Questions raised by Vet surveillance report
AHVLA’s announcement of changes to the veterinary scanning surveillance system in England and Wales raises many questions about the future, according to the British Veterinary Association (BVA).
Under the new system:
• AHVLA surveillance post-mortem (PM) centres will reduce from 14 to seven (down to six in 2015) plus the specialist poultry facility at Lasswade in Scotland.
• For the first three years a carcase collection service will be provided to collect carcases from within the areas where AHVLA PM facilities are closed. Livestock owners will be responsible for transporting carcases to a collection point and AHVLA will fund the onward journey to a PM facility.
• During this time it is expected that a network of non-AHVLA pathology providers will be established. First opinion gross pathology will be delivered by private veterinary surgeons (with training provided at a cost) and a network of expert second opinion pathology services established via a tender exercise or provider approval scheme.
• The provision of second opinion post-mortem examinations (PMEs) by expert providers will be subsidised by AHVLA. The provision of first opinion PMEs at fallen stock yards or on farm will not be subsidised but will be supported by AHVLA in the form of training, information, support and diagnostic back up.
• A dedicated Surveillance Intelligence Unit (SIU) will be created to support data capture from a wide range of sources and the use of surveillance findings to trigger mitigation measures or further research.
The announcement follows a report by the Surveillance Advisory Group (SAG) in April 2012 which made recommendations on criteria to be used in the design of a new model surveillance delivery.
BVA has responded to consultations on surveillance throughout the process and repeatedly stated that the aim must be to enhance the current system rather than simply reduce costs.
Commenting on the announcement, BVA President Robin Hargreaves said:
“It is good practice to review current systems with a view to improving them but we have said repeatedly that any changes to the veterinary scanning surveillance system must not be based on cost alone. The cost of disease outbreak far outweighs the cost of providing a robust surveillance system.
“Elements of the announced changes are positive, such as the increased focus on data collection, maintaining expert capacity, and efforts to increase access to facilities across England and Wales, which is something that the SAG report highlighted as an essential requirement.
“However, the report acknowledges there are known risks and the announcement raises many questions and challenges that will need to be addressed as we receive more detail on the plans.
“Some of the initial challenges we have identified are that the changes must not create a disincentive for farmers to utilise PM services; we need to be confident in the quality of the identified facilities for gross PMEs; we must ensure that veterinary practices see value in investing in the additional training requirements to provide services; and we need to be sure that there isn’t a loss of veterinary expertise at AHVLA.
“BVA will need to gather the views of members on the ground and our specialist species divisions to hear how they think the new system will impact on disease surveillance in their local area and the national picture. On the face of it the announcement appears to make a lot of assumptions that will need to be tested and so we look forward to seeing more detail.”
