Amber Hansen

Biology 1615
Due 7/17/2015
Zoonotic Disease Risk and Prevention Practices

People and animals have coincided in existence since the beginning of

human development. Due to the close nature of our relationship, there are
diseases that can cross from human to animals and vice versa. These
specific diseases are referred to as zoonotic diseases. A national park survey
was completed to see what precautions are being taken to sustain a safe
environment for wildlife biologists and other wildlife workers. The results
showed that workers took minimal precautions and there needs to be an
increase of the use of safety equipment provided to these individuals. For
example, veterinarians and veterinarian technicians tend to forget the
dangers in working in a clinic and will neglect to wear goggles or a mask
when preforming a dentistry. There is then a higher possibility of animal
saliva and/or blood splashing in their face. If blood splashes into a sensitive
area or an open wound, then there becomes a possibility of becoming ill by
an affected animal. These diseases tend to become harder to treat and last a
longer period of time. This all could have been prevented by wearing the
proper safety equipment. Through the survey there were many key points.
The demographics of the survey sample is important in knowing who could
be affected. The potential risk and the possibility for potentially hazardous
exposure was discussed to show the frequency. Also, the regularity of
protective measures was noted to show the inconsistency of precautionary
measure being taken. Lastly, the result of the survey were discussed and the

Amber Hansen
Biology 1615
Due 7/17/2015

options there are for the future to increase the effectiveness of preventing
these zoonotic diseases.
Looking further into the conducted survey allows to see specifications
of the sample being surveyed. Through this information, we can verify to see
if there was a pattern from any specific group. The sample questionnaires
were taken from 238 managers from all seven national parks in the United
States, the specific number of workers was unknown. The ages of these
workers ranged from 19 to 65 and had worked a span of 11 days to 38 years
(Bosch). Seventy-one percent held the job title of wildlife biologists,
biological technicians, or supervisory biologists and almost all of them
worked outside. The highest percentage of people that took the survey were
from the Intermountain National Park region and about forty percent of all
people surveyed were biological technicians but no significant information
that could be found from either of the two categories.
However, the demographics about gender, job tile, permanent, or
seasonal, did not chance the amount of risk during the period of one year.
Out of the sample surveyed only 90 specimens reported that they received
training about zoonotic diseases in their lifetime, this equivalates to about 30
percent (Bosch). Additionally, half of all workers dealt with blood draws, live,
dead, or sick animals and about forty percent worked in either a tick or
mosquito invested area. Questions were asked regarding exposure from
traumatic injurie and the potential risk was significant enough to worry

Amber Hansen
Biology 1615
Due 7/17/2015

about. Ten percent or workers reported being bitten, eight percent of workers
reported being cut with a necropsy knife (to cut away dead tissue), and one
percent had been stuck with a needle (Bosch). The men, women, young, and
older all had high potential risk to become sick or gravely ill from these daily
activities and hazardous environments but very few of them had the proper
training or wanted to use the proper equipment.
Most people that had been around the national parks for a long period
of time thought that there was no use for the safety equipment and that it
was a waste of time. Each vehicle has a mandatory personal protection
equipment (PPE) kit in their vehicle and about forty percent rated it to be an
inconvenience but most also agreed that it was difficult to use in extreme
conditions (Bosch). On the positive side, one of the most practiced protective
measures was washing their hands with either soap or and alcohol based
sanitizer, especially after handling carcasses, blood, or any other excretions.
Also, about two-thirds reported that they wore leather gloves, with the
potential of scratches or being bitten, and about 85% of individuals used
disposable gloves (Bosch). Also, about 75% of workers wore protective
clothing and checked themselves for fleas and ticks (Bosch).Very few used
biohazard bags when transporting dead animals or cleaned their vehicle.
About half of all people disinfected their field equipment after using it.
As a result of these findings, companies had to delegate other ways to
ensure their employees used more precautionary measures. These shocking

Amber Hansen
Biology 1615
Due 7/17/2015

results showed companies that there needed to be an increase of safety.

They found factors and motivations can improve their results from the
biologists and other workers. They also took a poll and found that in person
seminars were the most sought out result for the workers and also the
provision of brochures and fact sheets would be the most helpful. Even
though hand hygiene was the only consistent protective measure, they
continue to encourage other usage of protective equipment.
In conclusion, the survey showed that employees needed to be more
informed and increase the use of protective measures against transmittable
diseases from animals to people. Every demographic group were falling short
in the category of safety. No matter the gender of the individual or the length
of time being employed, there was only one consistent method of protection.
Hand hygiene was the only measure really used with sick, dead, or live
animals. Many of these individuals had been bitten, cut with a necropsy
instrument, or stabbed with a needle. These individuals have a high risk
position and most were not cautious. The dangers were almost taken for
granted as veterinarians due in a clinic. Companies found that there needed
to be an increase of motivations and the workers wanted in person seminars
and brochures for safety guides.

Amber Hansen
Biology 1615
Due 7/17/2015

Works Cited

Bosch, S. (2013). Zoonotic Disease Risk and Prevention Practices Among Biologists and Other
Workers. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 49(3), 475-485. Retrieved June 20, 2015.