Management of veterinary anaesthesia in small animals: A survey of current practice in Quebec

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 16;15(1):e0227204. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227204. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Objective: To describe how small animal anaesthesia is performed in French-speaking Eastern Canada, and the variations between practices, in particular based on practice type, veterinarian gender and experience.

Design: Observational study, survey.

Sample: 156 respondents.

Procedure: A questionnaire was designed to assess current small animal anaesthesia practices in French-speaking Eastern Canada, mainly in the province of Quebec. The questionnaire was available through SurveyMonkey, and consisted of four parts: demographic information about the veterinarians surveyed, evaluation and management of anaesthetic risk, anaesthesia procedure, monitoring and safety. Gender, year of graduation, and type of practice were tested as potential risk factors. Chi-square exact test was used to study relations between each risk factor, and the effect of the selected risk factor on each response of the survey. For ordinal data, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to maximize power.

Results: Response rate over a period of 3 months was 20.85% (156 respondents). Overall, the way anaesthesia is performed by most respondents does not meet international guidelines, such as patient preparation and evaluation prior to anaesthesia, not using individualised protocols (for 41%), not obtaining intravenous access (12.4% use it for all their anaesthesia in cats, and 30.6% in dogs), lack of patient monitoring at certain intervals for 55% of the responses, and client prompted optional analgesia (for 29% of respondents). Some practices are more compliant than others. Among them, referral centres generally offer better care than general practices.

Conclusions and clinical relevance: The level of care in anaesthesia and analgesia in practices in French-speaking Eastern Canada is concerning, highlighting the need for more sustained continuing education.

Publication types

  • Observational Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Analgesia / adverse effects
  • Analgesia / methods
  • Analgesia / veterinary*
  • Anesthesia / adverse effects
  • Anesthesia / methods
  • Anesthesia / veterinary*
  • Animals
  • Cats
  • Dogs
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Quebec
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Veterinarians

Grants and funding

There was not proprietary interest or funding directly provided for this project or to any of the authors. This work was indirectly supported (ET) by a Discovery grant (#441651–2013, supporting salaries) and a Collaborative Research and Development grant (#RDCPJ 491953–2016 supporting operations and salaries in partnership with ArthroLab Inc.) from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. CO is a recipient of a MITACS Canada Elevation postdoctoral scholarship (#IT11643). ACB received support in the form of salary from the Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, but she did participate in the survey outside of her regular tasks for the employer, which had in consequence no role in the present study. The authors got support from the company Dispomed Inc., i.e. to deliver the electronic survey to their clients, with the previous approval of the Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec. The specific roles of all authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.