Syndromic Surveillance on Equine Farms
The other day, I wrote about a few different types of surveillance that can be used in equine hospitals - active, passive and syndromic. Infectious disease surveillance, however, is not just for hospitals. Every horse farm should have some form of infection control program. In most situations, it doesn't need to be complicated, fancy or time consuming, but it means organizing some basic infection control policies and procedures. Syndromic surveillance is great for use on horse farms.
Syndromic surveillance involves looking for specific syndromes (e.g. particular clinical signs (not specific diseases per se) such as fever, cough, diarrhea, or off feed) that might indicate an infectious disease. These basic, easy-to-identify syndromes can be the early warning that something might be amiss, then closer examination can be used to determine if there is actually is a problem.
An important key to disease surveillance is it is only effective if something is done with the information collected. There has to be a plan based on the results of the syndromic surveillance, with regard to what needs to be done for the affected horse and on the entire farm. For the horse, it usually means a visit from a veterinarian to determine what's wrong, and if it might be due to an infectious pathogen. For the farm, it means making sure that horse doesn't have a chance to infect other horses (in case it is an infectious disease), and ensuring that the information is recorded so bigger problems (e.g. outbreaks) can be identified as early as possible. The plan for what to do when one of these syndromes is detected needs to be written down so it's very clear for everyone, and easy to find if someone's not sure what to do. One of the most important steps is making sure someone (i.e. someone "in charge") is notified.
Here's a scenario: A horse develops a mild fever overnight and doesn't eat all its grain.
Response 1 (what should happen): The fever and decreased appetite are identified and the person in the barn in charge of the surveillance program is notified. They record that a horse has a fever and talk about what to do with the horse so everyone knows. The horse is restricted to its stall until the cause of the fever is identified. An hour later, the same person in charge of surveillance gets reports from two other people about horses with fever. This obviously raises concern and they try to determine what is happening. They know that a new horse arrived a while ago and that the horses with fever were turned out with it. They immediately call the veterinarian, who suspects strangles may be the cause. All horses with a fever are isolated and tested. Other horses in the barn are closely monitored for signs of illness. Because horses with strangles spike a fever a couple days before they are able to transmit the disease, these horses do not spread the disease any further.
Response 2 (what usually does happen): The first fever and decreased appetite may or may not be identified. Since the horse doesn't really look sick, they decide to wait and see how it looks over the next day or two. A couple days later, someone notices the horse has enlarged lymph nodes. Then they call the vet, who diagnoses strangles. As the vet looks around the barn and talks to people, he/she finds out that a few other horses have big lymph nodes, and realizes that an outbreak of strangles is already well underway. Most horses may have been exposed at this point and a large outbreak is probably inevitable.
Which scenario would you want? Which response would be most likely in your barn?
Surveillance scares off many people just because of the name and the thought that it is expensive, complicated or requires special training. It doesn't. All it needs is people in a barn who communicate and some basic written policies on how to handle horses and potential diseases.
