Enhancing Success of Veterinary Visits for Clients With Disabilities and an Assistance Dog or Companion Animal: A Review

Grigg, Emma K.; Hart, Lynette A.

doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00044

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This poses special difficulties and hard choices when an assistance dog needs to be retired. Very often the partner needs to quickly begin working with a new dog while deciding at the same time how to retire the older dog, so as to maintain function and travel in the world (26, 27). With only few widely dispersed facilities placing guide dogs, these partners face particular hurdles when retiring a dog is necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic Availability of Assistance Dogs: Dogs Placed in 2013–2014 by ADI- or IGDF-Accredited or Candidate Facilities in the United States and Canada, and Non-accredited U.S. Facilities

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assistance dogs' roles have diversified to support people with various disabilities, especially in the U.S. Data presented here are from the U.S. and Canada non-profit facilities (including both accredited and candidate members that fulfilled partial requirements: all here termed “accredited”) of Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), and from non-accredited U.S. assistance dog training facilities, on the numbers and types of dogs they placed in 2013 and 2014 with persons who have disabilities. ADI categories of assistance dogs are for guide, hearing, and service (including for assistance with mobility, autism, psychiatric, diabetes, seizure disabilities). Accredited facilities in 28 states and 3 provinces responded; accredited non-responding facilities were in 22 states and 1 province (some in states/provinces with responding accredited facilities). Non-accredited facilities in 16 states responded. U.S./Canada responding accredited facilities (55 of 96: 57%) placed 2,374 dogs; non-accredited U.S. facilities (22 of 133: 16.5%) placed 797 dogs. Accredited facilities placed similar numbers of dogs for guiding (n = 918) or mobility (n = 943), but many more facilities placed mobility service dogs than guide dogs. Autism service dogs were third most for accredited (n = 205 placements) and U.S. non-accredited (n = 72) facilities. Psychiatric service dogs were fourth most common in accredited placements (n = 119) and accounted for most placements (n = 526) in non-accredited facilities. Other accredited placements were for: hearing (n = 109); diabetic alert (n = 69), and seizure response (n = 11). Responding non-accredited facilities placed 17 hearing dogs, 30 diabetic alert dogs, and 18 seizure response dogs. Non-accredited facilities placed many dogs for psychiatric assistance, often for veterans, but ADI accreditation is required for veterans to have financial reimbursement. Twenty states and several provinces had no responding facilities; 17 of these states had no accredited facilities. In regions lacking facilities, some people with disabilities may find it inconvenient living far from any supportive facility, even if travel costs are provided. Despite accelerated U.S./Canada placements, access to well-trained assistance dogs continues to be limited and inconvenient for many people with disabilities, and the numerous sources of expensive, poorly trained dogs add confusion for potential handlers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic Availability of Assistance Dogs: Dogs Placed in 2013–2014 by ADI- or IGDF-Accredited or Candidate Facilities in the United States and Canada, and Non-accredited U.S. Facilities

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While many people reported they had more time to take exceptional care of their pets during the pandemic, others did not. The handlers with disabilities who typically sought care outside of the home for needs such as grooming and nail trims likely suffered a hiatus [46]. In fact, because handlers may have been unable to access this care during the pandemic, they may have been compelled to take on these tasks themselves.…”

Section: Effect Of Covid-19 On the Service Animals Themselvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Status Quo: Enhancing Access to Human–Animal Interactions to Alleviate Social Isolation & Loneliness in the Time of COVID-19

Griffin

Braun³

2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to human–animal interactions (HAI) have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Service animals that were trained and accustomed to daily access to public places had to adjust to staying at home. Therapy animals and their handlers who previously visited with many of the populations most vulnerable to the virus have had to halt their programming. Professionals who utilize animal-assisted interventions (AAI) have had to develop new strategies for providing goal-oriented care. Even the landscape for companion animals has been significantly altered, leading to behavioral changes and new practices for pet owners and veterinarians. While animals and their human companions face new challenges, our recognition of the power of the human–animal bond (HAB) has grown, as it provides a vital need for connection during this time of isolation. In this paper, we will not only focus on describing the new status quo related to various kinds of animals and the public’s access to HAI, but will also offer suggestions for sharing the human–animal bond during a time in which physical connections are limited. Organizational insights from the service and therapy animal fields will be explored, and findings related to the auspiciousness of new initiatives, such as animal-related engagement (ARE), will be presented. Recommendations for people who share their lives with any of these kinds of animals will be made to ensure both human and animal welfare. Finally, future research and best practices will be suggested, so we can empirically understand and develop these revised offerings to ultimately bring HAI to a wider audience than ever before.

show abstract

“…The H5M2 (HHHHHMM) Quality of Life Scale for dogs and cats teaches clients to assess criteria for quality of life (7, 8). The scale assists carers in improving and understanding the quality of life of their animals, guiding their decision making, and is available for free download at: www.pawspice.com click: Menu, Library.…”

Section: Professional Caregivers Positively Rethinking Their Rolesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supportive Care for People With Disabilities as Working Partnerships With Their Assistance Dogs Are Ending: A Perspective From Veterinary Oncology

Villalobos¹

2019

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with disabilities and those working to train, provide and support assistance animals, along with their veterinary teams, would all benefit if they RETHINK their perspective and viewpoint, and roles when these very special relationships come to an end. The end of the relationship may be when the assistance animal must retire, must be redirected, or euthanized due to illness or cancer. The loss or separation at the end of an assistance animal's service marks a heavy loss for the disabled person. Emotions emerge when the assistance animal is sick or has developed cancer or is approaching the difficult period known as “end of life.” Anticipatory grief and heartbreak may be very difficult to manage and support. We can help ease the burden of decision making when euthanasia is needed for the assistance animal. If the disabled person takes on the good shepherd role and if the veterinary team emulates the minister or Mother Nature's role at the end of life or at the end of the working relationship, heartache may be lifted from both sides of the leash.

show abstract

Enhancing Success of Veterinary Visits for Clients With Disabilities and an Assistance Dog or Companion Animal: A Review

Cited by 9 publications

References 75 publications

Geographic Availability of Assistance Dogs: Dogs Placed in 2013–2014 by ADI- or IGDF-Accredited or Candidate Facilities in the United States and Canada, and Non-accredited U.S. Facilities

Geographic Availability of Assistance Dogs: Dogs Placed in 2013–2014 by ADI- or IGDF-Accredited or Candidate Facilities in the United States and Canada, and Non-accredited U.S. Facilities

The New Status Quo: Enhancing Access to Human–Animal Interactions to Alleviate Social Isolation & Loneliness in the Time of COVID-19

Supportive Care for People With Disabilities as Working Partnerships With Their Assistance Dogs Are Ending: A Perspective From Veterinary Oncology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About