Cargando…

A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice

Qualitative risk assessment (QRA) can provide decision support in line with the requirement for an objective, unbiased assessment of disease risk according to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization. However, in order for a QRA to be ob...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Horigan, Verity, Simons, Robin, Kavanagh, Kim, Kelly, Louise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9941190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36825234
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1102131
_version_ 1784891233934508032
author Horigan, Verity
Simons, Robin
Kavanagh, Kim
Kelly, Louise
author_facet Horigan, Verity
Simons, Robin
Kavanagh, Kim
Kelly, Louise
author_sort Horigan, Verity
collection PubMed
description Qualitative risk assessment (QRA) can provide decision support in line with the requirement for an objective, unbiased assessment of disease risk according to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization. However, in order for a QRA to be objective and consistently applied it is necessary to standardize the approach as much as possible. This review considers how QRAs have historically been used for the benefit of animal health, what problems have been encountered during their progression, and considers best practice for their future use. Four main elements were identified as having been the subject of some proposed standard methodology: (i) the description of risk levels, (ii) combining probabilities, (iii) accounting for trade volume and time period, and (iv) uncertainty. These elements were addressed in different ways but were highlighted as being fundamental to improving the robustness in estimating the risk and conveying the results to the risk manager with minimal ambiguity. In line with this, several tools have been developed which attempt to use mathematical reasoning to incorporate uncertainty and improve the objectivity of the qualitative framework. This represents an important advance in animal health QRA. Overall, animal health QRAs have established their usefulness by providing a tool for rapid risk estimation which can be used to identify important chains of events and critical control points along risk pathways and inform risk management programmes as to whether or not the risk exceeds a decision-making threshold above which action should be taken. Ensuring a robust objective methodology is used and that the reasons for differences in results, such as assumptions and uncertainty are clearly described to the customer with minimal ambiguity is essential to maintain confidence in the QRA process. However, further work needs to be done to determine if one objective uniform methodology should be developed and considered best practice. To this end, a set of best practice guidelines presenting the optimal way to conduct a QRA and regulated by bodies such as the World Organization for Animal Health or the European Food Safety Authority would be beneficial.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9941190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99411902023-02-22 A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice Horigan, Verity Simons, Robin Kavanagh, Kim Kelly, Louise Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Qualitative risk assessment (QRA) can provide decision support in line with the requirement for an objective, unbiased assessment of disease risk according to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization. However, in order for a QRA to be objective and consistently applied it is necessary to standardize the approach as much as possible. This review considers how QRAs have historically been used for the benefit of animal health, what problems have been encountered during their progression, and considers best practice for their future use. Four main elements were identified as having been the subject of some proposed standard methodology: (i) the description of risk levels, (ii) combining probabilities, (iii) accounting for trade volume and time period, and (iv) uncertainty. These elements were addressed in different ways but were highlighted as being fundamental to improving the robustness in estimating the risk and conveying the results to the risk manager with minimal ambiguity. In line with this, several tools have been developed which attempt to use mathematical reasoning to incorporate uncertainty and improve the objectivity of the qualitative framework. This represents an important advance in animal health QRA. Overall, animal health QRAs have established their usefulness by providing a tool for rapid risk estimation which can be used to identify important chains of events and critical control points along risk pathways and inform risk management programmes as to whether or not the risk exceeds a decision-making threshold above which action should be taken. Ensuring a robust objective methodology is used and that the reasons for differences in results, such as assumptions and uncertainty are clearly described to the customer with minimal ambiguity is essential to maintain confidence in the QRA process. However, further work needs to be done to determine if one objective uniform methodology should be developed and considered best practice. To this end, a set of best practice guidelines presenting the optimal way to conduct a QRA and regulated by bodies such as the World Organization for Animal Health or the European Food Safety Authority would be beneficial. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9941190/ /pubmed/36825234 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1102131 Text en Copyright © 2023 Horigan, Simons, Kavanagh and Kelly. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Crown Copyright © 2023 Horigan, Simons, Kavanagh and Kelly. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Horigan, Verity
Simons, Robin
Kavanagh, Kim
Kelly, Louise
A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice
title A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice
title_full A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice
title_fullStr A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice
title_full_unstemmed A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice
title_short A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice
title_sort review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: suggestions for best practice
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9941190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36825234
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1102131
work_keys_str_mv AT horiganverity areviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT simonsrobin areviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT kavanaghkim areviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT kellylouise areviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT horiganverity reviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT simonsrobin reviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT kavanaghkim reviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice
AT kellylouise reviewofqualitativeriskassessmentinanimalhealthsuggestionsforbestpractice