Using the Lean Six Sigma Methodology to Reduce Mouse Cage Sanitation Time for Animal Care and Use Programs

Evaluation and Refinement of a Spot-change-only Cage Management System for Mice

Maximizing operational efficiency while maintaining appropriate animal housing conditions is a continuous focus of research animal care programs. Our institution's longstanding approach to cage-change management included scheduled cage changes every 2 wk, with spot changes if cages met established visual criteria during the intervening period. This 2-wk plus spot changing (2WS) practice for mice housed in IVC was problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic when the need arose to minimize workload to reduce on-site staffing out of concern for employee health and possible absenteeism. With the approval of the IACUC, a spot-change-only (SCO) process was adopted, with the requirement to evaluate microenvironmental parameters under both practices to confirm acceptable equivalence. These parameters (humidity, temperature, and ammonia) were evaluated in a controlled study that found no significant difference between the 2 groups. Ammonia levels did not exceed 10 ppm in any group throughout the study. To assess operational differences between these 2 approaches, we collected cage-change data and employee feedback from facilities operating under these schemes. The SCO method required fewer cage changes than did the 2WS method (10.3% per day with 2WS and 8.4% per day with SCO). Despite this benefit, through a Plan-Do-Check-Act process that has been regularly employed at our institution, employee feedback identified important operational challenges associated with the SCO practice. The SCO approach was thus refined into a scheduled spot change (SSC) practice that builds on the SCO model by incorporating a scheduled focused cage evaluation period. Based on subsequent feedback, the SSC was found to retain the efficiency benefits afforded by the SCO model and simultaneously alleviated staff and operational concerns. This result underscores the importance of integrating staff feedback with a performance standard-based approach when assessing cage-change management.

Environmental Enrichment for Rats and Mice Housed in Laboratories: A Metareview

Simple Summary

Environmental enrichment has been widely studied with laboratory rodents, but there is no consensus regarding what counts as enrichment or what it should achieve. Inconsistent use of the term “enrichment” creates challenges in drawing conclusions about the quality of an environment. We conducted a metareview to better understand the definitions and goals of enrichment, perceived risks or requirements of enrichment, and what forms of enrichment have previously been endorsed for use with rodents housed in laboratories. This may help researchers and animal care staff to better define their chosen approach and intended outcomes when providing environmental enrichment.

Abstract

Environmental enrichment has been widely studied in rodents, but there is no consensus on what enrichment should look like or what it should achieve. Inconsistent use of the term “enrichment” creates challenges in drawing conclusions about the quality of an environment, which may slow housing improvements for laboratory animals. Many review articles have addressed environmental enrichment for laboratory rats and mice (Rattus norvegicus and Mus musculus). We conducted a metareview of 29 review articles to assess how enrichment has been defined and what are commonly described as its goals or requirements. Recommendations from each article were summarised to illustrate the conditions generally considered suitable for laboratory rodents. While there is no consensus on alternative terminology, many articles acknowledged that the blanket use of the terms “enriched” and “enrichment” should be avoided. Environmental enrichment was most often conceptualised as a method to increase natural behaviour and improve animal welfare. Authors also commonly outlined perceived risks and requirements of environmental enrichment. We discuss these perceptions, make suggestions for future research, and advocate for the adoption of more specific and value-neutral terminology.