CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Infection Control in HealthcareHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesZoonotic diseases and public health

Who let the dogs out? Infection control did: Utility of dogs in health care settings and infection control aspects

DiSalvo, Heidi, Haiduven, Donna, Johnson, Nancy, Reyes, Valentine V., Hench, Carmen P., Shaw, Rosemary, Stevens, David A.·2006·American Journal of Infection Control
DOI 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.06.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research has substantiated that animals improve human health, both psychologically and physiologically. Therefore, healthcare facilities have begun to implement programs, such as the "Furry Friends Foundation," that bring animals into the facility to improve the quality of life of patients. When implementing these programs, consideration must be given to potential adverse events such as phobias, allergies, and particularly the possibility of zoonotic disease transmission. Santa Clara Valley Medical Centre (SCVMC), a 600-bed county teaching hospital with specialized units (e.g., for burns, rehabilitation, and pediatric care), has implemented programs that incorporate animals into the healthcare setting. This facility allows three categories of dogs to interact with their patients: service dogs, therapy dogs, and pet visitation dogs by the "Furry Friends Foundation." A blurring of the roles of the three categories of dogs occurred when these programs were put into place at SCVMC. The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) states that service animals cannot be prohibited from any area. For example, a "no pet allowed" policy could not apply to these animals. Proof of a person's disability or proof of the service animal's health or training cannot be required. The purpose of this project was to maintain these programs by clarifying the policies regarding animals, specifically dogs, in the healthcare setting. This had to take place to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for the patients and the staff. A comprehensive table was developed to delineate the three categories of dogs and the corresponding policies. Therapy dogs and the visitation animals are more restricted than service dogs. Both therapy dogs and visitation dogs require identification and certification of health and are excluded from certain areas of the facility, including intensive care units and isolation rooms. By complying with the current policies and regulations, the risks from these programs can be minimized. Staff should be educated on the proper terminology and procedures to prevent a blurring of the categories and roles of these animals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.06.005

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AAT could be a potentially effective tool to improve adolescents' physical and mental health with eating disorders.

    “Due to the benefits mentioned above and considering that AAT tried to minimize infection risk [27,28] following the current legislation [29], AAT could be a potentially effective tool to improve adolescents’ physical and mental health with eating disorders.”

    From Effects of dog-assisted therapy in adolescents with eating disorders: A study protocol for a pilot controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DiSalvo, H., Haiduven, D., Johnson, N., Reyes, V. V., Hench, C. P., Shaw, R., & Stevens, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (US)
ORCID
Stevens, David A.
Venue
American Journal of Infection Control
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-06
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
301-307
ISSN
0196-6553 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ajic.2005.06.005
OpenAlex
W2045719208
Cited by
50
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • American Journal of Infection Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Zoonotic diseases and public health
Keywords
therapy dogs, service dogs, zoonotic transmission, infection control, animal-assisted interventions, Americans with Disabilities Act, employee training, patient safety
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Domestic, Dogs, Health Facilities, Health Policy, Humans, Infection Control, Disease Transmission, Infectious

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review