Assessment of the Culture of Care working with laboratory animals by using a comprehensive survey tool

Abstract

The term Culture of Care, within the scientific community using laboratory animals, is being used more and more frequently after it was introduced in the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, where it is phrased as a ‘climate of care’, which became effective in national legislation from January 2013. However, there is a risk that the term could become a meaningless phrase if no agreed local definition of the term exists at the animal facility (called establishment in the EU Directive). This paper presents a comprehensive survey tool that provides a means to describe what the Culture of Care in an establishment looks like. The tool is one of the elements that can contribute to the overall picture of the culture; however, it cannot stand alone. Together with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Culture of Care (e.g. key performance indicators) and a description of the outcomes and achievements in terms of animal welfare and the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine), the survey tool will constitute a comprehensive picture. The survey tool offers a multilevel and comprehensive view of different subcultures, presenting details on mindset and behaviour of the employees and the different relations within the culture, thus enabling the initiation of improvement projects if required. The tool addresses essential elements of a co-operative culture in terms of what we think, what we do and how we work together.

Use of nonaversive handling and training procedures for laboratory mice and rats: Attitudes of American and Canadian laboratory animal professionals

“…A key component of a Culture of Care is being able to have a positive attitude toward animal welfare initiatives as well as the ability to be open to change. This includes providing support to listen to, consider, and pilot ideas from all employees, and then to act on and implement validated changes when viable (41). From the responses provided in this study, technical personnel commonly predicted negative responses to new proposed animal welfare initiatives, and they did not feel empowered to drive changes at their respective institution.…”

“…From the responses provided in this study, technical personnel commonly predicted negative responses to new proposed animal welfare initiatives, and they did not feel empowered to drive changes at their respective institution. Ensuring that employees at all levels feel valued and that they can bring new ideas and concerns forward are important elements of an institution's Culture of Care as well as keeping up-to-date with the 3Rs in research settings, a societal imperative (41).…”

“…During the interview, the interviewer read the consent transcript aloud and asked for verbal consent to participate. Interviews took approximately [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] collect data on country, region, job function, education level, age, gender, and type of employer. The demographic survey was optional, and participants could skip questions as they saw fit.…”

The Capability Maturity Model as a Measure of Culture of Care in Laboratory Animal Science

“…Several methods have been previously proposed, to assess the extent to which a culture of care is practised within an institution. 20,[34][35][36][37] For example, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations' Research and Animal Welfare (EFPIA RAW) group has used a 16question survey tool to try to achieve this aim. It also introduced a human-centric framework focusing on five areas company values, strategic approach at establishment level, implementation structures, staff support, and animal care and proceduresto facilitate continuous improvement.…”

“…37 A recent study employed a survey-based method (put to staff at the Laboratory Animal Science Unit, Novo Nordisk) to measure the culture of care in an establishment, with 39 questions being used to probe three value-based characteristics (collaboration; trust; and integrity) and six value-based topics (influence; meaning; predictability; social support; rewards/recognition; and resources). 36,38 Most of these initiatives appear to be based on human-centric criteriahowever, a Three Rs-based, more animal-centric assessment method that captures the progress of each of the Three Rs discretely, has recently been introduced. 34 In the CMM evaluation survey, we address how the current capabilities and effectiveness of individual employees can be identified, so that the necessary skills and knowledge can be acquired throughout the institution in order to develop and maintain a good culture of care.…”