Mapping Australian Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Services Relevant to Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance – A Scoping Study

Abstract Background Animal-sector antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance requires laboratories capable of recovering bacterial isolates, identifying organisms, performing and interpreting antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), retaining isolates and associated metadata, and transmitting standardised isolate-level data. This scoping review mapped publicly available information on Australian veterinary diagnostic laboratory services and assessed their potential contribution to animal-sector AMR surveillance. Public websites, submission forms and test directories were reviewed for laboratory identity, sample-submission pathways, culture and isolate recovery, organism identification, AST, reporting, referral and isolate storage. Australian animal-health sources provided the primary framework, while AURA, WHO and CDC priority lists were used only for contextual One Health comparison. Results After duplicating organisational names, former service labels, network-level duplicates, collection centres and unverified internal facilities were reviewed, 20 veterinary laboratory or service entries were retained. These included private laboratory networks, government laboratories, university diagnostic services and selected specialist animal-health and One Health organisations. Publicly available request forms were identified for 14 of 20 entries, sample collection and transport guidance for 10 entries each, turnaround times for seven, and follow-up arrangements for three. AST or “culture and sensitivity” was mentioned for all 20 entries. However, public sources rarely specified the AST platform, antimicrobial panel, interpretive standard and version, minimum inhibitory concentration or inhibition-zone output, quality-control organisms, isolate-selection rules, isolate archiving or submission of isolate-level surveillance data. Pathogen test menus showed broad animal-health and zoonotic coverage, but detection-only or genus-level listings did not establish species-specific identification, resistance-phenotype detection or surveillance-compatible AST capacity. Conclusions Australia has a distributed veterinary diagnostic network with clear potential to support national AMR surveillance. However, publicly available information is insufficient to verify site-level surveillance readiness or determine whether results are produced using comparable methods. A verified registry of physical testing sites, direct confirmation of culture-to-AST workflows, harmonised AST and reporting standards, and a minimum isolate-level dataset are required before routine veterinary laboratory data can be integrated reliably into coordinated national animal-AMR surveillance.