Simple SummaryCarbon dioxide is commonly used for stunning animals prior to killing. It allows several animals to be killed at once, reduces the need for handling, and is a reliable method. However, research in laboratory rodents, poultry, and pigs has indicated that it causes considerable aversion at concentrations above ambient conditions. Currently, there are no available alternatives with desirable characteristics. This manuscript describes a list of research priorities to find and implement the use of alternative methods or agents to improve animal welfare.AbstractThe use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for stunning and killing animals is considered to compromise welfare due to air hunger, anxiety, fear, and pain. Despite decades of research, no alternatives have so far been found that provide a safe and reliable way to induce unconsciousness in groups of animals, and also cause less distress than CO2. Here, we revisit the current and historical literature to identify key research questions that may lead to the identification and implementation of more humane alternatives to induce unconsciousness in mice, rats, poultry, and pigs. In addition to the evaluation of novel methods and agents, we identify the need to standardise the terminology and behavioural assays within the field. We further reason that more accurate measurements of consciousness state are needed and serve as a central component in the assessment of suffering. Therefore, we propose a roadmap toward improving animal welfare during end-of-life procedures.

Administration of a single bolus of 15 mL/kg 6% HES 130/0.42 results in significant but short-lived impairment of canine platelet function and whole blood coagulation, regardless of carrier solution.

It appears that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used increasingly often in horses for the assessment and treatment of suspected orthopaedic problems, especially back problems. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of CAM use for the management of orthopaedic problems in a defined population of Swiss Warmblood horses. A total of 239 owners and caretakers of horses from a pre‐defined database were called by a veterinarian to participate in the survey. A standardized questionnaire was designed to determine, for each orthopaedic case, where the localization of the problem was (limb or back) and if conventional medicine or CAM was used for consultation and treatment. When CAM was employed, the CAM discipline and administrator (veterinarian or alternative therapist) was defined. A total of 222 cases in 170 horses with orthopaedic problems were identified. Sixty‐two horses were identified with a back problem, 96 horses with a lameness involving one or more limbs and 12 horses with a combined back problem and lameness. CAM was used commonly in this population (73.9%, 164 of 222) for both diagnostic workup and treatment of suspected orthopaedic problems, but was rarely administered by a veterinarian (12%, 27 of 222). In general, if a back problem was suspected by the owner, CAM was more frequently applied for diagnosis and treatment than in cases where a lameness was suspected; (91.9%, 68 of 74) vs. (64.9%, 96 of 148) (P < 0.001), respectively. Osteopathy was the most frequently applied CAM discipline. CAM was frequently used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in Swiss Warmblood horses with suspected orthopaedic problems. CAM practitioners were consulted predominantly if a back problem was suspected, and the majority of CAM practitioners were not veterinarians.

IntroductionThe use of a surgical safety checklist is recommended by the World Health Organization and is associated with advantages: improved communication and reduced complications and mortality. Adapting checklists to the environment in which they are used improves their efficiency, but their implementation can be challenging. The aim of this study was to develop and implement a perianesthetic safety checklist for a small animal hospital.Materials and methodsA panel of eight anesthesia diplomates and seven residents and doctoral students were gathered. The Delphi method was used to generate a checklist. The checklist was presented individually to each user by the primary investigator and introduced into the clinical routine over a 5-week period. An interdisciplinary meeting was then held, and the checklist was modified further. Six months after introduction, the use of the checklist was directly observed during 69 anesthetic cases and a survey was sent to the users. A second implementation was organized after formally presenting the checklist to the staff, designating the anesthesia clinical lead as the person responsible for printing and controlling use of the checklist. A second evaluation was performed 3 months later (64 anesthetic cases).ResultsUsing the Delphi process led to the creation of a checklist consisting of three parts: “sign in” (before induction of anesthesia), “time out” (before the beginning of the procedure), “sign out” (at the end of the procedure). At the first assessment, the checklist was printed and used in 32% of cases and not printed in 41% of cases. Response rate of the survey was fair (19/32 surveys): 14/19 users thought the checklist contributed to improving communication; 15/19 reported improved safety and better management of the animals; 9/19 users avoided mistakes (77% would have omitted the administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis); 10/19 thought it was time consuming. At the second assessment, the checklist was used in 45% of cases (printed but not used in 55%). The use of the sign-out section of the checklist was significantly improved.Conclusion and clinical relevanceThis study illustrates an innovative use of the Delphi method to create a safety checklist. Challenges associated with implementation are reported.