Not all uncivil behaviours are equal: exploring responses to incivility in veterinary practice using vignettes.

Workplace incivility is considered a common workplace stressor, linked to a range of adverse impacts such as reduced wellbeing. However, there is a lack of research focused on how targets of incivility respond. The current study addresses that gap by examining responses to incivility within veterinary practice. Veterinarians and veterinary nurses (n = 132) evaluated six scenarios depicting two types of incivility (direct e.g. demeaning comments/indirect, for example, ignoring someone) across three instigators (clients, co-workers, senior colleagues), reporting their perception and appraisal of the uncivil behaviour depicted along with potential responses. Direct incivility was linked to responses such as reciprocation, exit, and support seeking, whereas indirect incivility was associated with affiliative and ignoring responses. Negative appraisal of incivility predicted a higher likelihood of exit, avoidance, support seeking and reporting responses. These findings suggest that incivility targets utilise a broad range of response options and adapt their response dependent on the situation.

This study investigated the influence of incivility type (direct/indirect) and instigator (client/co-worker/senior colleague) on response selection within veterinary practice. Participant responses were linked to incivility type and instigator status, indicating that utilisation of responses can be variable and adaptive to the situation.

Safety culture: the Nottingham Veterinary Safety Culture Survey (NVSCS).

Safety culture is a vital concept in human healthcare because of its influence on staff behaviours in relation to patient safety. Understanding safety culture is essential to ensure the acceptance and sustainability of changes, such as the introduction of safe surgery checklists. While widely studied and assessed in human medicine, there is no tool for its assessment in veterinary medicine. This paper therefore presents initial data on such an assessment: the Nottingham Veterinary Safety Culture Survey (NVSCS). 350 pilot surveys were distributed to practising vets and nurses. The survey was also available online. 229 surveys were returned (65 per cent response rate) and 183 completed online, resulting in 412 surveys for analysis. Four domains were identified: (1) organisational safety systems and behaviours, (2) staff perceptions of management, (3) risk perceptions and (4) teamwork and communication. Initial indications of the reliability and the validity of the final survey are presented. Although early in development, the resulting 29-item NVSCS is presented as a tool for measuring safety culture in veterinary practices with implications for benchmarking, safety culture assessment and teamwork training.

We need to talk about error: causes and types of error in veterinary practice.

Patient safety research in human medicine has identified the causes and common types of medical error and subsequently informed the development of interventions which mitigate harm, such as the WHO's safe surgery checklist. There is no such evidence available to the veterinary profession. This study therefore aims to identify the causes and types of errors in veterinary practice, and presents an evidence based system for their classification. Causes of error were identified from retrospective record review of 678 claims to the profession's leading indemnity insurer and nine focus groups (average N per group=8) with vets, nurses and support staff were performed using critical incident technique. Reason's (2000) Swiss cheese model of error was used to inform the interpretation of the data. Types of error were extracted from 2978 claims records reported between the years 2009 and 2013. The major classes of error causation were identified with mistakes involving surgery the most common type of error. The results were triangulated with findings from the medical literature and highlight the importance of cognitive limitations, deficiencies in non-technical skills and a systems approach to veterinary error.

Alumni-based evaluation of a novel veterinary curriculum: are Nottingham graduates prepared for clinical practice?

INTRODUCTION: Outcomes-based education has been the core of the curriculum strategy of the Nottingham School of Veterinary Medicine and Science (SVMS) since its inception in 2006. As part of the ongoing curriculum evaluation, the first two graduating cohorts were invited to provide an appraisal of their preparation by the SVMS curriculum for their role in clinical practice. This paper provides brief accounts of the SVMS curriculum model, the development of the evaluation instrument and the findings of the alumni survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The evaluation instrument contained 25 attributes expected of SVMS graduates. Alumni rated their preparation for practice in relation to each attribute. RESULTS: The four highest rated characteristics were compassion for animals and the application of ethics to animal welfare; communication skills; recognising own limitations and seeking help and advice where needed and clinical examination skills. The four lowest rated were clinical case management and therapeutic strategies; dealing with veterinary public health and zoonotic issues; knowledge of current veterinary legislation and dealing with emergency and critical care cases. Free text responses were in line with these quantitative findings. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that this sample of SVMS graduates were satisfied with their undergraduate education and felt well prepared for their role in clinical practice.

Enhancing clinical learning in the workplace: a qualitative study.

Workplace learning (WPL) is seen as an essential component of clinical veterinary education by the veterinary profession. This study sought to understand this type of learning experience more deeply. This was done utilising observations of students on intramural rotations (IMR) and interviews with students and clinical staff. WPL was seen as an opportunity for students to apply knowledge and develop clinical and professional skills in what is generally regarded as a safe, authentic environment. Clinical staff had clear ideas of what they expected from students in terms of interest, engagement, professionalism, and active participation, where this was appropriate. In contrast, students often did not know what to expect and sometimes felt under-prepared when entering the workplace, particularly in a new species area. With the support of staff acting as mentors, students learned to identify gaps in their knowledge and skills, which could then be addressed during specific IMR work placements. Findings such as these illustrate both the complexities of WPL and the diversity of different workplace settings encountered by the students.