Euthanasia strains shelter staff, study says

The influence that euthanasia-related stress holds on animal shelter employees can jeopardize their well-being on and off the job, according to Charlie Reeve, Ph.D.

In a three-study package, Reeve, of Purdue University, and co-investigatorSteven Rogelberg, Ph.D. of Bowling Green State University (BGSU), are examininghow euthanasia affects the health, well-being and stress levels of employeesat animal shelters.

"We're trying to get a better handle on the degree to which shelteremployees feel this type of stress and what is being done to help them copewith this stress," Reeve says of the research, which was contractedby the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and is not yet published.

He adds, "What we're finding right now, not too surprisingly, isthat quite a few shelter employees do report euthanasia work as a significantstressor."

The industrial psychologists presented findings to a standing-room-onlycrowd at the 2003 Midwest Veterinary Conference in Columbus, Ohio.

How research evolved

The distressing concerns of Natalie DiGiacomo, director of the GreatLakes Humane Society (GLHS), Toledo, helped to launch Reeve's and Rogelberg'sresearch. On behalf of GLHS, she contacted a local industrial psychologysociety about the so-called "caring/killing" phenomenon: animalshelter workers who care about animals are asked to help euthanize them.

Her dialogue led to interactions with faculty at BGSU, who assumed theresearch, with the aid of Purdue researcher, Reeve.

Says DiGiacomo, "Shelters are a stressful place in general, and(euthanasia) is a particularly stressful element of the work. Anyone whowants to see shelters do a good job for the public and the animals theyserve also would be interested in the overall health of the employees inthe organization."

Seeking recruits

Reeve and Rogelberg brought their work in progress to two Animal CareExpos, annual conferences for shelter workers, surveying 491 respondents,including those who did and did not perform euthanasia.

Reeve and Rogelberg focused on three critical areas:

· Degree of euthanasia-related stress endured by shelter staff;

· Potential impact of euthanasia-related stress on individualwell-being;

· Influence of individual, job and organizational differenceson degrees of euthanasia-related stress experienced.

Their studies tracked the quantity of somatic complaints of shelter workers- i.e. feelings of dizziness, headaches and nausea - and found the numberto be "substantially higher" for people in shelters who performeuthanasia vs. those who don't perform the procedure.

"This suggests that it's the euthanasia that is causing the stress,"Reeve says.

Research still under way by Reeve and Rogelberg considers the relationshipbetween organizational level issues and well-being of staff in light ofeuthanasia procedures.

"What we're finding is that a variety of factors influence generalmorale within the shelter as well as euthanasia-related stress; some ofthe key factors appear to be how management treats employees, the levelof social support from management and co-workers, and the psychologicalcharacteristics of the employees themselves."

Up to management

Rebecca Rhoades, DVM, director of the Kauai (HI) Humane Society, saysit's imperative that managers ­ whether veterinarians or shelter directors- use caution in how they manage those performing euthanasia.

Rhoades is the co-author of a new national training manual on euthanasiapublished by the Humane Society of the United States.

"There's not a whole lot out there in the sense of euthanasia training,"Rhoades says. "To put it politely, the staffs need help. My goal isto better the care of shelter animals."

While the manual is primarily technical in nature focusing, for example,on use of sodium pentobarbitol, she says it can be instrumental in helpingdirectors and veterinarians teach staff to handle animals professionallyand compassionately.

Telling results

Reeve says study results show euthanasia-related stress is linked tolow overall job satisfaction, high experienced generalized work stress,conflict between work and family responsibilities and increased likelihoodof substance abuse.

Is it really euthanasia that is the cause of these work strains? Theresearchers share a resounding "yes."

Compared to shelter workers who don't perform euthanasia, those who do,report higher incidences of each of the above factors.

DiGiacomo says the goals of the research are far-reaching. "We'regoing to be able to look at the impact of stress on employee health andwell-being and also the well-being of the organization as a whole. We knowhow to take care of animals but we can certainly benefit from their expertisein looking at the organizational issues."

Coping methods

Healthy vs. unhealthy coping behaviors can definitely affect the outcomeof employees exposed to euthanasia, according to researchers.

Examples of healthy mechanisms included physical exercise, meditation,relaxation training and professional counseling. Unhealthy means involvedexcessive drinking, drug use, aggressive behavior toward family/friendsand smoking.

"Those who practiced healthy ways of coping voiced fewer somaticcomplaints, exhibited more energy, had lower euthanasia-related stress,less work-to-family conflict and higher job satisfaction," says Reeve.Exactly the opposite held true for those engaging in unhealthy activity.

Shelter exclusive?

While the study targets shelter settings, Reeve says the MVC presentationwas "very well received" by veterinarians. "They were indicating they saw connections to veterinary settings and what could potentiallybe an overlap."

Reeve says that while a large majority of shelter workers are not veterinariansand may not accurately portray the euthanasia-related stress levels in veterinaryclinics, there is talk of expanding their research - on one condition.

"If funding was available, we'd definitely conduct the research,"he says.

table 1

Tips from hSUS Euthanasia manual

The manual recommends:

1) shelters or veterinary clinics have specific criteria in placefor determining whether animals should be euthanized.

2) have a number of staff involved in the selection process foreuthanasia.

3) have prevention programs to address why euthanasia is necessary.

4) rotate staff so they're doing more than euthanasia.