anatomy of a land grant institution dorcas p. orourke, d.v.m., m.s. director, office of laboratory...
TRANSCRIPT
Anatomy of aLand Grant Institution
Dorcas P. O’Rourke, D.V.M., M.S.Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care
The University of Tennessee
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
What is a land grant institution?
Colleges and universities designated by Congress and state legislatures to receive federal support as defined in the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890
Rationale for LGI Development
Need for broad-based educational systems
LGIs to offer curricula in military tactics, agriculture, and mechanic arts
Provide practical education to industrial classes
First Morrill Act of 1862
Allowed public lands to be donated to states
Proceeds from sale of these public lands supported the LGIs
Hatch Act of 1887 Mandated creation of Agricultural Experiment
Stations
Stations affiliated with LGIs
Scientific research to be conducted at experiment stations
Federal and state funds appropriated annually to support research
Smith-Lever Act of 1914
Provided federal monies for support of cooperative extension efforts
Educational programs established to disseminate information obtained in experiment station research to local communities
Other Landmark Decisions
Six million dollar endowment to the University of Hawai’i in 1960 in lieu of federal land endowment
University of Guam, College of the Virgin Islands, Community Colleges of American Samoa and Micronesia, and Northern Marianas College achieved land grant status in 1972
Other Landmark Decisions (cont.)
Twenty-nine Native American colleges received land grant status and a 23 million dollar endowment in 1994
LGIs Today
All states and territories have at least one LGI
Total of 105 LGIs which receive over $550 million annually in federal funding
Characteristics of Traditional LGIs
Complex, decentralized animal care programs
Varied, multiple funding sources, including Hatch and LGI appropriations
Unique programs, such as veterinary medicine and agricultural sciences
Separate programs with overlapping research focus
Multiple lines of authority
LGIs and AAALAC Accreditation
Single vs. multiple accredited units
ILAR Guide for most species
Ag Guide and principles of the first three chapters of the ILAR Guide applicable to food and fiber animals
The Ohio State University
Single office for animal management and veterinary care for the accredited program
Single IACUC (sub-IACUC for food and fiber animals)
Single AAALAC accreditation (excluding food and fiber animals)
University of Wisconsin
Multiple animal care programs with multiple veterinarians, with compliance oversight in the institutional veterinarian’s office
Multiple IACUCs
Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag component not accredited)
University of Missouri Multiple animal care programs, with many facility
managers hired by and reporting to the institutional veterinarian’s office, and all veterinarians reporting to the institutional veterinarian (including ag)
Single IACUC
Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag component not accredited; soon to apply for single accreditation, including ag)
University of Illinois Decentralized management of animal facilities and
centralized oversight of all areas (including ag) through the institutional veterinarian’s office and IACUC
Centralized veterinary care for lab animals; decentralized veterinary care (with institutional oversight) for food and fiber animals.
Single IACUC
Single AAALAC accreditation, including ag food and fiber animals
Clemson University
All veterinary care and oversight provided by institutional veterinarian’s office
Single IACUC
Single AAALAC accreditation
Key to Successful AAALAC Accreditation in LGIs Ensure adequate veterinary care and
compliance oversight
Ensure clear lines of authority
Ensure strong institutional commitment to the animal care and use program
Accreditation for Agricultural Programs: Analysis of the Arguments For and Against
Neal R. Merchen, Ph.D.Professor and Interim HeadDepartment of Animal SciencesUniversity of Illinois
General Challenges – Agricultural Animal Programs Complex lines of accountability/authority
Teaching activities - impact on H-H programs and biosecurity
Decentralized management Faculty involved in management/oversight “Cultural resistance” to centralized oversight
Disconnect between clinical veterinary service and oversight by IV
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
AAALAC website
Points from experience at U. of Illinois
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
Symbol of quality Value in external validation of quality
Demonstrates accountability Validates commitment to humane and ethical
animal care and use
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
(?) Enhances quality of agricultural research
(?) Recruiting tool for faculty, students, researchers No discernable impact
(?) Enhances funding opportunities. Limited impact for funding of ag production
research
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments FOR
Exercise in self-assessment Engage all participants Re-evaluation of practices
Improves sensitivity to concerns of public
Encourages standardization of practices
Improves record-keeping
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
Costs
Funding, human resources
Transaction costs for preparation
Repair, renovation of facilities
Ongoing costs
University of Illinois – College of ACES Agricultural Animal Program Infrastructure
Daily census 12 to 14,000 animals
10 livestock units at 3 locations
50 academic staff and animal caretakers
150 animal buildings
Extensive documentation
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST Difficulties in collaboration among principals
IACUC Institutional veterinarian Clinical veterinarians Faculty Animal care staff
“Complex lines of accountability and authority”
- Build consensus opinions/agendas
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST
Poor relationship between ag animal care program to local oversight of animal care program
Biggest reason for disinterest by ag animal units
Lack of communication/mutual understanding
Why Be Accredited?
