Checklist Monitoring Animal Experiments

Checklist monitoring animal experiments

Purpose of monitoring

The purpose is to assess whether: 1) animal experiments are conducted in compliance with the Dutch Experiments on Animals Act (Wet op de dierproeven, Wod), and 2) internal procedures —which are designed to ensure that working processes are in compliance with legal requirements— are followed properly.

Method of monitoring

By addressing the following questions,responsible researcher willcheckat the start of every experiment (within 2 weeks after arrival of first batch of animals) and then every 3 months, whether the organization,care and administration regarding the conduct of an animal experiment are transparent, complete and compliant with the Experiments on Animals Act.He/she can perform this check him/herself or ask a colleague (art.9/art.13f2 authorized) to perform the check. In experiments where animals are present with time intervals appropriate frequency is selected by the investigator in consultation with the IvD Utrecht.

Date:

Monitoring conducted by:

Building/Room number:

Subject

/

N/A

/

Yes

/

No

/

Remarks

General

Project/DEC-number:
Expiry dateProject/DEC licence:
Is the workprotocol (WP) present?
WP-number:
End date WP:
Name of responsible researcher (verantwoordelijk onderzoeker, VO) mentioned in the WP (art.9):
Is the procedureslist(handelingenlijst, HL) present?
Is the corresponding welfare logbook (welzijnsdagboek, WZDB) present?
Is a room logbook or logbook for daily care present?

Welfare

Has the WZDBbeen signed off by a competent person (art.9/art.13f2) listed in the WP?
Have welfare observations been signed off in accordance with Policy on Monitoring Laboratory Animal Welfare?
Does the frequency of additional welfare observations match the frequency mentioned in the WP?
Are the notes in the WZDBclear, self-evident and legible?
Has the daily check on animals and the animal room been signed off by a competent person (art.9/art.13f2) in the room logbook?
Has this work protocol been assessed every 3 months, using the Checklist Monitoring Animal Experiments (CMD)?
Have the findings or remarks in older CMD's been addressed and is this noted?
Are any cages marked with an attention label?
If so, does the WZDB contain corresponding explanatory notes?
And has email correspondence between animal caretaker and researcher concerning this issue(s) been added to the study file?

Housing

Does the present housing match the description in the WP?
Are the experimental animals identifiable (cage labels, numbers, names)?
Is food and water provided according to the WP or facility care protocol and is this traceable?
Does the environmental enrichment in situcorrespond with the environmental enrichment described in the WP?
Are any animals housed individually?
If so, can the reason for individual housing be traced in the WP, the WZDB and/or the form ‘Welzijnsdagboek solitaire huisvesting’?

Conduct of animal experiment

Have conducted procedures been dated and signed off in the HL by a certified person(art.9/art.13f2) mentioned in the WP?
Do the procedures which are signed off in the HL correspond with the WP?
Is it possible to determine the stage of the experiment for each animal in study?

Other

If mice/rats are used: are animals older than 1 year?*
*Due to an enhanced risk of discomfort, this is apoint of concern tothe inspectors of the Dutch Food and Product Safety Authority (NVWA).
If so, is an explanation for the necessity of the use of animals older than 1 year available in the study file?

Remarksandgeneralimpression

Question no.

/

Remarks

Checklist monitoring Animal Experimentspage1of2Version 2.0 – 2017