Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 14 items for

  • Author or Editor: Dale A. Moore x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

Objective—To identify reasons for engagement in continuing veterinary medical education (CVME) activities, obstacles to participation, ways to provide more effective programs, and ideas to improve participation in CVME.

Design—Focus group interviews.

Sample Population—Selected practicing veterinarians from a state that did mandate continuing education for relicensure.

Procedure—12 focus group interviews were held throughout the state of California between May and September 1998. Practitioners were asked to respond to questions about where they obtain information to improve their practice, what value they see in CVME, what motivates them to participate, what obstacles to CVME participation exist, and ways CVME providers and practitioners could overcome those obstacles.

Results—84 practitioners participated in the focus group interviews. In addition to the educational value of CVME, participation was used to rejuvenate practice life and prevent feelings of isolation. Continuing education activities ranged from problem-oriented chats with colleagues to formal educational programs. Timing of events, distance, money, solo practice, stage of career, and family demands were identified as barriers to participation. Designing and marketing CVME with specific learning objectives and for specific career stages and using new educational delivery technologies were suggested to overcome some of these barriers.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance—If CVME is to improve practice and patient care, it should be integrated into a practice's strategic planning and considered a legitimate business expense. Decisions about CVME participation are made easier if program objectives are clearly outlined. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:1001–1006)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To compare published recommendations regarding biosecurity practices for various production animal species and classes.

Design—Literature review.

Population—Educational materials available on the World Wide Web that provided biosecurity recommendations for dairy cattle, beef cattle, small ruminant, swine, and poultry producers.

Procedures—Web sites for national producer organizations, university cooperative extension services, and state departments of agriculture were searched to identify educational materials with biosecurity recommendations.

Results—A single national organization was selected as representing each animal agriculture commodity group. A total of 53 university Web sites were visited, and 65 publications prepared by university cooperative extension services were identified and evaluated. Web sites for all 50 state departments of agriculture were searched, and 29 were found to have at least 1 publication related to biosecurity practices, for a total of 46 publications. Evaluation of the biosecurity recommendations revealed wide variations by source and within and among commodity groups.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that educational materials for producers contained wide variations in recommended biosecurity practices. It is possible that some producers choose not to implement biosecurity recommendations because of confusion as to the specific recommendations they should follow.

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

OBJECTIVE

To explore veterinarians' perceptions and veterinary experts' opinions regarding antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) on dairy farms in the western United States.

SAMPLE

20 dairy veterinarians and 9 AMS experts.

PROCEDURES

3 focus group discussions involving 20 dairy veterinarians from California, Idaho, and Washington and an expert opinion study involving 9 North American AMS experts were conducted. During focus group discussions, participants were asked open-ended questions regarding implementation of AMS programs on dairy farms. Discussions were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. An asynchronous nominal group process was used for the expert opinion study. Participants were asked to complete a series of 3 online surveys consisting of open-ended questions. Expert opinion data underwent thematic analysis and were compared with results obtained from focus group discussions.

RESULTS

Veterinarian-perceived barriers to implementation of AMS on dairy farms included variable relationships with clients and farm employees, ensuring AMS provided value to the farm, and uncertainty about regulations for monitoring on-farm antimicrobial use (AMU). Veterinarians were willing to accept additional responsibility for AMU provided that protocols were adopted to ensure them more complete control of on-farm AMU and they were compensated. The AMS experts indicated that effective implementation of AMS on dairy farms requires producer buy-in and tools to facilitate treatment protocol development and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Additional veterinary oversight of AMU on dairy farms will require engagement by both veterinarians and producers and practical value-added methods for AMS. Continuing education programs should address treatment protocol development, AMU monitoring strategies, and employee training.

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To identify the perceived market or client demand for dairy on-farm food safety services by veterinarians, the need for a food safety continuing education program, and the educational issues that might be addressed in an on-farm food safety curriculum.

Design—Survey.

Study Population—Consulting dairy veterinarians, government veterinarians located in California, and meat packers slaughtering cull dairy cows in California.