Arguments AGAINST (cont.)
Poor relationship between ag animal care program to local oversight of animal care program
Imbalance in institutional authority among IACUC, IV, IO
Poor representation of ag animal programs on IACUC
AAALAC used as a “club”
Greatest Opportunities – AAALAC Accreditation of Ag Animal Programs
Establishes independent seal of quality assurance
Demonstrates accountability
Self-assessment may improve practices
Professionalism/pride/esprit de corps of animal caretakers
Greatest Challenges - Institutions/AAALAC
Resources
Develop effective working groups among IV, IACUC, IO, ag animal programs
Improve communication between AAALAC and ag animal professionals
Clarify role of AAALAC to ag animal professionals
Trends in Deficiencies
Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M.Associate Director, AAALAC International
Standards Used
Farm Animal Position StatementAAALAC International uses the current edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of LaboratoryAnimals (NRC 1996) as its primary standard for evaluating animal care facilities and programs. The full range of programmatic criteria outlined in Sections I-III of the Guide are entirelyapplicable to farm animals, and in accredited facilities, the use of farm animals in research shouldbe subject to the same general ethical considerations as the use of other animals in research. However, uses of farm animals are often separated into biomedical uses and agricultural uses,and different criteria for evaluating standards of housing and care for animals of the same speciesmay be appropriate. Decisions on categorizing research uses of farm animals and definingstandards for their care and use should be based on user goals, protocols, and concern for animalwell-being and should be made by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Foranimals in an agricultural setting, AAALAC International takes the position that, in accreditedfacilities, the housing and care for farm animals should meet the standards that prevail on a highquality, well managed farm. The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals inAgricultural Research and Teaching (FASS 1999) is recognized by AAALAC International as areference resource for individual farm animal species. Regardless of an investigator’s researchobjectives or funding source, institutions are expected to provide oversight of all researchanimals and ensure that their pain and distress is minimized.
AAALAC International & Land Grant Institutions
Approximately 28% are accredited
Of those LGIs/State Universities that are accredited….
38% have Campus-wide accreditation
The Animal Care and Use Program
Institutional Policies
OHSP
IACUC
Adequate Veterinary Care
Administrative Organization
Animal Management Animal Space Provisions
Support Service
Sanitation Practices
Caging/Housing System
Aseptic surgery
Husbandry Practices
Identification/Record Keeping
Vermin Control
Veterinary Care
Preventive Medicine
Disease Diagnosis, Control, Treatment
Surgical & Postsurgical Care
Anesthesia/Analgesia
Euthanasia
Physical Plant
HVAC
Survival Surgery Support
Facility Maintenance
Personnel Safety Concerns
General Storage Conditions
Sanitation of Facilities
Physical Plant (cont.)
Illumination
Emergency Power
Physical Plant Design
Security
Trend Data
Data extracted from January 1993 through January 2002 meetings of the Council on Accreditation, equating to the three most recent site visits for each institution (or less if they were new to the AAALAC program)
Mandatory Deficiencies Identified
Range of zero to nine mandatory items in a letter
59% of letters reviewed had no mandatory items for correction, i.e., institution granted Full Accreditation after site visit
No significant correlation between number of mandatory items identified and whether program was Campus-wide or University-limited
No correlation between number of mandatory items and whether institution had a medical school or health science center
Suggestions for Improvement Identified Range of zero to 20 SFIs in a letter
24% of letters reviewed had no SFIs
No significant correlation between number of SFIs identified and whether program was Campus-wide or University-limited
No correlation between number of SFIs and whether institution had a medical school or health science center
Mandatory Item vs. Suggestion For Improvement
Mandatory Item = a deficiency which must be corrected for Full Accreditation to be awarded or continued
Suggestion for Improvement (SFI) = items which the Council feels are desirable to upgrade an already acceptable or even commendable program
Land Grant Institution Program Deficiencies
8%
7%
20%
65%
Institutional Policies Animal ManagementVeterinary CarePhysical Plant
Comparison Of LGIs with all Accredited Institutions
GeneralAnimal Care and Use
Programs
Land Grant Colleges&
State UniversitiesInstitutional Policies 70% 65%Animal Management 13% 8%Veterinary Care 12% 7%Physical Plant 5% 20%
Land Grant InstitutionSuggestions for Improvement
37%
13%
20%
30%
Institutional Policies Animal ManagementVeterinary CarePhysical Plant
Common Deficiencies
28.6
19.8
13.5
9.5
0
5
1015
20
25
3035
40
45
50
IACUCOHSPHVACProgram of Vet Care
Comparison Of LGIs with all Accredited Institutions
GeneralAnimal Care and Use
Programs
Land Grant Colleges&
