Zoonotic Disease Management in Veterinary Practice: A One Health Framework

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-11

Key Takeaways

• Zoonotic disease management necessitates a One Health framework integrating human, animal, and environmental health sectors, requiring explicit decision criteria for triage, infection control standards, and defined information exchange channels with public health and environmental authorities.
• Risk assessment involves identifying potential zoonotic hazards based on species, origin, and clinical presentation, followed by characterizing exposure routes (direct contact, aerosolization, fomites, vectors) and implementing facility-level biosecurity controls like hand hygiene and zone segregation.
• Clinical triage should categorize cases into tiers based on zoonotic potential and consequence, with Tier 3 (high-consequence) events triggering immediate notification of relevant authorities, specimen containment, and suspension of nonessential patient movement.
• Diagnostic confirmation pathways are critical, specifying sample types, timing (e.g., urine for Leptospira culture, paired sera for Brucella canis serology), transport conditions, and appropriate laboratory tests (e.g., PCR, ELISA) to avoid misdiagnosis and ensure timely intervention.
• Infection control protocols must be tailored to specific pathogen transmission routes (fecal-oral, respiratory, direct contact, vector-borne, bloodborne), utilizing appropriate primary barrier controls (PPE), environmental decontamination, and personnel monitoring.
• Occupational health and exposure management for veterinary personnel requires a written plan including baseline screening, vaccinations, and a defined pathway for reporting and managing sharps injuries, bites, or mucosal splashes, with documentation of source animal status and follow-up actions.

Zoonotic diseases occupy a distinct position in veterinary medicine because their clinical management extends beyond the individual patient to encompass household contacts, occupational cohorts, wildlife reservoirs, and population-level surveillance systems. This article provides a structured framework for veterinary researchers and clinicians who design, implement, or evaluate zoonotic disease risk management programs in clinical and public health settings. The framework integrates risk assessment methodology, biosecurity protocols, cross-sector collaboration, and communication strategies within the One Health paradigm.

The central question addressed here is operational: how should a veterinary practice or institutional program translate zoonotic disease awareness into reproducible management procedures? The answer requires explicit decision criteria for triage, named standards for infection control, and defined channels for information exchange with human health and environmental authorities. Later sections of this article address risk assessment instruments, biosecurity implementation, surveillance design, and communication protocols. Specific pathogen details are excluded, the emphasis is on transferable management logic.

The One Health framework is not an abstract policy ideal but a functional requirement for zoonotic disease control. International bodies including the World Health Organization define One Health as an integrated approach that recognizes the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health for managing zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance WHO One Health initiative. The practical consequence for veterinary practice is that clinical decisions generate public health obligations, and conversely, population-level surveillance data should inform individual patient risk assessments.

At a Glance

Conceptual Foundations of Zoonotic Disease Management

The Transmission Continuum as a Management Map

Zoonotic disease management requires a working model of the transmission pathway from animal reservoir to human population. The epidemiological stages include pathogen maintenance in animal hosts, amplification or spillover events, human exposure, and subsequent human-to-human transmission where applicable. Each stage presents distinct intervention points, and management programs must specify which stage they target. A scoping review of machine learning applications across zoonotic disease stages found that most analytical work concentrates on human-population diagnosis and forecasting, while the animal-human interface and spillover prevention receive minimal attention scoping review of machine learning applications across zoonotic disease stages. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern in zoonotic disease management: the veterinary segment of the continuum is often the least instrumented and the least integrated into surveillance systems.

The One Health Operational Model

The One Health approach presumes that human, animal, and environmental health sectors share information, coordinate interventions, and align incentives. Implementation research from India identifies specific barriers to this convergence, including limited policy visibility of endemic zoonoses relative to pandemic-potential diseases, weak institutional mandates for cross-sector collaboration, and resource constraints at subnational levels facilitators of and barriers to cross-sector convergence for zoonoses prevention and control. These findings carry direct implications for veterinary practice. A clinician who suspects a zoonotic infection must know which agency holds reporting authority, what format the report should take, and whether feedback will return to the practice. Where these pathways are undefined, the practice must establish them proactively with local authorities.

