Loading…

Retrospective case series to identify the most common conditions seen ‘out-of-hours’ by first-opinion equine veterinary practitioners

BackgroundThe study aim was to describe conditions seen ‘out-of-hours’ in equine practice.MethodsThis was a retrospective case series of first opinion ‘out-of-hours’ cases seen at two equine practices between 2011 and 2013. Data were retrieved on case presentation, diagnostic testing, treatment admi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary record 2020-11, Vol.187 (10), p.404-404
Main Authors: Bowden, Adelle, Boynova, Polina, Brennan, Marnie Louise, England, Gary C W, Mair, Tim S, Furness, Wendy A, Freeman, Sarah L, Burford, John H
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:BackgroundThe study aim was to describe conditions seen ‘out-of-hours’ in equine practice.MethodsThis was a retrospective case series of first opinion ‘out-of-hours’ cases seen at two equine practices between 2011 and 2013. Data were retrieved on case presentation, diagnostic testing, treatment administered and outcome, and diseases categorised using a systems-based coding system. A hierarchical logistic regression, formulated using a generalised linear model, was used to identify clinical variables associated with a binary outcome of ‘critical’ cases (required hospitalisation or euthanasia or died).ResultsData from 2602 cases were analysed. The most common reasons for ‘out-of-hours’ visits were colic (35 per cent, n=923/2620), wounds (20 per cent, n=511/2620) and lameness (11 per cent, n=288/2,620). The majority of cases required a single treatment (58 per cent, n=1475/2550), 26 per cent (n=656/2550) needed multiple treatments and 13 per cent (n=339/2550) were euthanased. Eighteen per cent (n=480/2602) of cases had a critical outcome. Increased heart rate at primary presentation was associated with critical outcome in both practices (Practice A, OR 1.07 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.06 to 1.09), Practice B OR 1.08 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.07 to 1.09; p
ISSN:0042-4900
2042-7670
DOI:10.1136/vr.105880