State UniversitiesIACUC 25% 28.6%OHSP 15% 19.8%HVAC 9% 13.5%Veterinary Care 4% 9.5%
Identified Concerns
0102030405060708090
100
MandatorySFI's
Accreditation Challenges
IACUC Issues
Christine M. Parks, D.V.M., Ph.D.Director, RARCUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti
Institutional Policies
Lack of institutional commitment
Institutional official not empowered to commit necessary resources
Need to establish clear lines of authority and oversight of the program
Inconsistencies in procedures and practices between centralized and satellite areas
IACUC Participation
Inadequate oversight of animals in satellite or study areas
Inadequate program oversight
Lack of participation of nonaffiliated member
Organizational structure presented potential conflict of interest
Policies, Training and Documentation
Inadequate personnel training and documentation
No policies for rodent surgery, analgesia/anesthesia, environmental enrichment, dog exercise
No or inadequate IACUC training
IACUC Semiannual Review
Review did not include evaluation and inspection of all housing and laboratory areas
Review did not include evaluation of programmatic issues
No plan and schedule for correcting deficiencies
IACUC Semiannual Review
Inadequate oversight of farm units
Inadequate evaluation of remote sites, and other sites such as slaughter house or feed mill
Protocol Review Issues
Inadequate intensity of protocol review including: pain and distress; exceptions from the Guide; euthanasia techniques; use of analgesia; justification of animal numbers; endpoints
Need to ensure all animals covered by a protocol (holding, breeding, sentinels)
Protocol Review Issues (cont.)
Process errors, such as: protocol approval outside committee procedures; chair acting outside of authority; definition of major changes; documentation lapses
Inadequate annual review
Safety issues not addressed
Failure to match numbers of animals approved with number used
Occupational Health and Safety at Land Grant Institutions:
An AAALAC Perspective
Wendy J. Underwood, D.V.M., M.S.Attending VeterinarianEli Lilly and Company
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
What mandates the creationof an OHS program?
PHS Policy: The ILAR Guide
The AG Guide
OHSA: CFR 29
ILAR: “Occupation Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Research Animals”.
What do the ‘Guides’ say?
The ILAR Guide: “An occupational health and safety program must be part of an overall animal care and use program
The Ag Guide: “An occupational health and safety program must be established for individuals who work with agricultural animals.”
What are the required components of an OHSP? Risk Assessment and hazard identification
Medical surveillance
Training
Personnel hygiene
PPE
Facilities
Procedures and monitoring
What are the ‘hallmarks’ of a good OHSP?
Strong administrative support
Sound implementation strategies
Effective coordination of components
OHS Findings at Land Grant Institutions
Study
Hazards
20%
Training
6%
Risk
Assessment
35%
Programatic
20%
Medical
Surveillance
3%PPE
16%
Programatic
RiskAssessmentTraining
Study Hazards
PPE
MedicalSurveillance
Programmatic Issues 20%
Inadequate:
Oversight Implementation
Notification Not offered to all
Intensity Involvement by health
specialists
Need to ensure that the program conforms to the guide.
Program does not reflect actual practices.
Not applied to field study areas.
Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification 35%
Lack of risk assessment first aid kits identification of
hazardous materials proper signage
Potential health risks not identified (Q fever)
Lack of confined space policy lone operator policy lock Out/Tag Out documentation of all
personnel involved in program
Allergen exposure
Personnel Training 6%
Inadequate training
Need to provide training on
Zoonoses Allergens Sharps disposal Heavy equipment Ergonomics
Experimentation involving hazards 20% Lack of or inappropriate
biohazard signs
Exhaust air not filtered
Non filtered vacuums
Lack of respirator use
Inappropriate storage of volatile gases
No mechanism to ensure people following policy
Protocols not reviewed by safety committee
Inappropriate handling of medicated feeds
Personnel Hygiene 16%
Lack of water, sinks, towels, etc. to wash
Uncertified safety showers, eye stations, or chemical hoods
Washer and dryer for cleaning work clothing installed in soiled area
No provision for cleaning work clothes
PPE
Not available
Not offered
Not used
Inappropriate
Lack of
hearing protection respiratory protection
Lack of monitoring mechanism for PPE use
Policy not enforced
Lack of policy
Medical Surveillance 3%
Tetanus immunization not offered
No program to evaluate Q fever
Broad OHSP Issuesat Land Grant Institutions
Lack of an OHS program for Ag facilities
Lack of opportunity for inclusion
Absence of safety professionals
Industrial Hygienists
Biosafety Officers
Safety Officers
More Common OHSP Issues at Land Grant Institutions PPE: No boots, safety
glasses or work clothes in barn areas
Zoonoses: ringworm, crypto, erysipelas, flue
No tetanus immunization
Storage issues: gas, diesel, formalin, kerosene
Poor or no biohazard signage
Confined Space Entry
Lone Operator
Heavy equipment training
First aid kits
Physical injury and ergonomics
OHS Findings:Mandatory or Suggestions?