Capacity Development as a Prerequisite

Effective zoonotic disease management depends on trained personnel who can operate across disciplinary boundaries. Educational programs that combine Masters level epidemiology training for veterinarians and public health doctors with applied collaborative projects have been proposed as a model for building sustainable One Health capacity One Health education strategy for zoonotic disease management capacity. The competency set includes classical epidemiology, disease control methods, cross-sector communication, and institutional awareness. For the practicing veterinarian, this translates into skills in outbreak investigation, diagnostic interpretation, and structured reporting.

Risk Assessment Logic

Hazard Identification and Exposure Characterization

Risk assessment in zoonotic disease management begins with hazard identification: determining which pathogens a given animal or population could carry, given species, origin, history, and clinical presentation. Exposure characterization then defines the routes by which humans contact the hazard, including direct contact, aerosolization, fomite transmission, and vector-borne pathways. The assessment must also consider occupational exposure patterns within the veterinary practice itself. A survey of animal care professionals in Ethiopia found that only about 32% of respondents always washed hands between patient contacts, and approximately 49% reported sterilizing and reusing disposable needles animal care professionals' practice towards zoonotic disease management and infection control. These findings indicate that exposure risk within veterinary settings is also theoretical but reflects measurable gaps between recommended and actual infection control behavior.

Risk Categorization and Triage Criteria

Risk categorization assigns each clinical encounter to a management tier based on the probability of zoonotic infection and the consequences of transmission. The World Organization for Animal Health publishes international standards for surveillance, notification, and trade-related disease control that provide a formal classification structure for reportable zoonoses WOAH terrestrial animal health standards. Practices should align their internal triage criteria with these international classifications while adapting to local reporting requirements. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides additional guidance on zoonotic disease prioritization and prevention that can inform practice-level decision rules CDC One Health and zoonotic disease resources.

Biosecurity as a Management System

Facility-Level Controls

Biosecurity in veterinary practice operates at multiple levels: patient flow, personnel protection, waste handling, and environmental decontamination. The design principle is to separate clean and contaminated zones, sequence procedures to minimize cross-contact, and verify that disinfection protocols are effective against the pathogens of concern. The MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific guidance on infection control procedures that practices can adapt to their caseload MSD Veterinary Manual professional reference. The American Veterinary Medical Association publishes practice resources that address occupational health and safety in clinical settings AVMA professional practice resources.

Behavioral Compliance and Its Failure Modes

Biosecurity protocols fail when they are not followed consistently. The Ethiopian survey data illustrate the gap between knowledge and practice: while 72% of professionals routinely washed hands before eating or drinking at work, only about 32% washed hands between every patient contact animal care professionals' zoonotic disease management and infection control practices. Practices should therefore audit compliance directly instead of assume that training translates into behavior. Named failure modes include hand hygiene lapses during high-caseload periods, reuse of single-use equipment, eating or drinking in clinical areas, and inadequate isolation of suspected zoonotic cases.

Surveillance and Reporting Obligations

Practice-Level Surveillance Functions

Veterinary practices function as sentinel surveillance nodes. A cluster of compatible cases in animals may precede human cases, and the practice is often the first institution to recognize an emerging pattern. Effective surveillance requires standardized case definitions, consistent diagnostic testing, and a reliable reporting pathway. The WOAH terrestrial code specifies notification obligations for listed diseases and provides the international framework within which national reporting systems operate WOAH terrestrial animal health standards.

Economic Justification for Surveillance Investment

Surveillance and control programs require sustained funding, and economic analysis can support investment decisions. A benefit-cost analysis of raccoon rabies control in Ontario, Canada, which combined oral rabies vaccination, trap-vaccinate-release, and surveillance, estimated benefit-cost ratios between 1.5 and 14.16 depending on assumptions about intervention necessity benefit-cost analysis of raccoon rabies control in Ontario. The avoided costs included post-exposure prophylaxis, animal testing, and human exposure investigations. This analytical approach, quantifying avoided public health expenditures, provides a template for justifying zoonotic disease programs to budget authorities.

Household and Community Exposure Context

Zoonotic disease management extends beyond the clinic into the households and production systems where animal-human contact occurs. Research in Vietnam examining household livestock exposure found no adverse association between biogas production or livestock contact and self-reported respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms, while identifying female gender, older age, and lower education as risk factors for symptom reporting household exposure to livestock and health in the CHILILAB HDSS cohort. The authors recommended prioritizing veterinarian engagement, enhanced farm biosecurity, and improvements to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. For veterinary practitioners, this evidence supports a management approach that addresses environmental infrastructure and demographic risk factors alongside direct animal interventions.

