Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:41:23.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characteristics of Programs Involving Canine Visitation of Hospitalized People in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2017

Sandra L. Lefebvre ,
David Waltner-Toews ,
Andrew Peregrine ,
Richard Reid-Smith ,
Leslie Hodge  and
J. Scott Weese
Sandra L. Lefebvre*
Affiliation:
Departments of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
David Waltner-Toews
Affiliation:
Departments of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Andrew Peregrine
Affiliation:
Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Richard Reid-Smith
Affiliation:
Departments of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Leslie Hodge
Affiliation:
Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
J. Scott Weese
Affiliation:
Clinical Studies, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
*
Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CanadaNIG 2W1 (slefebvr@uoguelph.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To determine the distribution of canine-visitation programs in Ontario and to characterize the nature of the programs the dogs are affiliated with.

Design.

A cross-sectional survey of hospitals in Ontario was used to determine whether they permitted dogs to visit patients and, if so, where the dogs originated. On the basis of this information, dog owners were then contacted through their respective associations and interviewed using a standardized questionnaire.

Setting.

A cross-section of hospitals in Ontario.

Participants.

A total of 223 (97%) of the 231 hospitals surveyed responded. Ninety owners of 102 visitation dogs were interviewed.

Results.

A total of 201 (90%) of the 223 hospitals indicated that dogs were permitted in their facilities. Origins ranged from national therapy-dog agencies to the patients' families. Acute care wards were 5.1 times as likely than other wards to disallow animals (95% confidence interval, 2.2-12.2; P<.001). According to the 90 dog owners included in the study, the screening protocols that dogs were required to pass to participate in their respective visitation programs were highly variable, as were the owners' infection control practices. Eighteen owners (20%) said they did not practice any infection control. Sixty-six owners (73%) allowed their dogs on patients' beds, and 71 (79%) let their dogs lick patients. Thirty-six owners (40%) were unable to name one zoonotic disease that may be transmitted from their dog.

Conclusions.

Although canine-visitation programs have become standard practice in nonacute human healthcare facilities, infection control and dog-screening practices are highly variable and potentially deficient. Hospital staff, visitation groups, pet owners, and veterinarians need to work together to protect both people and pets.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 7 , July 2006 , pp. 754 - 758
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Connor, K, Miller, J. Animal-assisted therapy: an in-depth look. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2000; 19:20–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Delta Society. Standards of Practice for Animal-Assisted Activities and Animal-Assisted Therapy. Renton, WA: Delta Society; 1996.Google Scholar
3.Barak, Y, Savorai, O, Mavashev, S, Beni, A. Animal-assisted therapy for elderly schizophrenic patients: a one-year controlled trial. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 9:439–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Barba, BE. The positive influence of animals: animal-assisted therapy in acute care. Clin Nurse Spec 1995; 9:199–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Cole, KM, Gawlinski, A. Animal-assisted therapy: the human-animal bond. AACN Clin Issues 2000; 11:139–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Hale, N. Pet therapy: animal house. Geriatr Nurs Home Care 1989; 9:12–13.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Waltner-Toews, D. Zoonotic disease concerns in animal-assisted therapy and animal visitation programs. Can Vet J 1993; 34:549–551.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities: recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR 2003; 52(RR-10):28–30.Google Scholar
9.Zoutman, DE, Ford, BD, Bryce, E, et al. The state of infection surveillance and control in Canadian acute care hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31:266–272; discussion 272-273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Ontario Hospital Association. Ontario hospital directory. Available at: http://www.oha.com. Accessed December 2, 2003.Google Scholar
11.Barr, SC. Leptospirosis: new issues and considerations. Contin Educ Prac Vet 2002; 24(Suppl 1A):53–56.Google Scholar
12.Robinson, RA. Zoonoses and immunosuppressed populations. In: Macpherson, CNL, Meslin, FX, Wandeler, AI, eds. Dogs, Zoonoses and Public Health. New York, NY: CABI Publishing; 2000:273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Scott, GM, Thomson, R, Malone-Lee, J, Ridgway, GL. Cross-infection between animals and man: possible feline transmission of Staphylococcus aureus infection in humans? J Hosp Infect 1988; 12:29–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Pet implicated in hospital outbreak. Hosp Infect Control 1979; 6:73–75.Google Scholar
15.Drusin, LM, Ross, BG, Rhodes, KH, Krauss, AN, Scott, RA. Nosocomial ringworm in a neonatal intensive care unit: a nurse and her cat. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21:605–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Association of Volunteers for the Children's Hospital, ed. Prescription Pet Program: The Children's Hospital, Denver, Colorado. Denver, CO: Association of Volunteers for the Children's Hospital; 1996.Google Scholar
17.Weber, DJ, Rulala, WA. Guidelines for pets and animal visitation. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1999:1411–1416.Google Scholar
18.Delta Society. Pet Partners renewal health screening form. Available at: http://www.deltasociety.org/petpart/pphealth.htm. Accessed September 3, 2004.Google Scholar
19.Gill, DM, Stone, DM. The veterinarian's role in the AIDS crisis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992; 201:1683–1684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Pham, TS, Mansfield, LS, Turiansky, GW. Zoonoses in HIV-infected patients: risk factors and prevention, part I: nervous system and pulmonary diseases. AIDS Read 1997; 7:7–15.Google Scholar
21.Pham, TS, Mansfield, LS, Turiansky, GW. Zoonoses in HIV-infected patients: risk factors and prevention, part II: gastrointestinal, skin, and other diseases. AIDS Read 1997; 7:41–52.Google Scholar