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mandatory SFI's
Accreditation Challenges Animal Management
Joy A. Mench, Ph.D.Professor of Animal ScienceUniversity of California – Davis
AAALAC Council on Accreditation
The GuideA good management program provides the environment, housing and care that permit animals to grow, mature, reproduce and maintain good health; provides for their well-being; and minimizes variations that can affect research results”
The Guide “Many factors should be considered in planning for
adequate and appropriate physical and social environment, housing, space and management”
Species, strain, breed and individual characteristics of animal; ability of animals to form social groups; availability and suitability of enrichments; design and construction of housing; project goals and experimental design
Goal of housing to maximize species-typical behavior and minimize stress-induced ones
Husbandry & Management
Behavioral Management
Husbandry
Population management
IACUC oversight of husbandry
Role of IACUC in husbandry program
Husbandry & Management
Routine husbandry and management issues do not generally appear to pose significant challenges at Land-Grant Institutions
Relatively rare as mandatory issues, but there are several common areas of suggested improvements
Behavioral Management
Provide opportunity for animal to express species-typical postures, behaviors, and activity
Lack of social enrichment for social species
Pair or group-housing; visual, olfactory, auditory contact
Feed and Water
Food quality
Feed grade Feed storage times Feed storage conditions (vermin/contamination) Feed provision conditions (floor feeding)
Water Automatic water lines
Sanitation
Cage sanitation schedules not in conformance with Guide
No (or too infrequent) mechanism for ensuring effectiveness of sanitation (e.g., microbiological monitoring, other appropriate methods)
Cluttered and dirty rooms
Rusted equipment
Other Husbandry Issues Lack of effective vermin control program
A particular problem at farm locations, with bulk feed storage areas, open feed troughs
No formal (or inadequate) Disaster Plan—most cited deficiency!
Appropriate emergency contacts Posting of procedures Takes account of people and animals “Official responder” (vet or colony manager)
IACUC Husbandry Issues
Special Agricultural Practices
Castration, dehorning, molting, etc
If likely to cause pain or distress must be reviewed and approved by the IACUC, as per the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals
Accreditation Challenges
Veterinary Care Issues
Joseph D. Thulin, D.V.M., M.S.Institutional Veterinarian and DirectorDivision of Animal ResourcesUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignAAALAC Council on Accreditation
Categorizing Veterinary Concerns
Program Organization
Corresponds to Chapter 1 of NRC Guide
Issues of institutional arrangements for veterinary care, responsibilities and authority of attending/institutional veterinarian, etc.
Program Design and Implementation
Corresponds to Chapter 3 of NRC Guide
Preventive medicine (quarantine, surveillance, treatment, control, etc.), surgery, pain management, euthanasia
Veterinary Care Concerns Summarized Major Category
16
53
1
91
0102030405060708090
100
Mandatory SFI
Design &ImplementationOrganization
Summary of Mandatory Items
23%
61%
13%
0% 3%Organization
PreventiveMedicineSurgical Care
Pain Management
Euthanasia
Summary of Suggestions for Improvement
1%
47%
32%
9%
11%
OrganizationPreventive MedicineSurgical CarePain ManagementEuthanasia
Challenges in Organizationof Veterinary Care
Examples of Deficiencies Identified by Council
Inadequate oversight to ensure adequate veterinary care.
Institution needs to establish suitable arrangements for provision of vet care consistent with Guide, Ag Guide and institutional policy.
Inadequate involvement of Attending Veterinarian in ag animal program.
Examples of Deficiencies Identified by Council (cont.)
Institution needs to implement an ag animal health program that delineates the lines of authority and responsibilities of veterinary care.
No formal communication between PI-veterinarians and Attending Veterinarian.
PI-veterinarian not providing adequate vet care.
Dairy manager initiating treatment w/o input from veterinarian.
Who is the Attending Veterinarian?
