Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Erik Hofmeister x
  • Special Report x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search


Objective—To determine the validity of the information on the World Wide Web concerning veterinary anesthesia in dogs and to determine the methods dog owners use to obtain that information.

Design—Web-based search and client survey.

Subjects—73 Web sites and 92 clients.

Procedures—Web sites were scored on a 5-point scale for completeness and accuracy of information about veterinary anesthesia by 3 board-certified anesthesiologists. A search for anesthetic information regarding 49 specific breeds of dogs was also performed. A survey was distributed to the clients who visited the University of Georgia Veterinary Teaching Hospital during a 4-month period to solicit data about sources used by clients to obtain veterinary medical information and the manner in which information obtained from Web sites was used.

Results—The general search identified 73 Web sites that included information on veterinary anesthesia; these sites received a mean score of 3.4 for accuracy and 2.5 for completeness. Of 178 Web sites identified through the breed-specific search, 57 (32%) indicated that a particular breed was sensitive to anesthesia. Of 83 usable, completed surveys, 72 (87%) indicated the client used the Web for veterinary medical information. Fifteen clients (18%) indicated they believed their animal was sensitive to anesthesia because of its breed.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Information available on the internet regarding anesthesia in dogs is generally not complete and may be misleading with respect to risks to specific breeds. Consequently, veterinarians should appropriately educate clients regarding anesthetic risk to their particular dog.

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association


Objective—To determine the effect of an intervention (educational campaign) on hand hygiene (HH) and health-care workers' (HCWs') perceptions of HH.

Design—Prospective observational study and cross-sectional survey.

Sample—Observed opportunities for HH performed by HCWs before (n = 222) and after (249) intervention, measures of HH product usage, and surveys distributed to 300 HCWs.

Procedures—Data were collected by means of direct observation, measurement of HH product consumption, and surveys of HCWs.

Results—Adherence rates of HCWs for HH practices before and after the intervention were 27% (61/222 observations) and 29% (73/249 observations), respectively. Combined HH and glove use adherence rates before and after the intervention were 84% (186/222 observations) and 81% (201/249 observations), respectively. Before intervention, the highest combined HH and glove use adherence rate was detected for technicians (90% [57/63 observations]) and for opportunities after exposure to a patient's bodily fluids (100% [5/5 opportunities]). Rate of use of alcohol-based antimicrobial hand rubs (AHRs) and amount of HH products used did not significantly change during the study. Survey response rates were 41% (122) and 21% (62) before and after the intervention, respectively. Availability of AHRs and role modeling of HH (performance of HH each time it is warranted) were considered the factors most likely to increase HH adherence rates by survey respondents.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated the intervention did not increase HH adherence or use of AHRs. High rates of glove use before the start of the study may have been a confounding factor. Future educational campaigns should indicate that glove use should not supersede HH.

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association