Topic 1.1 Workplace Health and Safety Responsibilities in Assistance Animal Practice
Work Health and Safety (WHS) involves the systematic identification of hazards, assessment of risks and implementation of appropriate controls to prevent or minimise injury, illness and other harm arising from work.
For Occupational Therapists (OTs) working in assistance animal practice, WHS is an essential component of ethical, professional and person-centred practice because assistance animals may be integrated into a person’s daily life across:
- private homes;
- workplaces;
- educational environments;
- healthcare settings;
- transport;
- community facilities;
- public spaces; and
- other environments in which occupations occur.
Unlike many conventional healthcare interventions, assistance animal practice involves a dynamic relationship between:
Person + Assistance Animal + Task + Equipment + Environment + Other People + Organisational Systems
Each element may influence the safety, effectiveness and sustainability of the partnership.
WHS responsibilities therefore extend beyond the immediate safety of the Occupational Therapist and client.
Safe assistance animal practice may require consideration of:
- the person’s health, safety, autonomy and occupational participation;
- assistance animal health, behaviour and welfare;
- worker safety;
- family members and support people;
- other professionals;
- members of the public;
- other animals;
- equipment;
- environmental conditions; and
- organisational systems and responsibilities.
Occupational Therapists should apply a risk-based approach when assessing, recommending, implementing or reviewing assistance animal supports.
This includes considering:
- the person’s functional goals and disability-related needs;
- the functions or tasks the assistance animal is expected to perform;
- animal suitability and welfare;
- environmental opportunities, barriers and hazards;
- equipment;
- education and training requirements;
- available formal and informal supports;
- foreseeable risks;
- reasonable adjustments;
- appropriate safeguards;
- emergency and contingency arrangements; and
- changes over time.
Risk management should support safe and meaningful participation rather than operate as a mechanism for unnecessary exclusion.
The existence of disability, support needs, assistive technology or reliance on another person does not itself establish that an assistance animal partnership is unsafe.
Assistance Animal Welfare and Behaviour
The welfare, health and behaviour of the assistance animal are fundamental considerations within assistance animal practice.
An assistance animal experiencing:
- pain;
- illness;
- injury;
- fear;
- excessive stress;
- fatigue;
- unsuitable workload;
- environmental distress; or
- unmet behavioural or physiological needs
may experience reduced welfare and may also be less able to work safely and effectively.
Occupational Therapists should consider, within their professional role:
- whether the assistance animal has appropriate training and demonstrated competence for its intended functions;
- whether the animal’s behaviour and temperament are appropriate for the person, tasks and environments involved;
- whether equipment is appropriate, safe and correctly fitted;
- whether workload is sustainable;
- whether the animal has appropriate opportunities for rest and recovery;
- access to water;
- appropriate toileting opportunities;
- environmental comfort;
- enrichment;
- veterinary care;
- whether signs of stress, pain, fatigue, fear or discomfort are recognised;
- whether the person and relevant supports know how to respond when those signs occur; and
- whether changes in health or behaviour require review by an appropriately qualified professional.
An assistance animal should not be viewed merely as equipment or a therapeutic tool.
It is a sentient animal with its own:
- physical needs;
- behavioural needs;
- emotional experiences;
- welfare interests; and
- limits.
Animal welfare should therefore be incorporated into assessment, recommendation, implementation and review rather than considered only after a problem occurs.
Poor welfare may compromise both the animal and the sustainability of the partnership.
Safe Human–Animal Interactions
Assistance animal practice may involve interactions between:
- the assistance animal;
- the person using the animal;
- the Occupational Therapist;
- family members;
- support workers;
- trainers;
- healthcare professionals;
- children;
- members of the public; and
- other animals.
Potential risks may arise from:
- inappropriate handling;
- accidental interference with the animal while working;
- people touching or distracting the animal without permission;
- misunderstanding animal body language;
- unfamiliar or unsafe interactions;
- environmental stress;
- interactions with children;
- interactions with other animals; or
- failure to recognise signs that the animal requires distance, rest or support.
