Abstract
Objectives The veterinary workplace carries a high risk of staff accidents and injuries, yet there is scant research exploring it in comparison with other comparable fields, such as human medicine. The aim of this study was to understand how veterinary professionals define injuries and to understand what injuries they do, or do not, deem reportable.
Methods A cross-sectional survey comprising demographic questions and open-text questions was shared with veterinary practice staff across the United Kingdom. Data were analysed descriptively and using an inductive content analysis.
Results There were 740 respondents, who were broadly representative of the veterinary profession. There were differences in how injuries were defined; for example, small animal veterinarians expected injuries to involve blood, while equine and production animal veterinarians were more likely to expect injuries to reduce their ability to perform work and result in time off work. Many suggested that “all” workplace injuries should be reported, however “minor” injuries were often overlooked, for example needlestick injuries did not always meet the criteria of being an “injury”. Injuries caused by staff themselves (e.g. trips) were less likely to be reported than injuries that could be blamed on an external factor (e.g. dog bite).
Conclusions Collectively, the data suggest a wide-ranging perception of risk of injury in practice, with some harms seen as “everyday norms”. Veterinary practices should interpret their injury statistics with a high degree of caution. They should explore the microcultures within their practices relating to worker perception of risk, injury and barriers to reporting.
What is already known on this topic The veterinary industry has one of the highest case rates of non-fatal occupation injuries and illnesses per full time worker. In the USA, no other industry is higher; it is almost five times higher than the national average. Yet, little research has explored how injuries are perceived nor their context.
What this study adds This study shows clear divisions within different veterinary sectors, and job roles, in how injuries are perceived. In particular, that equine and production animal veterinarians have a high threshold before acknowledging that an incident is a work-related injury.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy To contextualise any epidemiological research into veterinary workplace injuries, one needs to understand how injuries are perceived. The discordance in definition needs to be accounted for when interpreting company or national injury reporting figures.
Competing Interest Statement
IS and RJ are current employees of CVS, the funders of this research.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by CVS Clinical Research Awards.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Veterinary Research Ethics Committee of University of Liverpool gave ethical approval for this work (VREC1256).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
