Head Injuries, Horses, & Hypocrisy: The helmet debate in Vet Med (#361)
- RIck LeCouteur
- Jun 28
- 2 min read
Research into workplace injuries in equine veterinary practice continues to shine a sobering light on our profession.
Modern Equine Vet recently published a powerful infographic summarizing the findings of recent studies on injury rates among equine vets.
The data are unambiguous, and frankly, alarming:
43% of injuries occurred when examining or performing procedures on the distal limb.
Nearly 1 in 4 recent injuries required hospital attendance.
16% of all recent injuries were to the head.
Yet only 1 in 5 vets were wearing a helmet at the time of injury.
58% took more than a week to physically recover, but just 6.7% took more than a week off work.
Over 60% didn’t file an incident report.
The Hypocrisy of Evidence-Based Practice
If you are a veterinarian working with horses and turning a blind eye to the need for a helmet, you are ignoring one of the most important pieces of evidence-based medical advice available.
You simply cannot claim to practice evidence-based medicine and not wear a helmet when handling and examining horses.
To do so is a contradiction of professional standards and personal safety.
When Leaders Fail to Lead
What concerned me recently was learning that students at a renowned UK veterinary university were required to wear helmets at all times when handling horses, as they should be, while senior clinicians, lecturers, and teachers refused to comply with the same policy.
Let that sink in.
Those tasked with educating and protecting students, and modelling professional behavior, are ignoring clear policy and robust evidence.
How is this defensible, legally or ethically?
It isn’t, and it raises fundamental questions about duty of care.
Workplace injuries lasting more than a week are required to be reported to the UK’s Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). Should an investigation follow, there is potential for criminal sanctions. Not necessarily for the individual clinician, but for senior leadership and management who fail to enforce safety standards.
This is not an abstract risk. With an evidence base this clear, a permissive approach to non-compliance becomes extremely difficult to defend in court. The prospect of corporate manslaughter charges and custodial sentences is real.
Personal Choice Ends at the Stable Door
Personal choice is what you do in your own stable, not what you do while teaching students or practising under institutional policies and national occupational safety legislation.
We owe it to ourselves, our colleagues, and our students to prioritize safety.
If we are serious about evidence-based veterinary medicine, then we must also be serious about evidence-based veterinary safety.
The data are clear.
The legal implications are clear.
The choice is not yours alone to make.
Further Reading
Comments