Occupational Therapists should support clients and other relevant stakeholders to understand, where applicable:
- appropriate interaction with assistance animals;
- the importance of respecting the working role of the animal;
- when the animal should not be approached or distracted;
- safe handling principles;
- relevant animal body-language signals;
- how to recognise signs of stress, fear, fatigue or discomfort;
- how to respond appropriately to changing animal behaviour; and
- how to reduce avoidable public or environmental interference.
Education and clear communication are important risk controls.
The objective should be to support respectful interaction while maintaining:
- client autonomy;
- animal welfare;
- safe participation;
- accessibility; and
- community inclusion.
Environmental Safety and Accessibility
Assistance animals may work across highly varied environments.
Environmental assessment should identify relevant opportunities, barriers and foreseeable hazards and consider whether reasonable controls can support safe participation.
The formality and extent of assessment should be proportionate to the environment, activity and level of risk.
Environmental considerations may include:
- slippery or uneven surfaces;
- stairs;
- crowded spaces;
- unsafe entry or exit points;
- poor accessibility;
- excessive noise;
- sensory demands;
- extreme temperatures;
- traffic;
- other animals;
- restricted movement;
- lack of suitable rest areas;
- environmental contaminants;
- equipment;
- emergency exits;
- transport; and
- hazards specific to workplaces, schools, healthcare environments or community settings.
Occupational Therapists should consider:
- the person’s functional needs and preferences;
- accessibility requirements;
- the person’s usual strategies and supports;
- the assistance animal’s ability to safely navigate the environment;
- animal welfare requirements;
- relevant equipment;
- the intended task or occupation;
- emergency and evacuation arrangements;
- other people or animals present;
- existing environmental controls; and
- the responsibilities of organisations controlling or influencing the environment.
Environmental assessment should not begin from the assumption that the person or assistance animal must fit an unchanged environment.
Where barriers or hazards are identified, practitioners should consider whether they can be addressed through:
- reasonable adjustments;
- environmental modification;
- equipment;
- education;
- changes to work processes;
- scheduling;
- designated areas;
- communication;
- additional support;
- task modification; or
- other proportionate controls.
Environmental assessment may involve collaboration with:
- the client;
- employer;
- education provider;
- healthcare provider;
- family;
- support workers;
- trainer;
- veterinarian;
- other allied health professionals; and
- relevant workplace or organisational representatives.
Collaboration should occur with appropriate regard to consent, privacy, role clarity and professional scope.
Public Access Risks
Assistance animals frequently operate in public environments, including:
- shops;
- workplaces;
- educational institutions;
- healthcare environments;
- public transport;
- community facilities; and
- other public spaces.
Public access may introduce additional WHS considerations.
Potential risks may include:
- uncontrolled interactions from members of the public;
- people distracting or touching the animal;
- conflict or misunderstanding regarding assistance animal access;
- other animals approaching;
- crowded environments;
- environmental hazards;
- unsafe flooring;
- transport hazards;
- allergic or infection-control concerns;
- animal fatigue or stress; and
- unexpected changes in the environment.
Occupational Therapists may support clients to develop strategies for:
- navigating public environments;
- communicating boundaries;
- managing unwanted public interactions;
- recognising emerging risks;
- responding to interference;
- protecting the animal’s working focus;
- identifying appropriate rest opportunities;
- responding to unexpected situations; and
- accessing support where required.
Risk management strategies may include:
- individualised assessment;
- environmental planning;
- reasonable adjustments;
- education of relevant organisations;
- appropriate animal training and behaviour standards;
- communication planning;
- appropriate equipment;
- environmental modification;
- graded familiarisation where appropriate;
- contingency planning; and
- supplementary support where genuinely required.
Reasonable adjustments and risk controls that enable access should be considered wherever practicable before concluding that the assistance animal or person should be excluded from an activity or environment.
Supplementary or alternative supports may be considered where they are genuinely required and consistent with the person’s goals, but they should not automatically be treated as substitutes for an assistance animal solely because some degree of risk exists.
Public access risk management should consider:
- disability rights;
- client autonomy;
- animal welfare;
- legitimate safety concerns;
- the rights and safety of other people;
- applicable legal requirements; and
- the availability of proportionate controls.
WHS should not be used as a blanket justification for excluding an assistance animal without assessment of the actual hazard, level of risk and available controls.
