big 4 Issues Care Program

  • Flooring should be refurbished, resealed, or replaced to provide smooth, impervious sanitizable surfaces (n=17)

  • Unsealed animal room surfaces (n=4)

  • Fencing in need of repair (n=4)

  • Temperatures not monitored/recorded regularly (n=4)


Physical plant problem areas summary problem areas l.jpg
Physical Plant Problem Areas – Summary Problem Areas Care Program

  • Flooring

  • Walls

  • Fencing

  • Temperature & humidity monitoring


Physical plant problem areas what is not a major concern l.jpg
Physical Plant Problem Areas – What is Care Programnot a major concern

  • A farm setting

  • Outdated facilities

  • Natural ventilation

  • Non-controlled photoperiod (as in open barns)

  • Lack of temperature control


Physical plant problem areas opportunities l.jpg
Physical Plant Problem Areas – Opportunities Care Program

  • Agricultural facilities can be accredited for what they are

    • A farm setting, as in a modern, well-managed farm

    • A hybrid between a farm and a laboratory

    • A biomedical facility that uses farm animals



For more information aaalac international booth 607 l.jpg

For more information: Care ProgramAAALAC InternationalBooth # 607

[email protected]

[email protected]

www.aaalac.org


ad