Clinical Risk Triage and Response Protocols

The transition from risk assessment to active management requires a structured triage system that assigns each presenting case or practice scenario to a defined response tier. A three-tier framework works well in most clinical settings. Tier 1 covers routine presentations with negligible zoonotic transmission potential, such as an otherwise healthy indoor cat requiring vaccination. Tier 2 involves recognized zoonotic hazards with established transmission routes, for example a dog with suspected leptospirosis or a patient with dermatophytosis. Tier 3 comprises high-consequence events, including suspected rabies virus exposure, Brucella canis in a breeding kennel, or any pathogen with pandemic potential as prioritized by international bodies such as the WHO and the World Organization for Animal Health WHO One Health initiative.

Each tier carries distinct obligations for personal protective equipment (PPE), patient isolation, diagnostic confirmation speed, and client communication. Tier 1 cases proceed through standard examination protocols with routine hygiene. Tier 2 cases trigger written infection control plans, barrier nursing where hospitalization is required, and targeted diagnostic testing before definitive disposition. Tier 3 cases activate the practice emergency response plan, which includes immediate notification of the relevant public health or animal health authority, specimen handling under containment conditions, and suspension of nonessential patient movement within the facility.

The triage decision changes with patient status, species, and practice context. A immunocompromised owner changes the risk calculus for a Tier 2 pathogen substantially, as does the presence of pregnant household members for Toxoplasma gondii exposure. A practice in a rabies-endemic region must treat any bat or wildlife exposure as Tier 3, whereas the same exposure in a rabies-free island nation may warrant only routine observation. Production animal practice adds herd-level consequences: a single case of Brucella abortus in a beef herd triggers regulatory action that a companion animal Brucella canis case does not, even though both are Tier 3 zoonoses. The WOAH terrestrial animal health standards define notification obligations for listed diseases, and these obligations supersede practice-level triage decisions.

Diagnostic Confirmation Pathways

Presumptive diagnosis based on clinical signs is insufficient for zoonotic disease management because many zoonoses present with nonspecific signs and because the public health consequences of misdiagnosis are substantial. A diagnostic confirmation pathway should specify the sample type, collection timing, transport conditions, and laboratory test for each Tier 2 and Tier 3 pathogen the practice is likely to encounter. The MSD Veterinary Manual professional edition provides species-specific guidance on sample selection and test interpretation for individual pathogens, and practices should maintain a locally adapted version of this information in their infection control manual.

Sample timing matters. Leptospira culture requires urine collected before antibiotic administration, while serology for Brucella canis requires paired samples to demonstrate rising titers. Molecular diagnostics such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) offer rapid confirmation for many pathogens but detect nucleic acid instead of viable organizms, which changes their interpretation in vaccinated animals or after successful treatment. The practice should designate a reference laboratory for confirmatory testing and verify that the laboratory accepts the required sample types and provides results within the turnaround time needed for clinical decisions.

Point-of-care testing has expanded the diagnostic options available in practice, but these tests vary in sensitivity and specificity by pathogen and by disease stage. A negative point-of-care antigen test for Giardia does not exclude infection when clinical signs are strongly suggestive, and a positive test does not distinguish viable cysts from nonviable organizms. The decision to treat based on a point-of-care result versus waiting for confirmatory testing depends on the pathogen, the patient's clinical status, and the consequences of delayed treatment for both the patient and the household. Document the rationale for this decision in the medical record.

Infection Control Protocol Selection

Infection control protocols should be selected based on the transmission route of the identified or suspected pathogen, not on a generic assumption that all zoonoses behave similarly. The table below summarizes the protocol elements that change with transmission route.

The correct protocol also depends on available equipment. A practice with a dedicated isolation ward can manage a Tier 2 respiratory zoonosis in hospital, while a practice without negative-pressure isolation must discharge the patient to home care with strict client instructions or refer to a facility with appropriate containment. Similarly, a practice with access to an autoclave can reprocess contaminated surgical instruments, while a practice relying on cold sterilization must select chemical disinfectants with verified activity against the pathogen class in question. The CDC One Health and zoonotic disease resources provide guidance on infection control measures that can be adapted to the practice setting.