Procedure—Results of a questionnaire supplied to veterinarians and telephone interviews with meat packer representatives were analyzed by use of univariate and multivariate logistic regression procedures.

Results—Some meat packers considered the quality of incoming cull dairy cattle as a control point for food safety hazards. More than 50% of dairy and government- employed veterinarians believed that a current market for on-farm food safety services exists; > 85% believed that a potential market exists. Duration since graduation was negatively correlated with belief in a current market. Government-employed veterinarians were more likely to believe in a current market. Veterinarians were more likely to express a strong interest in offering on-farm food safety services if they believed a current market exists, indicated that they already offer such services, or listed residues and pathogens as the most important issues facing the dairy industry.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Although a potential market for on-farm food safety services is perceived, veterinarians are unsure of their role in this area. New demands of meat packers slaughtering cull dairy cows may be the motivation practitioners need to broach the subject of food safety with clients. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:479–484)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To compare efficacy of a topically administered nonantimicrobial cream with that of lincomycin for treatment of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle.

Design—Randomized clinical trial.

Animals—98 cows from a commercial Holstein dairy herd.

Procedure—Cows with active lesions of digital dermatitis identified on a single observation day were randomly assigned to receive a nonantimicrobial cream, lincomycin paste, or no treatment. Cows were examined approximately every 4 weeks for 130 days after treatment for lesion maturity score, score for signs of pain, lesion size, and lesion activity.

Results—29 days after a single treatment, both treated groups had significantly reduced scores for signs of pain, lesion activity, lesion size, and the decision to retreat, compared with findings in the untreated group. Efficacy of the 2 treatments was not significantly different for decreasing pain score or lesion activity or for increasing lesion maturity score, but lincomycin was significantly more efficacious in decreasing lesion size and avoiding retreatment. By use of multivariate logistic regression, lactation number was a significant treatment effect modifier on the outcome of a healed lesion after treatment. Cows with ≥ 3 lactations were more likely to have a healed lesion at 29 days, compared with first- and secondlactation cows.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Because antimicrobial treatments for digital dermatitis in cows require a veterinarian's prescription, the nonantimicrobial cream could serve as a viable but less consistently effective alternative to antimicrobials and could be applied by veterinarians, hoof trimmers, and others. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;219:1435–1438)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To understand the epidemiology of animal bites and exposure, evaluate the animal exposure reporting system for surveillance of rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), and identify opportunities to reduce PEP.

Design—Period prevalence survey.

Study Population—Pennsylvania residents in 1995.

Procedure—Data from animal bite reports from Pennsylvania county health offices were summarized for 1995. Animal bite incidences for the state, counties, various age groups, and various population densities were calculated. Animal species, treatment, location of wounds, and PEP recommendations were evaluated for exposures.

Results—More than 16,000 animal-related potential rabies exposures were reported from 65 of 67 counties in Pennsylvania. The highest incidence was in children less than 5 years old (324/100,000). Of the 75% of victims requiring wound treatment, 50% received antimicrobials, 29% received a tetanus toxoid, and 19% had wounds sutured, were admitted to hospitals, or were referred for plastic surgery. Although 75% of exposures were to dogs, victims exposed to cats were 6 times as likely to receive PEP (relative risk, 6.1; 95% confidence interval, 5.1 to 7.4). Thirty percent of 556 PEP were given for exposures to dogs, 44% for cats, 7% for raccoons, 4% for bats, 2.5% for squirrels, 2.1% for groundhogs, 2% for foxes, and 8% for exposures to other species. Fifty-nine percent of owned dogs were up-to-date on rabies vaccinations compared with 41% of owned cats.

Conclusion—Interventions, such as dog bite prevention education, vaccination of pets against rabies, appropriate use of PEP, and reduction of feral cat populations, should be instituted, enhanced, or better enforced in communities. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:190–194)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate serovar and antimicrobial resistance patterns of Salmonella enterica isolated from preweaned calves and identify management risk factors associated with fecal shedding of S enterica.

Sample Population—Cohorts of 10 to 15 preweaned calves (1 to 84 days of age) on 26 dairies and 7 calf ranches and cross-sectional samples of preweaned calves on smaller farms.