The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated authority for activities involving animals at [the registered] facility…” (Animal Welfare Regs)
The veterinarian “…who has direct or delegated program authority and responsibility for activities involving animals at the institution…” (PHS Policy)
The veterinarian who is responsible for the program of adequate veterinary care. (AWR, NRC Guide, Ag Guide)
Attending Veterinarian (cont.)
The Attending (Institutional) Veterinarian ideally should report to the Institutional Official.
An institution might have more than one AV; however, the lines of accountability and responsibilities among the veterinarians need to be clearly delineated.
PI-veterinarians pose special considerations such as conflict of interest and relationship to the AV.
Challenges in Design and Implementation of the
Veterinary Care Program
Examples of Deficiencies Identified by Council
Inadequate notification of the veterinary staff about ill animals. (Most frequent deficiency.)
Daily observation of animals not conducted.
Inadequate treatment of health problems (e.g., feather picking in poultry).
Examples of Deficiencies Identified by Council (cont.)
Inadequate routine health care (e.g., dental work, physical exams, hoof trimming, etc.).
Medical records at farm units did not conform with Ag Guide.
Inadequate documentation of health problems and treatments.
Indiscriminate use of antibiotics.
Examples of Deficiencies Identified by Council (cont.)
15% death rate of cows in a barn due to mastitis which had not been aggressively investigated.
Records of veterinary care provided by PI-veterinarians inadequate.
Malnourished/moribund piglet observed; had intended to leave with sow for next day or two.
Examples of Deficiencies Identified by Council (cont.)
Diagnostics services not used to ensure adequate veterinary care.
Inadequate aseptic techniques (sterilized instruments, hair removal, disinfection of site, sterile gloves, survival surgeries).
Inadequate documentation of surgical and postoperative care.
Adequate Veterinary Care NRC Guide requires effective programs for:
Preventive medicine. Surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and control of
disease, including zoonosis control. Management of protocol-associated disease, disability,
or other sequelae. Anesthesia and analgesia. Surgery and postsurgical care. Assessment of animal well-being. Euthanasia.
Adequate Veterinary Care (cont.)
Under AWR also includes availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services.
Ag Guide requires a written and implemented program for disease prevention (including biosecurity), surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, and end point resolution, and has stringent requirements for health and production record keeping.
Challenges in Implementationof Veterinary Care
Poorly organized programs typically have problems with implementation.
All personnel involved in veterinary care must be knowledgeable of institutional responsibilities.
Be cognizant of the relationships among the various standards/regulations, i.e., NRC Guide, Ag Guide, AWR, PHS Policy.
The Physical Plant in an AAALAC International Accredited Agricultural Facility
John J. McGlone, Ph.D.Professor, Department of Animal Science
Texas Tech University
AAALAC Council on Accreditation Emeriti
Outline
Physical Plant Considerations (Sections of the Guide):
The physical environment
Physical Plant considerations
Problem areas
Opportunities
The Physical Environment Microenvironment &
Macroenvironment Housing
Primary enclosures Sheltered or outdoor housing Naturalistic environment
Space Temperature & Humidity Ventilation Illumination Noise
Physical Plant Considerations
In general, the building, room and pens or cages
The Physical Environment
p. 22-36 of the Guide
The Physical Plant
Ch 4, pp 71-80 of the Guide
Physical Plant (Ch 4) Functional areas Construction guidelines
Corridors Animal room doors Exterior windows Floors, drainage, walls, ceilings HVAC Power and lighting, storage
areas, noise control, facilities for sanitizing materials
Facilities for aseptic surgery
Physical Plant Problem Areas
Physical plant issues represented
10% of all mandatory items (32/320)
15% of all suggestions for improvements (112/759)
Physical Plant Problem Areas
All other issues were 3 or less and they were scattered over nearly every category and sub-category
Physical Plant Problem Areas – The big 4 Issues Flooring should be refurbished, resealed, or
replaced to provide smooth, impervious sanitizable surfaces (n=17)
Unsealed animal room surfaces (n=4)
Fencing in need of repair (n=4)
Temperatures not monitored/recorded regularly (n=4)
Physical Plant Problem Areas – Summary Problem Areas
Flooring Walls Fencing Temperature
& humidity monitoring
Physical Plant Problem Areas – What is not a major concern
A farm setting
Outdated facilities
Natural ventilation
Non-controlled photoperiod (as in open barns)
Lack of temperature control
Physical Plant Problem Areas – Opportunities
Agricultural facilities can be accredited for what they are A farm setting, as in
a modern, well-managed farm
A hybrid between a farm and a laboratory
A biomedical facility that uses farm animals
Ag facilities can be
accredited, too!
The End
For more information:
AAALAC InternationalBooth # 607
www.aaalac.org