Assessing the Quality of VA Animal Care and Use Programs

The size and complexity of animal research programs are different among different facilities, which can make it difficult to compare different facilities’ ACUPs using the same quality measures. In addition, VA facilities may use their own IACUCs or the affiliate university IACUCs as the IACUCs of record. However, based on the authors’ experience  using HRPP QIs to assess the quality of VA HRPPs, the collected data using ACUP QIs will help determine whether such variables as the size and complexity of a program or the kind of IACUCs used (either VA, own IACUC, or affiliate IACUC) affect the quality of VA ACUPs.^10-12

Limitations

There is no evidence proving that these QIs are the most optimal measures for evaluating the quality of a VA facility’s ACUP. It is also unknown whether these QIs correlate directly with the protection of research animals. Furthermore, a quantitative, numerical value cannot be put on each indicator to allow evaluators to rank facilities’ ACUPs.

Some QIs, such as QIs 3, 4, 7, and 8, may depend on how stringent an IACUC is. For example, it is possible that a conscientious IACUC may report more noncompliance or suspend more protocols, giving the appearance of a poor quality ACUP, whereas in fact it might be an excellent program. However, the authors want to emphasize that no single QI by itself is sufficient to assess the quality of a program. It is the combination of various QIs that provides information about the overall quality of a program. It is also through the data collected that the usefulness of any particular indicators may be determined.     

Conclusion

These proposed QIs provide a useful first step toward developing a robust and valid assessment of VA ACUPs. As these QIs are used at VA facilities, they will likely be redefined and modified. The authors hope that other institutions will find these indicators useful as they develop instruments to assess their own ACUPs.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Dr. Kathryn Bayne, Global Director, Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International, for her suggestions and comments during the development of these quality indicators and critical review of the manuscript, and Dr. J. Thomas Puglisi, Chief Officer, VA Office of Research Oversight, for his support and critical review of the manuscript. 

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.