• Support SCAS
• Contact us
• SCAS News
• Search

Key Research Findings

Background

The 'Pets and Older People in Residential Care' survey was commissioned by the Society for Companion Animal Studies (SCAS) with funding from the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association (PFMA), in order to investigate attitudes towards pet ownership in UK residential care facilities.

Carried out by June McNicholas B.Sc. Ph.D., a respected researcher of the human-animal bond, the survey included a sample of 234 care facilities (residential care homes and sheltered housing units), 23 animal shelters and 44 veterinary practices in six major cities (Cambridge, York, Plymouth, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester) using questionnaires, interviews with staff and residents, and focus groups with older people both in and out of care.

The study replicated an influential survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1992-3, which highlighted a lack of understanding of the importance of pets to older people and the lack of policies on pet ownership at the time. The aim of the current study was to examine changes in policies and practices in care facilities since this time to determine whether further action is needed.

Download a pdf of the full research findings.

Key findings

Distress at pet loss

• 39% of care facilities said residents had showed noticeable symptoms of distress following pet loss. This figure has increased from 35% in 1993. The real figure may be higher since many older people do not disclose their feelings about the loss of a pet and staff do not always investigate the underlying causes of distress, depression or inability to adjust to new surroundings.

Formal policies on pet ownership

• Only 35% of care facilities for older people had any formal, written policy on pet ownership. While this has increased significantly from 20% in 1993, it still shows that the vast majority of care homes have not addressed this important issue.

• Only 29% of facilities allowed pets as a matter of policy, the majority of which were sheltered housing complexes.Over half of these pro-pet policies (54%) specifically excluded cats and dogs despite these being the most commonly kept species of pet.

Care facilities without formal policies on pet ownership are likely to make adhoc decisions based on the attitudes of current staff and residents that could be subject to change in the future. Elderly people need clear, unambiguous information about whether they can take their pets into residential care and should have the security of knowing that this will not change in the future.

Euthanasia of animals

Many healthy pets are put to sleep every year because their owner has to go into care.

Most veterinary surgeons in the current study said they were asked to euthanase between 2 and 4 pets per month for the known reason that an elderly owner was entering residential care – over 1,000 animals per year in the study area alone. This figure is likely to be much higher for the UK as a whole and does not include cases where it is not disclosed that the pet's owner is going into care.

When it is known that an elderly owner is going into care, many vets will refer clients to animal welfare organisations who may be able to take in the animal and find it a new home. However, this is not always possible and many vets were concerned that well-meaning relatives may dispose of an animal without the consent of an elderly owner.

There is currently no legal obligation for residential care homes in the UK to allow pets.This situation is in stark contrast to that in many other countries. The USA, Canada, Greece, France and Switzerland, among others, have all introduced legislation to ensure that older people have the right to keep or maintain contact with animals, whether they live independently in the community, in sheltered accommodation or in long-term care homes.

Many older people in the UK feel they have no choice but to give up their pets when they move into sheltered accommodation or residential care. This study asked 234 care facilities (ie residential care/nursing homes, sheltered housing units) in Cambridge, Coventry, Birmingham, Manchester, Plymouth and York about different aspects of their pet-keeping policies and the impact of these on their residents. It included interviews with staff, managers and residents, as well as focus groups with older people who are not presently in care.

Other findings

Investigation of pet ownership by the care facility

Only 29% of care facilities asked potential residents whether they had a pet and only 26% helped to find a new home for the pet if they could not be accommodated. This has increased from 18% in 1993 but still indicates a lack of understanding of the importance of pets to older people.

Visiting and communal pets

The proportion of care facilities allowing visiting pets has decreased significantly since 1993. In the current survey, 34% said they would allow personal pets to visit their previous owner by arrangement, compared to 46% in 1993.56% allowed, or would consider, visits by Pets As Therapy animals, compared to 79% in 1993. This may be due to concerns about health or hygiene.

Conversely, the proportion of facilities allowing communal pets (mostly cats, fish or caged birds) has increased from 59% in 1993 to 62% in the current survey. But while communal or visiting pets are enjoyed and welcomed they cannot replace a much-loved personal pet. Personal pets are often the repository for memories of deceased spouses, family ties and a previous lifestyle.

Replacement of pets

Although some care facilities allowed residents to bring personal pets with them, 62% of homes did not allow people to adopt another companion animal following the death of their pet. This caused some distress amongst residents who had always had pets and felt this was their lifestyle choice.

Attitudes towards pets

Focus groups of at least ten people aged 60 or over were held in each of the cities within the study, to determine their views on pets in residential care. Responses from all groups indicated that older people thought pets could be extremely important and that people should not have to part with their pets when they went into care, as long as they were able to look after them.

20 face-to-face and 12 phone interviews were conducted with staff and managers at care facilities involved in the study, in order to establish their views on pet ownership. All managers and staff said they did think some people could be severely affected by pet loss and often cited personal experiences of this. But few had any detailed knowledge of the benefits of pets to older people.

Interviews also highlighted a common misunderstanding in some homes: many of the staff believed that managers would not be willing to accept pets, while managers thought staff would be unsympathetic to pets or unwilling to accept any additional work this might involve. But both groups agreed that more should be done to deal with pet ownership amongst potential residents.

Conclusion

There still appears to be little understanding about the importance of pets to older people in the UK, and a lack of formal policies means there is insufficient information for older people who want to take their pet into residential care. This is in stark contrast to several countries overseas, including USA, Greece, France, Monaco, Norway and Switzerland, all of which have introduced legislation to ensure that older people have the right to keep or maintain contact with animals, whether they live independently in the community, in sheltered accommodation or in long-term care homes.

SCAS and the PFMA would like more housing providers to consider whether their residents could benefit from being allowed to take their pets with them into residential care and to develop carefully considered pet policies that clearly outline whether pets are allowed.