Infection Control and Biological Risks
Assistance animal practice may involve exposure to biological hazards, including:
- animal waste;
- bodily fluids;
- contaminated equipment;
- parasites;
- bacteria;
- viruses;
- fungi; and
- zoonotic disease.
Occupational Therapists should understand relevant infection-prevention principles and apply them according to the environment and activity.
Risk controls may include:
- hand hygiene;
- safe management of animal waste;
- appropriate cleaning and disinfection;
- safe equipment-management practices;
- avoiding unnecessary contact with bodily fluids;
- appropriate PPE where required;
- parasite prevention;
- appropriate preventive veterinary healthcare;
- appropriate management of animal illness; and
- vaccination where clinically indicated or required by the relevant setting, program or applicable requirements.
Vaccination requirements should not be assumed to be identical across all jurisdictions, workplaces, programs, species or individual animals.
Animal healthcare decisions should occur within appropriate veterinary scope.
Occupational Therapists should not diagnose animal disease or prescribe veterinary treatment merely because they are involved in an assistance animal partnership.
Where concerns arise, referral to an appropriately qualified veterinarian or other relevant professional should occur.
Infection-control measures should be proportionate to the identified risk.
Controls should support inclusion and safe participation wherever reasonably practicable rather than unnecessarily restricting access merely because an animal is present.
Manual Handling and Physical Risks
Assistance animal practice may involve physical tasks that create risk for:
- clients;
- workers;
- support people; and
- animals.
Examples may include:
- transporting equipment;
- managing leads or harnesses;
- positioning equipment;
- handling animals during assessment where this falls within competence;
- assisting with mobility-related equipment;
- working around mobility devices;
- loading or unloading equipment;
- managing unexpected animal movement;
- responding to falls;
- transport-related tasks; and
- repetitive activities.
Risk assessment should consider the interaction between:
- the person;
- assistance animal;
- equipment;
- task;
- environment; and
- available supports.
Relevant considerations may include:
- the person’s functional strengths and needs;
- mobility;
- balance;
- fatigue;
- pain;
- communication;
- sensory requirements;
- existing movement strategies;
- equipment;
- environmental design;
- animal size and behaviour;
- task frequency;
- duration;
- assistance available; and
- changing circumstances.
Potential controls may include:
- environmental modification;
- ergonomic assessment;
- appropriate equipment;
- assistive technology;
- changes in positioning;
- modification of the task;
- training;
- pacing;
- additional assistance;
- rearrangement of the environment; and
- referral to another professional where appropriate.
The presence of physical disability or use of assistance does not itself establish that a task is unsafe.
The question is whether the particular task can be undertaken with appropriate controls and supports.
Risk-management decisions should consider safe participation rather than equating independence with performing every task without assistance.
Client Capability, Supports, Autonomy and Positive Risk-Taking
Occupational Therapists should ensure that assistance animal recommendations are appropriate for the individual person, animal, activity and environment.
Assessment should not treat a person’s disability or level of support need as a hazard in itself.
The relevant question is not simply:
“Can this person manage an assistance animal independently?”
Instead, practitioners should consider:
“What does this person want or need to do, what risks arise in that context, and what combination of skills, supports, environmental modifications, equipment and safeguards could enable the partnership to operate safely and sustainably?”
Relevant considerations may include:
- the person’s goals and preferences;
- disability-related functional needs;
- communication requirements;
- physical, cognitive and sensory factors relevant to particular tasks;
- existing strengths, knowledge and experience;
- ability to learn or participate in relevant routines;
- assistance animal care requirements;
- ability to recognise or respond to particular risks, with or without support;
- environmental factors;
- formal or informal supports where these are desired and appropriate;
- assistive technology;
- equipment;
- routines;
- environmental modifications;
- contingency arrangements;
- animal welfare requirements; and
- the possibility that needs or circumstances may fluctuate over time.
Capacity Should Not Be Treated as All-or-Nothing
Terms such as capacity, ability and independence should be used carefully.
A person may:
- perform some tasks independently;
- require assistance with other tasks;
- undertake a task safely with adaptive equipment;
- use another person for particular aspects of animal care;
- require prompts or accessible instructions;
- require support only during periods of increased disability or illness;
- share particular responsibilities with family or formal supports; or
- develop skills through education and experience.
