A survey of United States hospitals, eldercare facilities and therapy animal organizations revealed their health and safety policies for therapy animal visits varied widely, with many not following recommended guidelines for animal visitation. The research from investigators at Tufts Institute for Human–Animal Interaction at Tufts University appeared in the American Journal of Infection Control.

In addition to concerns about human allergies to animals, animal behavior, stress on the animal and appropriate animal immunizations, AAI programs have a potential risk of transmission of zoonotic disease. This risk is especially high when health, grooming and handwashing protocols are not carefully used. Another potential risk could come from therapy animals eating raw meat–based diets or treats, which are at high risk of being contaminated with bacteria such as Campylobacter, Salmonella and Cryptosporidium. These pathogens may pose risks to both humans and animals, and especially immunocompromised patients.

The survey results showed that many respondents’ policies and practices do not address these and other risks.

Researchers gathered responses from 45 eldercare facilities, 45 hospitals, and 27 therapy animal organizations across the country on their existing policies related to animal health and behavioral prerequisites for therapy animals and AAI programs.

Standardized guidelines for safety, health and monitoring of AAI are limited. A working group from the American Veterinary Association (AVMA) created guidelines in 1999, which were updated in 2015. And, in 2015, The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) produced comprehensive guidelines specifically geared to animal visitation in health care facilities. In addition, Tufts Institute for Human–Animal Interaction has developed a manual for facilities with minimum health, safety and training requirements for handlers and therapy animals visiting all types of facilities, including hospitals and eldercare facilities.

Results revealed that the facilities’ health and safety policies for AAI varied widely and potentially compromised human and animal safety. In general, hospitals had stricter requirements than eldercare facilities.

• 4 percent of hospitals and 22 percent of eldercare facilities had no policy whatsoever for AAI;
• 16 percent of hospitals and 40 percent of eldercare facilities required only a minimal written health record for the therapy animal; and
• 18 percent of hospitals and 2 percent of eldercare facilities did not permit therapy dogs, allowing service animals only.

Animal health and behavior were considered in some capacity by all therapy animal organizations, although depth of policy varied among groups and some practices potentially compromised human and animal safety.

• 74 percent required animals to be examined by a vet before participating in AAI;
• 70 percent allowed therapy animals eating raw meat diets to visit facilities and only 19 percent prohibited them (the remaining 11 percent chose not to answer);
• 26 percent did not specifically request a fecal test for the participating animal;
• 7 percent did not have a rabies vaccination requirement;
• 33 percent indicated a test of basic obedience skills or an American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen certificate – a 10–step behavior certification course not intended to demonstrate suitability for AAI – was sufficient for animal participation in their visitation programs; the remaining respondents indicated there were additional requirements for participation in their visitation programs; and
• 52 percent of respondents who required behavioral testing also required regular retesting of animals.