Occupational Health and Exposure Management

Veterinary personnel face occupational exposure risks that differ from those of the general public because their contact with animals is frequent, close, and often unplanned. A cross-sectional survey of animal care professionals in Ethiopia found that hand hygiene practices were inconsistent, with only about 32% of respondents always washing hands between patient contacts, and that a substantial minority reported reusing disposable needles animal care professionals' infection control practices. These findings illustrate the gap between infection control knowledge and routine application, a gap that practice-level protocols must close through training, supervision, and design of work flows that make compliance the default instead of the exception.

The practice should maintain a written occupational health plan that includes baseline health screening for personnel, a list of recommended or required vaccinations based on the zoonoses endemic to the region and the species handled, and a defined pathway for reporting and managing occupational exposures. Sharps injuries require immediate first aid, documentation of the source animal and its vaccination status, and referral to a human health care provider for postexposure assessment. Bites and scratches from animals with suspected rabies require the same immediate reporting pathway, and the animal must be observed or tested according to local requirements. The practice should maintain a log of all occupational exposures, including the date, circumstances, personnel involved, source animal, and follow-up actions taken.

Documentation and Information Transfer

The medical record is the primary instrument for zoonotic disease management continuity. It must document the risk assessment that led to the triage tier, the diagnostic plan and its results, the infection control measures applied, and the communication provided to the client. This documentation serves multiple purposes: it supports clinical decision-making if the patient returns, it provides evidence of compliance with professional standards if questions arise, and it creates a data source for practice-level surveillance of zoonotic disease trends.

Communication with human health authorities should follow a defined pathway that identifies the responsible agency, the required reporting format, and the timeline for notification. Some zoonoses are reportable to public health authorities, others to animal health authorities, and some to both. The practice should verify the current reporting requirements for its jurisdiction and maintain a contact list for after-hours reporting. When a zoonotic diagnosis is confirmed, the practice should provide the client with a written summary that includes the diagnosis, the transmission route, the household precautions needed, and a recommendation to consult their physician where human infection is possible. This written summary should be documented in the medical record as having been provided.

Recognized Complications and Failure Modes

Zoonotic disease management programs fail through predictable pathways. The most common is the breakdown of the cross-sectoral interface, where human health, animal health, and environmental authorities operate without shared data standards or coordinated response protocols. Policy analyzes from India demonstrate that zoonoses with pandemic potential receive disproportionate attention while endemic, locally burdensome diseases remain poorly resourced, creating a systematic blind spot in surveillance allocation Operationalising the One Health approach in India. Detection of this failure requires auditing surveillance outputs against local disease burden instead of international priorities.

A second failure mode is the collapse of biosecurity under operational pressure. Hand hygiene between patient contacts, isolation of suspect cases, and safe needle disposal are the first behaviors abandoned during peak caseload. Survey data from Ethiopian animal care professionals show that only 32% consistently wash hands between patient contacts and 49% report sterilizing and reusing disposable needles, indicating that written protocols do not reliably translate into clinical behavior Animal care professionals' practice towards zoonotic disease management. Early detection requires direct observation of practice, not self-reported compliance, and periodic unannounced audits of high-risk procedures.

A third failure is the misallocation of diagnostic resources. Clinicians who submit samples from low-risk cases while failing to test high-risk occupational exposures produce false reassurance and delayed intervention. The economic consequences of under-testing are substantial, as demonstrated by benefit-cost analyzes of rabies control where avoided post-exposure prophylaxis and testing costs justify sustained surveillance investment Benefit-cost analysis of raccoon rabies control in Ontario. Monitoring diagnostic submission rates against presenting complaint categories identifies this pattern early.

Common Errors and Corrective Action

Less experienced clinicians frequently conflate risk assessment with diagnosis. They pursue confirmatory testing for a suspected zoonosis while omitting the exposure history that would identify the actual hazard, or they treat the index case while ignoring household and occupational contacts who share the exposure source. The corrective action is to structure every consultation around the transmission continuum, asking where the animal has been, what it has contacted, and which humans have had equivalent exposure WHO One Health Initiative.

A second recurring error is the assumption that negative test results exclude zoonotic infection. Many zoonoses have window periods, intermittent shedding, or diagnostic sensitivity below clinical utility. Clinicians should document the test's negative predictive value in the specific clinical context and repeat testing where exposure was high-risk. The MSD Veterinary Manual provides species-specific guidance on test timing and interpretation that should be consulted before excluding a zoonosis on the basis of a single negative result MSD Veterinary Manual professional reference.

