Elsevier

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Volume 10, Issue 5, September–October 2015, Pages 433-437
Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Point-Counterpoint
To feed or not to feed: Counterconditioning in the veterinary clinic

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.05.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Feeding small amounts of nutritious treats to animals in the veterinary practice is often avoided because of the fear that such practices may increase the risk of aspiration pneumonia (AP) in animals that end up being sedated. However, no data support that assumption; indeed the opposite can be argued—not feeding treats could potentially increase the frequency of AP. AP risk is a function of many factors including the type of procedure carried out and the choice of sedative; avoiding heavy sedation and emetic compounds should thus be a higher priority than avoiding treat feeding. Not feeding treats at the veterinary clinic is a choice that leads to increased stress in animals, difficulty in diagnosis, and risks to personnel. In contrast, feeding treats to animals visiting the veterinary clinic reduces stress, may facilitate diagnosis and reduce risks to staff involved in handling animals that could respond with defensive aggression if anxiety levels rise. It is also plausible that treat feeding reduces the number of animals that are sedated because of fear or aggression—thus effectively reducing the number of AP cases rather than increasing it. In conclusion, the trade-off between these alternatives strongly suggests that treat feeding should be the norm rather than the exception in the veterinary clinic.

Introduction

In a survey asking 750 veterinarians about the emotional state of pets during a veterinary practice visit, some 20% stated that at least half the dogs displayed moderate to severe fear or anxiety, and the corresponding number for cats was about 65% (DVM 360 staff, 2014). In an observational study, over 78% of dogs visiting the vet clinic were fearful when on the examination table (Döring et al., 2009). When fear escalates, welfare is potentially challenged, risks to animals and staff increase, and many animal owners dread and avoid taking their pet to the vet (Hetts et al., 2004, Rodan et al., 2011).

Systematic desensitization in combination with counterconditioning (SD/CC or DSCC) is a powerful tool to reduce fear (Wright et al., 2005, Yin, 2009, Kakuma and Kinoshita, 2010, Westlund, 2014). This technique typically involves presenting an animal with a tasty treat while gradually introducing something scary, and if carried out successfully changes the animal's emotional state (Wright et al., 2005, Yin, 2009). The scary thing ceases to be frightening. The risks to staff and animals are reduced as fear diminishes because feeding treats reduces the risk of defensive aggression (Savage, 2010).

In the veterinary clinic, sparsely feeding treats to dogs and cats before, during, and after an examination could make the visit far less traumatic for animals, owners, and staff, but this is seldom done (DVM 360 staff, 2014) and to my knowledge, its use has not been systematically studied. It seems there are multiple reasons why treat feeding is avoided. First, there might be gastrointestinal upset after the visit. In addition, feeding treats may be seen as condoning “junk food”, which is especially problematic in obese patients. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that veterinarians assume that treat feeding would increase the risk of complications associated with sedation and anesthesia. Not only are animals scheduled for anesthesia not given treats, but the same principle applies across all animals, just in case they might need to be sedated at some point during the visit. It appears that most often, even nonsedated animals are not given treats.

In this article, I discuss the 3 objections apparently hampering treat feeding, examining the available data regarding the assumption that feeding small amounts of treats in the veterinary clinic would increase the risk of aspiration pneumonia (AP) after sedation. I also discuss the risk and benefit perspective of the 2 alternatives: feeding treats versus not feeding treats to reduce fear or stress in the veterinary clinic.

Section snippets

Treat feeding, gastrointestinal upset, and obesity

Some animals are allergic or intolerant to specific food types (Carlotti et al., 1990), and may suffer from gastrointestinal upset, pruritus, or dermatological problems later if inappropriate treats are used during a veterinary visit. Similar concerns may be raised for animals suffering from gastrointestinal illness such as pancreatitis. I suggest 2 ways of avoiding this problem. One approach is to have a plethora of different treat types available, including hypoallergenic choices and low-fat

Treat feeding and aspiration pneumonia

AP is caused by regurgitation or gastro-esophageal reflux (GER), where stomach contents leak back up and may damage the esophagus, trachea, and lungs. This may be brought about by certain diseases, vomiting, and as an undesired side effect of sedation (Kogan et al., 2008, Tart et al., 2010).

