Brucella canis
Dear Royal Veterinary College,
Please can you tell me:
1. Has any staff member or student been diagnosed as seropositive for Brucella canis as a consequence of carrying out veterinary duties either at the RVC or through EMS placements within the UK?
1.a. How many of these were confirmed Brucella canis positive using a PCR or a Culture?
1.b. Were any of these incidents reported to the Health and Safety Executive under RIDDOR related legislation? (all/some/none). If not, why not?
1.c.If yes, how many of these were thought to have contracted Brucella canis at the RVC veterinary facilities and how many while on an EMS placement at a UK veterinary facility?
2. How many individual dogs have you tested on site for Brucella canis using an in house testing kit?
2.i. which brand(s) were used?
2.ii. How many (number of, not %) of these dogs fell into the following categories: i. tested as routine screening (i.e. not because of specific clinical signs), and ii. tested because they had clinical signs suggestive of BC? What % of dogs in each of these groups tested positive?
2.ii. How many of those that tested positive in each group (outlined in 2.ii.) had further external testing carried out at a UK laboratory? What % in each group tested positive on at least one of the external tests?
3. How many dogs had their initial blood test from Brucella canis testing processed in an external laboratory (i.e. bypassed in house testing)?
3.i. How many (number of, not %) of these dogs fell into the following categories: i. tested as routine screening (i.e. not because of specific clinical signs), and ii. tested because they had clinical signs suggestive of BC? What % of dogs in each of these groups tested positive?
Many thanks for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Buckley
Dear Dr Buckley,
Thank you for your request for information dated 26/08/2023 (reference 1469). Your request is being dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be answered within 20 working days.
You can find out more about Freedom of information at The RVC, and view our Publication Scheme here. For further information about FOI please visit the Information Commissioner’s office here.
Yours sincerely
FOI Officer
Dear Dr Buckley,
Having conducted a search of the RVC’s records, we can confirm that it
does hold information relevant to your request. However, it has been
determined that the information you have requested falls within the
following exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
(a) Section 12 - exceeds appropriate time limit
(b) Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests
Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse
requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed
the appropriate limit, which is £450. This represents the estimated cost
of one person spending 18 working hours in determining whether the
department holds the information, and locating, retreiving and extracting
it.
The RVC may be able to provide some information in scope of your request
if you reduce or refine your request to bring the cost of compliance under
the limit. This could be perhaps by providing a date range of the
information you require.
1. Has any staff member or student been diagnosed as seropositive for
Brucella canis as a consequence of carrying out veterinary duties either
at the RVC or through EMS placements within the UK? The RVC are unable to
provide you with this information under exemption Section 12. To obtain
this data would require manually locating the information, reading of all
paper records, and retrieving and extracting the information and thus
exceeds the appropriate time limit.
1.a. How many of these were confirmed Brucella canis positive using a PCR
or a Culture? As above
1.b. Were any of these incidents reported to the Health and Safety
Executive under RIDDOR related legislation? (all/some/none). If not, why
not? As above
1.c.If yes, how many of these were thought to have contracted Brucella
canis at the RVC veterinary facilities and how many while on an EMS
placement at a UK veterinary facility? As above
2. How many individual dogs have you tested on site for Brucella canis
using an in house testing kit? The RVC do not hold the data on the number
of individual dogs that have been tested on site for Brucella canis using
an in-house testing kit.
2.i. which brand(s) were used? The RVC are refusing to provide you with
this information under exemption Section 43. The brand that is used is
considered to be commercially sensitive information and releasing such
information into the public domain could compromise the brand as well as
the RVC.
2.ii. How many (number of, not %) of these dogs fell into the following
categories: i. tested as routine screening (i.e. not because of specific
clinical signs), and ii. tested because they had clinical signs suggestive
of BC? What % of dogs in each of these groups tested positive? The RVC are
unable to provide you with this information under exemption Section 12.
The RVC does not hold data on the total number of dogs that were tested as
routine screening i.e. not because of specific clinical signs. To obtain
this data would require manual reading of all paper clinical records for
all patients ever recorded at an RVC hospital and thus exceeds the
appropriate time limit.
2.ii. How many of those that tested positive in each group (outlined in
2.ii.) had further external testing carried out at a UK laboratory? What %
in each group tested positive on at least one of the external tests? The
RVC are unable to provide you with this information under exemption
Section 12. In order to calculate how many of those dogs that tested
positive in each group (outlined in 2.ii) had further external testing
carried out at a UK laboratory, would require manual screening of all
relevant paper records which exceeds Section 12. In order to determine the
percentage of each group the denominator must be known which will exceed
Section 12.
3. How many dogs had their initial blood test from Brucella canis testing
processed in an external laboratory (i.e. bypassed in house testing)? The
RVC are unable to provide you with this information under exemption
Section 12. To answer this question would require manual screening of all
relevant paper records which will exceed Section 12.
3.i. How many (number of, not %) of these dogs fell into the following
categories: i. tested as routine screening (i.e. not because of specific
clinical signs), and ii. tested because they had clinical signs suggestive
of BC? What % of dogs in each of these groups tested positive? The RVC are
unable to provide you with this information under exemption Section 12. To
answer the first two parts of this question would require manual screening
of all relevant paper records which will exceed Section 12. In order to
determine the percentage of each group the denominator must be known which
will exceed Section 12.
The RVC is satisfied that in making this response, it has complied with
the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. If, for any reason,
you are not satisfied with this response, you should request an internal
review by writing within 40 working days of receiving this response to The
Chief Operating Officer and Secretary to the Council, Royal Veterinary
College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, AL9 7TA ( Email:
[email address] ), who will ensure that this is dealt with
accordingly. There is no charge for such a request. Should you still be
dissatisfied with the outcome, you have the right to make a complaint via
the Information Commissioner, pursuant to Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act, via The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF [Tel: 0303 123 1113].
Yours sincerely,
FOI Officer
The Royal Veterinary College
Please consider the environment before printing this email
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now