Response to Protocol Review Scenario: More oversight and communication might be needed

In our opinion, Schute has more of a problem than she realizes. Comparatively the new technician has a higher mortality rate than other technicians performing the same manipulation. This leads to the conclusion that the technician is not technically proficient. As stated in the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook, “training is a classic performance standard where the emphasis is on the outcome”¹. While Schute has assured the Great Eastern University IACUC that the employee was properly trained using IACUC approved methods, it is ultimately the responsibility of the IACUC to ensure that personnel conducting procedures on research animals are appropriately qualified and trained.

We recommend that the technician be suspended from performing the procedure in question until he or she can be retrained. As recommended in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, training may need to be tailored to accommodate the educational background and experience of the individual². Following laboratory standard operating procedures may not always be sufficient. If necropsies were performed to determine the exact cause of death of the mice, this could pinpoint the problem area that the retraining should focus on. Once retrained, this technician should continue to be closely monitored and the IACUC should request a periodic status update. Additionally, even though Schute is the training coordinator, she may have delegated the task of training to subordinate employees. The personnel that trained the new staff member should also be observed to make sure that proper techniques were taught.

Another point to make is that training and communication should never be the responsibility of one individual. The Great Eastern University animal care staff, including veterinarians and veterinary technicians, should also be actively involved in training at the University. We also feel that more open communication between Schute and the veterinary staff could have prevented some of the animal deaths. Once it was determined that there was an increase in the mortality rate for procedures performed by this technician, Schute should have addressed the issue with veterinary staff and temporarily excused the technician from performing the technique.

Schute's opinion that there is no problem is also cause for some concern. It may be a good idea for the IACUC to review Schute's qualifications and experience for this procedure, to ensure that she can adequately oversee training for her laboratory. Finally, the Great Eastern University IACUC should consider reviewing their post approval monitoring program, which could have identified this issue earlier.

Return to Protocol Review