A third error is the failure to escalate. Junior clinicians often attempt to manage suspected high-consequence zoonoses within the practice instead of activating public health pathways, either from uncertainty about reporting obligations or from concern about over-reporting. The corrective action is a pre-agreed escalation protocol that specifies which findings trigger mandatory reporting, which require laboratory confirmation before action, and which permit continued observation CDC One Health and zoonotic disease resources.

Evidence Limitations and Contested Areas

The evidence base for zoonotic disease management is unevenly distributed. Machine learning applications are heavily concentrated in human clinical diagnosis and epidemic forecasting, with fewer than 2% of published studies examining the animal-human interface and no models explicitly targeting spillover prevention Scoping review of machine learning applications across zoonotic disease stages. Practitioners should treat algorithmic risk predictions as adjuncts to, not substitutes for, structured epidemiological reasoning.

Expert opinion diverges on the optimal intensity of surveillance in low-resource settings. Some argue that targeted surveillance of high-risk interfaces yields greater returns than broad passive surveillance, while others maintain that passive surveillance capacity is the foundation on which all other functions depend. The evidence from Vietnam suggests that household-level livestock exposure does not consistently predict adverse health outcomes, complicating risk communication and prioritization decisions Household exposure to livestock and health in the CHILILAB cohort. Where evidence is contested, practices should document their rationale and review it against emerging local data.

Referral, Consultation, and Regulatory Reporting

Referral is warranted when the practice lacks diagnostic capacity, when the zoonosis has public health implications beyond the individual case, or when the clinician has not managed the condition recently enough to maintain competence. Laboratory involvement is mandatory when confirmatory testing requires specialised containment, when antimicrobial susceptibility testing is needed to guide therapy, or when the differential includes a notifiable pathogen. The World Organization for Animal Health terrestrial code specifies surveillance and reporting standards that apply to trade-relevant zoonoses, and practices engaged in international movement of animals must comply with these standards WOAH terrestrial animal health standards.

Regulatory reporting is triggered by the notifiable disease list of the relevant jurisdiction, not by clinical certainty. When a clinician suspects a notifiable zoonosis, reporting precedes confirmation. The same principle applies to occupational exposures: any needlestick, bite, or mucosal splash involving a potentially zoonotic pathogen warrants documentation, risk assessment, and referral to occupational health services regardless of the source animal's apparent health. Practices should maintain a written escalation matrix that names the responsible authority, the reporting timeframe, and the information required, and should review this matrix annually against current jurisdictional requirements AVMA professional practice resources.

Frequently Asked Questions

How Do I Prioritize Zoonotic Disease Risks When Budget and Staff Time Are Limited?

Apply a structured triage that weighs three factors: severity of human disease, transmissibility within the practice setting, and feasibility of control. Diseases with high human case fatality or pandemic potential, such as rabies, justify disproportionate resource allocation. Economic analyzes of wildlife rabies control programs demonstrate that prevention investments yield favorable benefit-cost ratios, often between 1.5 and 14.16, when avoided post-exposure prophylaxis and human exposure investigations are counted. For endemic, lower-severity zoonoses, focus resources on routine biosecurity and staff education instead of specialized equipment. Document your prioritization rationale in the practice's infection control manual so that resource decisions are transparent and defensible during accreditation review.

What Minimum Infection Control Measures Should Remain in Place When Ideal Equipment Is Unavailable?

When single-use equipment or dedicated isolation facilities are lacking, maintain a hierarchy of controls that relies on behavior instead of hardware. Hand hygiene between patient contacts remains the highest-yield intervention, yet compliance surveys in veterinary settings show only about 32% of professionals consistently wash hands between patients. Segregate clean and contaminated zones even in shared spaces, using physical barriers such as tape lines or color-coded containers. If disposable needles are unavailable, designate a sterilization protocol that includes mechanical cleaning, chemical disinfection, and verified thermal processing before reuse. Prioritize respiratory protection for aerosol-generating procedures over less hazardous tasks. Document any deviation from ideal standards in the patient record and flag it during shift handover.

How Does Zoonotic Risk Management Differ for Exotic or Wildlife Patients Compared with Domestic Species?

