ILAR Journal Online, Volume 32(4) 1990: Issues for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs)

Online Issues

<< All Back-issues

<< This Issue's Table of Contents

ILAR Journal V32(4) 1990
Issues for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs)

AAALAC Accreditation: Declining Trends in Deficiencies
Albert E. New

Albert E. New is executive director of the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, Bethesda, Maryland.

The value of seeking and maintaining accreditation has received considerable attention throughout the 25-year history of the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). The association continues to be asked to comment on the merits of seeking accreditation. Principal strengths of accreditation are the thorough and impartial assessment of research, teaching, and testing programs using animals. AAALAC's objective is to promote the highest standard of laboratory animal care through the voluntary peer review process. Generally, knowing what a visit will reveal before it is conducted is understandably desirable. This article aims to provide insight about the issues of concern to laboratory animal programs and discusses how these issues affect accreditation through AAALAC.

The site visit team is headed by a member of the AAALAC Council on Accreditation and includes one or more select ad hoc consultants. These individuals are knowledgeable about and involved in the management of animal care and use programs. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals [(Guide); DHHS PUB. No. (NIH) 85-28, Revised 1985] is the primary resource used by the Council for evaluating programs. Other refereed references for supplemental information about procedure or techniques related to the care and use of laboratory animals are consulted where appropriate. These resources, coupled with experience and currently accepted management practices in life sciences research, teaching, and testing, are used in evaluating the programs accredited by AAALAC. Of paramount importance is an organization's approach and attention to animal welfare.

The site visit gives AAALAC representatives an opportunity to make observations and gather detailed information for evaluating the unit. An exit briefing is conducted at the conclusion of the site visit to provide immediate feedback to the management, administrative, and animal care program staff. Discussion and clarification of issues noted during the visit are encouraged. Following the site visit, the AAALAC representatives prepare and submit a written evaluation of the unit with recommendations to the Council. The AAALAC site visitor from the Council acts as an advocate for the institution during the Council meeting. The Council meets three times a year to review the evaluations and recommendations. Following full review, the Council notifies the unit in writing of its accreditation status.

Accredited units vary in complexity, depending on the nature of the organization's objectives. Most deficiencies noted during a site visit can be corrected in a short period of time. Rarely do the deficiencies pose serious problems that would threaten accreditation status. The categories of accreditation awarded following a site revisit allow flexibility for maintaining accreditation while correcting most deficiencies. Every opportunity is provided for the unit to achieve and maintain accreditation. For serious or long-term problems, usually involving major programmatic or physical plant issues, accreditation is withheld or revoked.

Concerns about deficiencies should not be a deterrent to seeking accreditation. Awareness of deficiencies and knowledge of their implications are paramount to main-raining high standards of laboratory animal care and use. Deficiencies noted during site visits in 1976, 1987, 1988, and 1989 are summarized in Table 1. They are divided into four major categories as outlined in the Guide: institutional policies, laboratory animal management, veterinary care, and physical plant.

Unequivocally, the quality of animal management and the health of laboratory animals have both improved. The frequency of Council-observed deficiencies continues to decline. In 1976 an average of 4.2 deficiencies per unit were observed by AAALAC. In contrast, 11 years later the number of deficiencies per unit had decreased by nearly half (2.5 deficiencies per unit) for a similar number of site visits, and by 1989 the average number of deficiencies per unit was further reduced to 1.6.

The trend toward fewer deficiencies per unit demonstrates the responsiveness of organizations to the high standards. Table 2 further breaks out the major categories for a closer look at areas within categories. Comparisons of data in Tables 1 and 2 highlight significant improvements in those areas related to the care and management of animals. Four areas worth noting are:

1. caging/housing systems, which accounted for 23 percent of the deficiencies reported in 1976 and only 7 percent in 1989;
2. facility maintenance, accounting for 9 percent in 1976 and 5 percent in 1989;
3. preventive medicine, which totaled 8 percent of the deficiencies in 1976 and 2 percent in 1989; and
4. surgical and postsurgical care, which decreased from 6 percent in 1976 to 2 percent in 1989.

