In an article published by National Hog Farmer on February 3, 2026, Dr. Michele Moncrief, a post-doctoral research associate with the Swine Medicine Education Center at Iowa State University, detailed a recently completed study on telehealth-based biosecurity hazard analysis. Funded by the Iowa Pork Producers Association, the study examined the use of telehealth technologies as an option for expanding biosecurity evaluation capacity without increasing on-farm traffic and employed the Swine Health Information Center-funded Standardized Outbreak Investigation Program.
Designed to help veterinarians and producers identify and prioritize risks for pathogen entry, the SHIC-funded SOIP enables a consistent approach across individual users and farms. Goals of the SOIP output are to prevent disease introduction and prepare for seasonal challenges so that production systems can enhance biosecurity control measures accordingly.
Dr. Moncrief and team used the SOIP rather than developing a new assessment tool. “SOIP offers a structured, systematic framework for identifying and evaluating biosecurity hazards,” she stated. “We chose to build upon an established, field-validated program that is already recognized and used within the swine industry.” Using SOIP allowed the ISU team to align methods with real-world investigations, a process made easier due to their familiarity with the investigation platform. Dr. Moncrief described SOIP as a reliable foundation for evaluating how telehealth-based methods could be applied to biosecurity hazard analysis.
The structure offered by SOIP breaks biosecurity risk into clearly defined categories: entry events, operational procedures, and site characteristics. “This makes it well-suited for evaluating new technologies like telehealth. Because the framework already organizes observations in a consistent and repeatable way, it allowed us to directly compare findings from traditional on-site evaluations with remote, telehealth-based assessments,” Dr. Moncrief explained. “This consistency helped ensure that the differences we observed were related to the evaluation method itself rather than changes in how hazards were assessed.”
During the study, Dr. Moncrief said remote reviewers recognized many of the same risks observed during on-site analyses. “Agreement was strongest for clearly observable infrastructure and procedures, while more complex, multi-step practices were more challenging to evaluate remotely and depended on the completeness of the video footage,” she remarked. “Overall, the results suggest that SOIP supports comparable assessments across delivery methods when supported by standardized data collection and training.”
And those results speak directly to the study findings. As Dr. Moncrief wrote in the National Hog Farmer article, “Overall, remote evaluators identified many of the same biosecurity hazards as the on-site investigator. Across more than 4,200 question-level comparisons, agreement between in-person and telehealth-based evaluations averaged about 63%. In practical terms, this means that telehealth captured a meaningful portion of the biosecurity picture, but not all of it.”
Reaching this conclusion was made possible because the team used the standardized question set. “Using SOIP’s standardized question set ensured that every evaluator assessed the same biosecurity risks using the same criteria, allowing us to directly compare responses between in-person and telehealth evaluations. This made it possible to quantify agreement objectively and clearly identify which types of hazards, particularly more complex procedures, were harder to assess remotely, something that would have been much more difficult with a non-standardized review,” Dr. Moncrief said. The tool eliminated differences in evaluation approach and interpretation, which would have complicated methodological differences.
“SOIP’s successful adaptation in this study suggests that SOIP is a flexible and dynamic tool that can be used not only during outbreaks but also proactively, before a disease event occurs. The framework helps veterinarians and producers systematically identify potential gaps in biosecurity and think through disease entry risks in a structured, logical way,” Dr. Moncrief observed. “Using SOIP outside of an emergency setting allows operations to make incremental improvements and targeted reinvestments in biosecurity without the urgency and pressure that typically accompany an active outbreak.”
“It’s structured framework allows veterinarians, producers, and even external evaluators to assess risks consistently and track biosecurity improvements over time. Applying SOIP in these settings can support more objective evaluations and help operations strengthen preparedness before a disease event occurs,” Dr. Moncrief stated.
In a large-scale disease event where rapid capacity expansion is required, SOIP can play a significant role. Dr. Moncrief observed, “SOIP can support consistency by giving investigators a shared structure, terminology, and standardized question set, allowing multiple evaluators, whether on-site or remote, to assess hazards using the same framework. In our study, this helped remote reviewers identify many of the same risks as the on-site investigator, although results also showed that an orientation to the tool would likely improve alignment among evaluators, particularly in remote settings.”
The SMEC at ISU study also revealed SOIP’s usability. “Anecdotally, production managers and veterinarians who participated across multiple sites appeared to become comfortable using the framework quickly; while this was not formally assessed, it suggested the tool may be intuitive once applied in practice,” Dr. Moncrief observed.
The telehealth-based biosecurity hazard analysis project as well as results of other on-farm investigations using SOIP demonstrate the program’s value. “Investing in tools like SOIP before a crisis occurs helps ensure the industry is prepared rather than reacting under pressure when a disease event happens. Developing and validating these frameworks in advance allows veterinarians and producers to have practical, tested resources ready when rapid decision-making is required. Proactive investment by industry-supported organizations helps strengthen preparedness, reduce response time, and ultimately protects animal health and business continuity when challenges arise,” Dr. Moncrief said.
The study led by Dr. Moncrief and colleagues showed that telehealth-based hazard analysis using the framework was feasible and allowed remote evaluators to identify many of the same biosecurity risks observed during in-person assessments, not as a replacement but as a complementary component of the evaluation process. She said the process highlights how investing in standardized tools ahead of time creates opportunities to adapt and explore novel approaches as industry needs evolve.
“From this study, the most important takeaway is that a standardized framework like SOIP provides a consistent way to evaluate biosecurity risks, even when assessments are conducted by different evaluators or through different delivery methods. Our findings suggest that this shared structure helps maintain alignment in how hazards are identified and interpreted, which becomes especially important when capacity needs to expand during a disease event. That consistency builds confidence in the decisions being made, which, in turn, supports maintaining business continuity during disruptions,” Dr. Moncrief concluded.
The development of resources that support continued utilization of the SOIP helps SHIC fulfill its mission to protect and enhance the health of the US swine herd by supporting efforts to prevent, respond to and mitigate emerging, re-emerging, and transboundary swine diseases.
The Swine Health Information Center, launched in 2015 with Pork Checkoff funding, protects and enhances the health of the US swine herd by minimizing the impact of emerging disease threats through preparedness, coordinated communications, global disease monitoring, analysis of swine health data, and targeted research investments. As a conduit of information and research, SHIC encourages sharing of its publications and research. Forward, reprint, and quote SHIC material freely. For more information, visit http://www.swinehealth.org or contact Dr. Megan Niederwerder at [email protected] or Dr. Lisa Becton at [email protected].