UK VETERINARY SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

1. The Profiles Database & Decision Support Tool for Prioritisation of Animal Health and Welfare Issues for Government Intervention SZER Project Team Jane Gibbens, Andrew Frost, Simon Lawton, Francesca Day UK VETERINARY SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

2. HISTORY & PROGRESS 2003: Veterinary Surveillance Strategy published • 10 year implementation plan • enhance veterinary surveillance • ensure early detection of important changes in animal health (BSE, FMD inquiries) • Key goal: ensure best allocation of finite resources for surveillance • Confirmed use of an objective, peer-reviewed evidence base ‘profiles’ 2004: Animal Health and Welfare Strategy published • Use sound science and evidence for decision making • Structured and transparent framework for prioritisation • ‘Profiles’ to be part of this framework 2005 – present: Wide consultation and exploration of options • Explored and defined evidence to be used in ‘Profiles’ • Explored potential structure & built a prototype in Excel • Validation of prototype (Defra Deputy Directors) • Launched Profiles Database (Nov 2007)

3. Profiles Database and Prioritisation Project Profiles Database A collection of profiles on specific animal diseases or welfare issues. Each profile is: • drafted by experts • peer reviewed • available to all on the web (once published) and will be used to automatically provide summary reports and Q&A’s as well once cleared for publication.

4. Profiles Database and Prioritisation Project Prioritisation Project A tool to use Profiles Database information to rank different diseases or issues for the 4 reasons for Government intervention listed in the AHW Strategy: • Protecting public health, • Promoting animal welfare, • Ensuring opportunities for international trade, and • Protecting the interests of the wider society and the economy

5. Prioritisation DST • ‘Risk & Epidemiology’ score - Equivalent to EU ‘Epidemiology’ and ‘Control Measures’ chapters • Likelihood of an unaffected holding becoming affected • Overall risk in epidemiological & societal terms • (Potential) rate of spread • Extent to which the keeper or government can control • Able to be populated and run rapidly • Visual summary – ranking of issues • By risk & impact (policy areas) • Level playing field

6. Profiles Database and Prioritisation Project Benefit: can prioritise finite resources in the context of government policy and the AHW strategy

7. Example Prioritisation Score • Overview of why each disease is important • Context of AHWS reasons for intervention • Avoids assumptions • No difference in relative importance between RFI’s as each RFI (and R&E) score out of 100

8. How the DST works • Up to 10 criteria defined for each RFI • Each has a score • Each has a relative weight • Overall score = sum of contribution from each criterion Example: Wider Society criterion with weight 10 (Detailed guidance defines each category) The greater the weighting, the more likely that a change in that criterion will change the disease’s relative ranking

9. Public Health Impact AHWS: “To protect the health of the public” • Summary score describes • How bad human disease is/might be 44% • Human attributable risk or exposure + extent GB based 38% • Uncertainty 13% • Costs of human disease 5%

10. Animal Welfare • AHWS: “Protect & promote the welfare of animals • Summary score describes • Number of individual animals affected 30% • Welfare impact: Five Freedoms + Duration 53% • Welfare impact of control measures 11% • Extent of excess suffering (disease/controls) 6%

11. Wider Society AHWS: Protect interests of wider economy, environment & society • Summary score describes • Risk of unexpected government costs 29% • Wider community social & economic impact 29% • Environmental impact 29% • Producer economic impact 14%

12. International Trade • AHWS: Ensure sustainable opportunities for (commercial) trade • Summary score describes • Government effort 43% • Legal risk 30% • (Potential) extent of impact on sector 26%

13. Risk & Epidemiology • Overall risk in epidemiological & societal terms • Likelihood of an unaffected holding becoming affected • (Potential) rate of spread • Extent to which the keeper or government can control

14. Demonstration

15. Demo screenshots

16. Future Developments • ‘What if?’ scenarios • Introduce effective vaccine? • Stop all intervention? • Improve surveillance? • Cross-cutting issues • Resource allocation for population databases • Animal identification • Scanning surveillance • Use similar approach for non-infectious issues • Intoxications • Lameness in dairy cows