Capturing Beneficial Changes to Racehorse Veterinary Care Implemented during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation called for countries to take urgent and aggressive action against a global pandemic caused by COVID-19. Restrictions were introduced in many countries to reduce transmission of COVID-19 and ultimately deaths. Such restrictions have been colloquially referred to as “lockdown”. Anecdotal evidence of the beneficial practices that facilitated safe veterinary treatment and equine care had been reported together with an increase in the use of electronic communication and information technologies during the first “lockdown”. Thus, the aim of this qualitative study was to capture any beneficial changes to racehorse veterinary care that were implemented during the first “lockdown” period in the UK that lasted from 23 March to 12 May 2020. Ten equine veterinary surgeons who primarily treat racehorses and 10 racehorse trainers were interviewed either by telephone or by videoconferencing. After using thematic analysis from a critical realist social constructionist perspective, four themes were identified. These were, firstly, according to our participants, the trainer–vet relationship is predicated upon a good working relationship, secondly, there had been little or no change in the vet–trainer relationship during the first “lockdown” period. Thirdly, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force, more remote consultations took place using images or videos as well as telephone consults, viewed favourably by both trainers and vets, and finally, intermittent connectivity and poor-quality images and videos limited their effectiveness. In order to fully benefit from the positive changes employed by some vets and trainers in their working relationships, we recommend that rural connectivity is prioritised.

The Human Aspect of Horse Care: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted the Wellbeing of Equestrian Industry Stakeholders

“…The results from the present study conform with that of Butler et al [ 15 ], who noted that the majority of an equine veterinarian sample found teleconsultation to be excessively time consuming, preferring to physically assess cases, although, some found that consultations took less time; consistent with findings of Bishop et al [ 19 ]. A possible contributor to strained communication over telephone could be the loss of subtle interactions which normally punctuate person to person communication.…”

“…Focused evaluations on the impact of the pandemic upon distinct social cohorts can offer insights into the ways that social isolation, contagion and restricted living interact with sense of overall wellbeing within a community. Equestrian industry stakeholders form one such group which has received considerable attention from researchers seeking to understand the full impact of the pandemic upon human and animal welfare [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].…”

Affordability, Feasibility, and Accessibility: Companion Animal Guardians with (Dis)Abilities’ Access to Veterinary Medical and Behavioral Services during COVID-19

“…Examining these challenges from the three domains above (PWDs, reduced social services and assistance, and adaptive veterinary service) further indicates complicities and interconnections. Research deficits associated with these complicities and interconnections reveal a comprehensive understanding of pandemic-related impacts to veterinary service access in PWDs [ 53 ]. Furthermore, the research will contribute to in-depth, evidence-based knowledge of this marginalized population’s experiences of owning animals during the pandemic.…”

An assessment of client and clinician satisfaction in veterinary teleconsultation compared to in-person consultations

“…Of the six cross-sectional studies, one was exclusively qualitative (Butler et al, 2021), and the rest were quantitative or a combination of both. Together they provided a comprehensive overview of their participants' outlook towards teleconsultation.…”

“…Arguments for its use is especially strong for that of remote locations, or in consults such as behavioural medicine when specialists are limited.The main issue with the body of evidence reviewed is the subjectivity of measuring satisfaction. The lack of clear definitions of subjectivity and approaches of measuring it, led to each study using different methods which varied greatly (e.g., the outcomes of a semi-structured interview (such asButler et al, 2021) are very different to a semi-quantified questionnaire (such as Magalhães-Sant'Ana et al, 2020). Even within one format such as a questionnaire, different authors asked differently phrased questions, and used subjective nonstandardised terms like 'excellent', 'good', 'poor' to calculate semi-quantitative scores.…”