A case-control study to estimate the effects of acute clinical infection with the Schmallenberg virus on milk yield, fertility and veterinary costs in Swiss dairy herds.

Schmallenberg virus (SBV) was first detected in Switzerland in July 2012 and many Swiss dairy farmers reported acute clinical signs in dairy cattle during the spread of the virus until December 2012. The objectives of the present study were to investigate the effects of an acute infection with SBV on milk yield, fertility and veterinary costs in dairy farms with clinical signs of SBV infection (case farms), and to compare those farms to a matched control group of dairy farms in which cattle did not show clinical signs of SBV infection. Herd size was significantly (p<0.001) larger in case farms (33 cows, n=77) than in control farms (25 cows, n=84). Within case herds, 14.8% (median) of the cows showed acute clinical signs. Managers from case farms indicated to have observed a higher abortion rate during the year with SBV (6.5%) than in the previous year (3.7%). Analysis of fertility parameters based on veterinary bills and data from the breeding associations showed no significant differences between case and control farms. The general veterinary costs per cow from July to December 2012 were significantly higher (p=0.02) in case (CHF 19.80; EUR 16.50) than in control farms (CHF 15.90; EUR 13.25). No differences in milk yield were found between groups, but there was a significant decrease in milk production in case farms in the second half year in 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 (p<0.001) and 2013 (p=0.009). The average daily milk yield per cow (both groups together) was +0.73kg higher (p=0.03) in the second half year 2011 and +0.52kg (p=0.12) in the second half year 2013 compared to the same half year 2012. Fifty-seven percent of the cows with acute clinical signs (n=461) were treated by a veterinarian. The average calculated loss after SBV infection for a standardized farm was CHF 1606 (EUR 1338), which can be considered as low at the national level, but the losses were subject to great fluctuations between farms, so that individual farms could have very high losses (>CHF 10,000, EUR 8333).

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.