Needing support does not automatically make an assistance animal partnership unsafe or inappropriate.
Independence should not be defined narrowly as completing every component of animal care, handling or management without assistance.
For many disabled people, independence is achieved through access to appropriate supports, not through the absence of support.
Dignity of Risk
People with disability have the right to make meaningful choices about their lives, including choices that involve ordinary and reasonable levels of risk.
Risk is inherent in everyday life.
It exists in:
- mobility;
- employment;
- education;
- recreation;
- community participation;
- relationships;
- transport;
- animal ownership; and
- other occupations.
The purpose of professional risk management is therefore not to eliminate every possibility of harm.
Attempting to eliminate all risk may create different harms through unnecessary restriction of:
- autonomy;
- choice;
- independence;
- occupational participation;
- employment;
- education;
- community access;
- identity;
- social inclusion; and
- quality of life.
Occupational Therapists should distinguish between:
- risk that requires active management;
- residual risk that may reasonably remain after controls;
- risk that may be accepted through informed decision-making; and
- serious risk requiring further controls before an activity can safely proceed.
Dignity of risk does not mean disregarding foreseeable harm.
It means recognising that safety should be balanced with autonomy, participation and the person’s right to make informed choices.
Positive Risk-Taking
Positive risk-taking involves considering the potential benefits of participation alongside foreseeable harms and supporting the person to pursue meaningful goals through proportionate safeguards.
It does not mean:
- ignoring hazards;
- accepting preventable serious harm;
- disregarding professional obligations;
- compromising animal welfare; or
- abandoning WHS requirements.
Instead, practitioners may ask:
- What does the person want to achieve?
- Why is the activity important?
- What benefits may result?
- What could reasonably go wrong?
- How likely is harm?
- How serious could the consequences be?
- What controls already exist?
- What additional controls could reduce the risk?
- What reasonable adjustments are available?
- What supports could enable participation?
- What are the consequences of preventing participation?
- What is the animal’s welfare experience?
- What residual risk remains?
- Is the remaining risk proportionate in the circumstances?
This supports professional reasoning that is neither risk-blind nor unnecessarily risk-averse.
Least-Restrictive Risk Management
Where intervention is required, Occupational Therapists should seek effective controls that impose the least unnecessary restriction on the person and assistance animal.
Controls may include:
- education;
- additional training;
- changes to equipment;
- assistive technology;
- environmental modification;
- modifying the task;
- changing timing or duration;
- adjusting workload;
- additional formal or informal support;
- improving communication;
- developing routines;
- graded exposure or familiarisation where appropriate;
- contingency planning;
- emergency planning; and
- additional safeguards.
More restrictive measures—such as excluding the assistance animal, preventing an activity or withdrawing a service—should not automatically be used where a less restrictive effective control is reasonably available.
Risk-management decisions should identify the actual hazard rather than treating the person or their disability as the hazard.
Supported Decision-Making
People should be supported to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their assistance animal partnership.
Where a person requires assistance to:
- understand information;
- weigh options;
- communicate preferences; or
- implement decisions,
appropriate supports should be considered.
These may include:
- accessible written information;
- visual information;
- Easy Read material;
- augmentative and alternative communication;
- additional processing time;
- demonstration;
- practical trial;
- repetition;
- support from a trusted person where requested;
- interpreters;
- graded learning; and
- opportunities to revisit decisions.
Communication differences or cognitive disability should not automatically be interpreted as inability to participate in decision-making.
The person’s preferences, goals and lived experience should remain central to planning.
Balancing Autonomy and Animal Welfare
Dignity of risk applies to the person’s right to participate meaningfully in decisions about their own life.
However, an assistance animal is also a sentient participant with independent welfare interests.
Client autonomy does not remove the obligation to consider:
- animal health;
- physical safety;
- behavioural wellbeing;
- workload;
- rest;
- environmental comfort;
- access to veterinary care;
- suitability of tasks; and
- long-term sustainability of the animal’s role.
Occupational Therapists should therefore seek outcomes that support both:
the person’s autonomy and occupational goals
and
the assistance animal’s health, welfare and safety.
Where these interests appear to conflict, careful assessment, consultation and interdisciplinary collaboration may be required.
When Risks Cannot Be Adequately Controlled
In some circumstances, a significant risk may remain despite reasonable controls.