Sedation depth ranges along a continuum from minimum sedation (anxiolysis) to general anesthesia, gradually affecting responsiveness, airway function, and cardiovascular function (American Society of

To feed or not to feed: The trade-off

Veterinarians and veterinary assistants have a choice whether or not to use treats when interacting with their patients; indeed, an SD/CC procedure could be started the moment the animal enters the waiting room, and continue during weighing, consultation, and examination. Could it be that staff assess the potential costs involved in feeding treats, but not the costs involved in not doing so? Ideally, this decision should be a trade-off between the different risks and benefits involved in both

Conclusion and recommendations

Feeding treats at the veterinary clinic would improve welfare, reduce stress, and the number of sedations carried out on animals who are too aggressive or fearful to cooperate safely in some procedures. It would also facilitate full examination and correct diagnoses of diseases where stress reactions may be confounding factors (Rodan et al., 2011). Interacting with animals would be less of an occupational hazard for staff, and the owner would learn useful techniques to deal with fear in other

Acknowledgments

The author is very grateful to Eva-Marie Wergård, Mats Spångberg, Eva Bertilsson, and Ida Pettersson for proofreading earlier versions of this article, and an anonymous referee was also very helpful. The author also thanks Julia Albright, MA, DVM, DACVB, Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, for discussing the issue, providing her with food for thought, and the right search terms.

References (43)

  • Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists

    Anesthesiology

    (2002)
  • R. Bednarski et al.

    AAHA Anesthesia Guidelines for Dogs and Cats*

    J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc.

    (2011)
  • T. Blass

    Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm

    (1999)
  • D.N. Carlotti et al.

    Food allergy in dogs and cats. A review and report of 43 cases

    Vet. Dermatol.

    (1990)
  • K. Drobatz et al.

    Evaluation of risk factors for bite wounds inflicted on caregivers by dogs and cats in a veterinary teaching hospital

    J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.

    (2003)
  • Keep Calm and Fear-free on

    (2014)
  • S.G. Friedman

    Functional assessment, intervention design, and best practices for resolving behavior problems

  • J.F. Hardy et al.

    Occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux on induction of anaesthesia does not correlate with the volume of gastric contents

    Can. J. Anaesth.

    (1990)
  • S. Hetts et al.

    Behavior wellness concepts for general veterinary practice

    J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.

    (2004)
  • R.A. Hinder et al.

    Canine gastric emptying of solids and liquids

    Am. J. Phys.

    (1977)
  • J.M.L. Hughes

    Anaesthesia for the geriatric dog and cat

    Ir. Vet. J.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (14)

    • At the heart of a dog's veterinary experience: Heart rate responses in dogs vary across a standard physical examination

      2022, Journal of Veterinary Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      Examination location and whether the guardian fed treats were not significantly associated with HR or behavioral signs of fear in the present study. Döring et al. (2009) identified dogs examined on the table showed more behavioral signs of fear than those examined on the floor, and the use of food as a counter-conditioning aid is recommended (Overall, 2013; Westlund, 2015; Howell and Feyrecilde, 2018; Jones, 2018). Perhaps in the present study, the sample size was not large enough to see an effect.

    • Attitudes of veterinarians and veterinary students to recommendations on how to improve dog and cat welfare in veterinary practice

      2019, Journal of Veterinary Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      If used in the form of classical counterconditioning, it will result in a positive association with the procedure and will improve the animal's behavior and welfare over time. In addition, it might lead to a decrease in aggressive behavior toward staff and a reduction of the number of animals that need to be sedated (Westlund, 2015). Overall, we suggest that, in addition to continuing education, veterinarians should receive support for the implementation of recommendations how to improve welfare in veterinary practice.

    • Pilot study evaluating surface temperature in dogs with or without fear-based aggression

      2018, Journal of Veterinary Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      As a result, similar physiological outcomes in the study population as a whole may have been triggered by various stimuli in the clinical setting (in addition to exposure to unfamiliar people), obscuring differences in IRT-measured surface body temperature change and observed behaviors between the 2 groups. In addition, based on clinical experience and previous literature (Herron and Shreyer, 2014; Westlund, 2015), we expected that close proximity to strangers in a public setting such as a veterinary hospital would have triggered aggression in a greater percentage of the dogs with histories of fear-based aggression toward unfamiliar people. While the affected group showed more reactivity to unfamiliar people standing up/moving to leave the room than did the group without fear-based aggression, the usual level of exposure to unfamiliar people seated in the consultation room did not provoke a significant difference in behavior between the 2 groups.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text