Vaccination consultations account for a large proportion of the small animal veterinary caseload. The aim of this study was to determine the content of canine and feline booster vaccination consultations and gather opinions on strategies used to optimise these consultations. An online survey of UK veterinarians was conducted. Respondents were asked about the clinical examination performed and the topics discussed during vaccination consultations, as well as any strategies used to optimise these consultations. Finally, respondents were asked about the practicality and effectiveness of various potential strategies. A total of 662 responses were received. Most respondents always auscultated the chest during vaccination consultations (n=603/621, 97.1% canine consultations; n=587/610, 96.2% feline consultations). Microchipping was discussed more frequently during canine versus feline consultations (P<0.001). Over half of respondents (n=323/597; 54.1%) had tried strategies to optimise consultations, with supplementary reading material tried most frequently (n=203/597; 34.0%). There were a range of opinions around practicality and effectiveness of these strategies. The results from this novel study suggest that vaccination consultations vary in terms of the clinical examination performed, topics discussed and strategies used to optimise the consultation. This study has implications for practice by identifying potential ways to maximise the benefits of vaccination consultations.
- clinical practice
- evidence-based medicine
- preventive medicine
- small animals
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The funding of NR and ZB’s time for this work was from MSD Animal Health. The other authors were paid by the University of Nottingham
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham for the collection of data through an online survey of veterinarians. The study complied with The University of Nottingham (2016) Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.