Pain, inconvenience and blame: defining work-related injuries in the veterinary workplace.

Abstract

Background: The veterinary workplace carries a high risk of staff accidents and injuries, yet there is scant research exploring it in comparison with other comparable fields, such as human medicine.

Aims: To understand how veterinary professionals define injuries and to understand what injuries they do, or do not, deem reportable.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey comprising demographic questions and open-text questions was shared with veterinary practice staff across the UK. Data were analysed descriptively and using an inductive content analysis.

Results: There were 740 respondents, who were broadly representative of the veterinary profession. There were differences in how injuries were defined; for example, small animal veterinarians expected injuries to involve blood, while equine and production animal veterinarians were more likely to expect injuries to reduce their ability to perform work and require medical treatment. Many suggested that 'all' workplace injuries should be reported; however, 'minor' injuries were often overlooked, for example, needlestick injuries did not always meet the criteria of being an 'injury'. Injuries caused by staff themselves (e.g. trips) were less likely to be reported than injuries that could be blamed on an external factor (e.g. dog bite).

Conclusions: Collectively, the data suggest a wide-ranging perception of risk of injury in practice, with some harms seen as 'everyday norms'. Veterinary practices should interpret their injury statistics with a high degree of caution. They should explore the microcultures within their practices relating to worker perception of risk, injury and barriers to reporting.