Where this occurs, Occupational Therapists should:
- identify the specific hazard;
- describe the nature and seriousness of the risk;
- identify controls already in place;
- consider additional reasonable controls;
- consult the person;
- consider reasonable adjustments;
- consider alternative ways of achieving the same occupational goal;
- consider animal welfare;
- seek relevant specialist input where required;
- document the professional reasoning; and
- review the decision where circumstances change.
A conclusion that a particular activity cannot presently proceed safely should not be translated into a broad conclusion that the person themselves is inherently:
- unsafe;
- incapable;
- unsuitable; or
- inappropriate for assistance animal use.
Where possible, practitioners should identify:
- what would need to change;
- what skills could be developed;
- what supports might assist;
- what environmental modification is possible;
- whether another method could achieve the goal; and
- when reassessment may be appropriate.
Emergency Response and Incident Management
Occupational Therapists should consider foreseeable emergencies that may occur when an assistance animal is working.
Examples may include:
- a client fall;
- medical emergency;
- sudden loss of consciousness;
- assistance animal injury or illness;
- the animal becoming distressed or unable to work;
- an interaction with another animal;
- equipment failure;
- transport incidents;
- fire;
- evacuation;
- severe weather;
- public safety incidents; and
- unexpected temporary separation of the person and animal.
Appropriate risk-management strategies may include:
- emergency response procedures;
- individual emergency plans;
- accessible communication arrangements;
- knowledge of evacuation requirements;
- emergency contacts;
- veterinary contacts;
- temporary animal-care arrangements;
- contingency planning;
- incident-reporting processes; and
- referral or escalation pathways.
Emergency planning should consider both:
- what happens to the assistance animal if the person cannot temporarily provide care; and
- what happens to the person if the assistance animal becomes unavailable.
More detailed emergency-management requirements are addressed later in this credential.
Professional Responsibility
Occupational Therapists should ensure that assistance animal recommendations are:
- person-centred;
- evidence-informed;
- professionally justified;
- within scope of competence;
- responsive to the person’s occupational goals;
- attentive to animal welfare;
- informed by appropriate risk assessment; and
- consistent with applicable legal, ethical and professional obligations.
Professional responsibilities may include:
- practising within scope;
- recognising limitations in competence;
- obtaining additional expertise where required;
- completing appropriate functional and environmental assessment;
- identifying foreseeable hazards;
- implementing proportionate controls;
- considering reasonable adjustments;
- supporting dignity of risk;
- supporting positive risk-taking;
- protecting animal welfare;
- consulting appropriately with the client;
- collaborating with relevant professionals;
- documenting professional reasoning;
- reviewing decisions where circumstances change; and
- contributing to safe organisational systems.
Relevant collaborators may include:
- assistance animal trainers;
- veterinarians;
- medical practitioners;
- psychologists;
- physiotherapists;
- other Occupational Therapists;
- disability professionals;
- employers;
- educators; and
- other relevant stakeholders.
Collaboration should respect:
- professional scope;
- role boundaries;
- client consent;
- privacy;
- client autonomy; and
- the expertise of other disciplines.
Key Practice Principle
WHS within assistance animal practice should support safe, sustainable and meaningful participation.
It should not be interpreted as requiring a risk-free life.
Occupational Therapists should use professional reasoning that considers:
- actual hazards rather than assumptions about disability;
- client goals and preferences;
- functional benefits;
- environmental opportunities and barriers;
- reasonable adjustments;
- available supports;
- the hierarchy of controls;
- residual risk;
- dignity of risk;
- positive risk-taking;
- least-restrictive effective controls;
- assistance animal welfare;
- worker and public safety; and
- changing circumstances.
The goal is not simply to ask:
“Is there risk?”
Risk will often exist.
The more useful questions are:
“What is the actual risk?”
“How significant is it?”
“What controls could reduce it?”
“What are the consequences of restricting participation?”
and
“How can the person’s goals be supported as safely, ethically and effectively as reasonably practicable while also protecting the welfare of the assistance animal?”
A sound WHS approach enables assistance animals to provide meaningful disability-related support while protecting the rights, autonomy, safety and wellbeing of people, animals, workers and the wider community.