Wildlife patients introduce two additional variables: unknown exposure history and legal constraints on intervention. Domestic species usually have documented vaccination, deworming, and husbandry histories that inform risk stratification. Wildlife and exotic patients often arrive with no such history, so assume a higher baseline risk and apply maximum barrier precautions until a risk assessment is completed. Legal considerations also differ, as wildlife handling may fall under WOAH terrestrial animal health standards and regional wildlife regulations that govern testing, treatment, and disposal. Consult those standards before performing diagnostic sampling on species covered by trade or conservation agreements. For exotic domestic species such as pet pigs or camelids, adapt livestock biosecurity principles instead of companion animal protocols.

What Records Should I Keep for Zoonotic Disease Exposures and Near Misses?

Maintain three distinct record streams: patient-level exposure notes, staff occupational exposure logs, and practice-level incident reviews. Patient records should document the zoonotic risk assessment, protective measures used, and any diagnostic testing performed. Staff exposure logs must capture the date, procedure, involved species, breach type, and follow-up actions, including post-exposure prophylaxis referrals. Review near misses quarterly to identify recurring failure modes, such as inconsistent glove use during dental procedures. These records serve dual purposes: they support individual patient care continuity and provide the evidence base for practice policy revisions. Keep exposure logs for a period consistent with applicable occupational health requirements and ensure they are accessible to the designated infection control officer.

How Should I Explain Zoonotic Risk to a Client Who Is Reluctant to Accept Testing or Treatment Recommendations?

Frame the discussion around shared risk instead of animal-only concerns. Explain that some infections transfer between species and that testing protects the household, also the pet. Use concrete transmission pathways relevant to the specific case, such as fecal-oral routes for young children or bite exposure for owners. Acknowledge cost constraints directly and offer a tiered testing plan that prioritizes the highest-risk pathogens first. The CDC One Health resources provide plain-language materials that can supplement your verbal explanation. Document the client's informed refusal if they decline recommended testing, and offer a recheck interval in case clinical signs change. Avoid alarmist language, as it reduces trust and diminishes future compliance.

When Should I Escalate a Zoonotic Case to Public Health Authorities instead of Managing It Internally?

Escalate when the case meets any of three criteria: the pathogen is statutorily notifiable, there is evidence of human exposure, or the infection has outbreak potential beyond the individual patient. Notifiable disease lists vary by jurisdiction, so maintain a current reference from your regional veterinary authority. For rabies specifically, escalate immediately when a biting animal is involved, as post-exposure prophylaxis decisions in exposed humans are time-sensitive. The WHO One Health initiative emphasizes that cross-sector reporting is essential for effective zoonotic disease control, and delays reduce intervention options. When uncertain, contact the relevant authority for advice before acting, most jurisdictions prefer early consultation over retrospective reporting. Document the consultation and any case number assigned for traceability.

Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

• Wildlife Disease Surveillance: Designing and Implementing a One Health Program
• Biosecurity Risk Assessment for Livestock Operations: A Practical Framework
• Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis in Veterinary Personnel

References and Further Reading

• Operationalising the "One Health" approach in India: facilitators of and barriers to effective cross-sector convergence for zoonoses prevention and control.. 2021.
• Benefit-cost analysis of raccoon rabies control in Ontario, Canada.. 2025.
• Building a foundation for 'One Health': an education strategy for enhancing and sustaining national and regional capacity in endemic and emerging zoonotic disease management.. 2013.
• Household Exposure to Livestock and Health in the CHILILAB HDSS Cohort, Vietnam.. 2017.
• Animal care professionals' practice towards zoonotic disease management and infection control practice in selected districts of Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia.. 2022.
• A Scoping Review of Machine Learning Applications Across Epidemiological Stages of Zoonotic Disease.. 2026.
• WHO One Health Initiative. WHO.
• CDC One Health and Zoonotic Disease Resources. CDC.
• MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition. MSD Veterinary Manual.

Related Articles

• Zoonotic Disease Risk Assessment in Veterinary Practice
• Zoonotic Disease Risk Communication in Veterinary Practice
• Veterinary Public Health and Wildlife Trade: Risk Assessment
• Wildlife Disease Surveillance: Designing and Implementing a One Health Program
• Comparative Zoonotic Disease Surveillance: Wildlife, Livestock, and Human Health Interfaces

This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.