Overall, there has been a decrease in the absolute numbers of reported deficiencies in each category, even though the percentages may have increased from 1976 to 1989 (see Table 2). For example, occupational health and safety program represents a greater percentage of the total number of reported deficiencies in 1989 than in 1976; however, the absolute numbers of deficiencies observed were about the same. The only exception was IACUC/protocol procedures, where the absolute numbers of deficiencies increased. The apparent emphasis in the areas of institutional policies and physical plant issues in 1989 might be attributed to compliance requirements by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Public Health Service (PHS) and renewed concerns about older structures. Deficiencies in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning provisions and survival surgery support accounted for about one-fifth of the total deficiencies observed in 1989 but were not recorded as such in 1976.

During the past 25 years, more than 770 units have applied for accreditation, with the majority achieving it. In 1989-1990 more than 95 percent of the new applicants that were site visited received full accreditation. Today more than 540 organizational animal care and use programs are accredited, including academic, commercial, and government organizations located in the United States, Canada, and Europe; 93 percent maintain full accreditation status. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration requires that all facilities using animals in testing and research be AAALAC accredited. AAALAC accreditation or demonstration that an animal facility meets the standards for accreditation is required by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Full accreditation is accepted by the National Institutes of Health and other funding agencies as assurance that the unit is in compliance with PHS policy and the Animal Welfare Act and that it conforms both in spirit and intent with the Guide.

AAALAC's mission to promote high standards of animal care, use, and well-being and to enhance life sciences research and education through the accreditation process is widely accepted by the scientific community and granting agencies. As a voluntary, third-party peer review process, AAALAC accreditation provides a reliable method for attaining and maintaining high standards of laboratory animal care and use. AAALAC accreditation assures members of the scientific community, as well as other concerned individuals, that a facility truly exceeds the minimum standards required by federal regulations.

For more information, please contact Albert E. New, D.V.M., Executive Director, American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814.

TABLE 1 AAALAC-Encountered Deficiencies (By category)

Deficiencies	1976 No./%	1987 No./%	1988 No./%	1989 No./%
Institutional policies	91/12	95/21	84/22	71/23
Laboratory animal management	433/57	210/46	156/40	128/41
Veterinary care	144/19	122/26	37/9	20/6
Physical plant	86/12	33/7	114/29	96/30
Total deficiencies	754	460	391	315
Site visits	178	181	178	192
Average deficiencies per unit	4.2	2.5	2.2	1.6

TABLE 2 AAALAC-Encountered Deficiencies (Within Category)

Deficiencies	1976 No./%	1987 No./%	1988 No./%	1989 No./%
Institutional policies
Occupational health and safety program	27/4	52/11	20/5	29/9
IACUC/protocol procedures	5/<1	22/5	26/7	21/7
Adequate veterinary care	54/7	18/4	20/5	11/4
Administrative interface	5/<1	3/<1	18/5	10/3
Laboratory animal management
Animal space provisions	85/11	70/15	48/12	33/11
Support services	48/6	6/1	26/7	27/9
Sanitation practices	54/7	68/15	46/12	27/9
Caging/housing system	172/23	53/12	15/4	22/7
Aseptic surgery		10/2	8/3
Husbandry practices	29/4	7/1	5/1	6/2
Identification/recordkeeping	26/4	1/<1	4/1	3/<1
Vermin control	19/2	5/1	2/<1	2/<1
Veterinary care
Preventive medicine	60/8	30/7	10/2	5/2
Disease diagnosis, control and treatment	28/4	1/<1	7/2	6/2
Surgical and postsurgical care	45/6	82/18	15/4	6/2
Euthanasia procedures	11/1	9/1	5/1	3/1
Physical plant
Heating/ventilation/air conditioning	--	--	25/6	36/11
Survival surgery support	--	--	42/11	28/9
Facility maintenance	68/9	31/7	34/9	17/5
Personnel safety concerns	--	--	4/1	10/3
General storage conditions	18/3	2/<1	4/1	5/2
Sanitation of facilities	--	--	5/1	0/0
Total deficiencies	754	460	391	315
Site visits	178	181	178	192
Average deficiencies per unit	4.2	2.5	2.2	1.6

Note: percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.