Procedures—Calves were evaluated every 2 weeks during a 6-week period. Salmonella isolates obtained from rectal fecal swabs underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing against 12 antimicrobials. Cluster analysis enabled description of antimicrobial susceptibility patterns. Calf, cohort, and farm risk factors associated with both the prevalence of S enterica and multiple-antimicrobial–resistant S enterica in preweaned calves were identified with repeated-measure logistic regression models.

ResultsSalmonella enterica was detected on > 50% of farms and in 7.5% of 3,686 fecal samples. Many isolates (33%) were resistant to multiple antimicrobials. Shedding of Salmonella spp was negatively associated with increasing calf age, herds being closed to incoming cattle, and antimicrobial supplementation of milk replacer; prophylactic antimicrobial treatment in day-old calves increased shedding. No association between farm management and presence of multiple-antimicrobial–resistant S enterica or between calving management and presence of S enterica in calves ≤ 1 week old was detected.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In preweaned calves, the most important factors associated with decreased likelihood of fecal shedding of S enterica were the use of antimicrobial-supplemented milk replacer and maintenance of a closed herd. Infection with multiple-antimicrobial–resistant S enterica was not associated with antimicrobial administration.

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess veterinarian engagement with owners of poultry and livestock in urban and peri-urban areas (UPAs) of 4 western states, to evaluate the knowledge and experience of veterinarians in UPAs for treating domestic poultry and livestock, and to identify barriers to the provision of veterinary services to backyard poultry and small-scale livestock operations.

SAMPLE

880 veterinarians in UPAs.

PROCEDURES

2,400 members of the veterinary medical associations of California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington who worked in metropolitan areas with a population > 5,000 people were randomly selected and invited to participate in a needs assessment survey. Response data were analyzed with univariable logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis.

RESULTS

880 (37%) invitees completed or partially completed the survey. Most respondents self-reported working in UPAs (686/825 [83%]) and companion animal only (n = 551) or predominant (211) practices. Although most (656/863 [76%]) respondents perceived an increase in backyard poultry and livestock in their practice areas, few were actively treating such animals primarily because of a lack of facilities, interest, or experience. Most respondents believed veterinarians have an important role in ensuring public health and preventing zoonotic disease.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Backyard poultry and livestock are increasing in popularity in UPAs of 4 western states, and veterinarians are needed to provide services to such animals. Further research and continuing education are necessary to encourage practitioners in UPAs to engage with owners of backyard poultry and livestock to ensure the health and welfare of those animals and guard public health. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2020;257:196-209)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To assess the use of flunixin meglumine as an adjunct treatment for diarrhea in calves.

Design—Clinical trial.

Animals—115 calves with diarrhea that were 1 to 21 days old at enrollment.

Procedure—Calves that developed diarrhea were randomly assigned to receive no flunixin meglumine (controls), a single dose of flunixin meglumine (2.2 mg/kg [1.0 mg/lb]), or 2 doses of flunixin meglumine administered 24 hours apart. Serum IgG concentration and PCV were measured prior to enrollment in the trial. Calves were evaluated daily to determine rectal temperature, fecal consistency, demeanor, and skin elasticity score . The primary analytic outcome was days of sickness (morbiddays).

Results—Calves with fecal blood and treated with a single dose of flunixin meglumine had fewer morbiddays and antimicrobial treatments, compared with controls. Although not significant, calves given 2 doses of flunixin meglumine in 24 hours had fewer morbid-days than untreated control calves. Regardless of severity of diarrhea, calves without fecal blood did not benefit from the use of flunixin. For calves with fecal blood, failure of passive transfer (low serum IgG concentration) was an independent risk factor for increased morbid-days.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Treatment with a single dose of flunixin meglumine resulted in fewer antimicrobial treatments and morbid-days in calves with fecal blood. As observed in other studies, calves with failure of passive transfer were at high risk for poor outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of developing and implementing effective colostrum delivery programs on dairy farms. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:1329–1333)

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association