OBJECTIVES: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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.
Authors: Lieve Lucia Meers; Laura Contalbrigo; William Ellery Samuels; Carolina Duarte-Gan; Daniel Berckmans; Stephan Jens Laufer; Vicky Antoinette Stevens; Elizabeth Ann Walsh; Simona Normando Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2022-06-17
Authors: Carl M Harper; Yan Dong; Thomas S Thornhill; John Wright; John Ready; Gregory W Brick; George Dyer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Colleen Murphy; Richard J Reid-Smith; John F Prescott; Brenda N Bonnett; Cornelis Poppe; Patrick Boerlin; J Scott Weese; Nicol Janecko; Scott A McEwen Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Kathryn R Dalton; Kaitlin B Waite; Kathy Ruble; Karen C Carroll; Alexandra DeLone; Pam Frankenfield; James A Serpell; Roland J Thorpe; Daniel O Morris; Jacqueline Agnew; Ronald C Rubenstein; Meghan F Davis Journal: Complement Ther Clin Pract Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: Antonio Santaniello; Mario Sansone; Alessandro Fioretti; Lucia Francesca Menna Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 3.390