A Call for Compassionate Empathy: Analysis of Verbal Empathic Communication between Veterinary Students and Veterinary Clients and their Dogs.

In human medicine, empathy contributes to enhanced patient satisfaction and trust, decreased litigation, and increased adherence to medical recommendations. Understanding client perspectives is crucial in the empathic process; failure to explore these perspectives has been linked to decreased client satisfaction in veterinary consultations. This article explores how veterinary clients verbally expressed emotional concerns during consultations and how veterinary students addressed them. The "Model of Empathic Communication in the Medical Interview" by Suchman et al., is the starting point for a thematic analysis of consultation transcripts. Clients expressed multiple emotional concerns both directly by using explicit words (coded as empathic opportunities-EO), and indirectly (coded as potential empathic opportunities-PEO), throughout the consultations. Indirect examples prevailed and included stories about previous experiences with pet illnesses and pet care received elsewhere. Clients used explicit words, including "fear" and "panic." Students usually responded with a biomedical focus, including asking medical questions and giving medical explanations. Although students demonstrated various communication skills, they failed to demonstrate a complete verbal compassionate empathic response (a novel code) that includes exploring and verbalizing accurate understanding of the clients' perspectives and offering help based on this understanding. These findings suggest that strategies to teach compassionate empathy and support its use in the clinical setting are not fully effective, and veterinary students risk entering practice unprepared to employ this vital competency. The authors also introduce an operational definition for compassionate empathy.

Multiple-Choice Questions in Small Animal Medicine: An Analysis of Cognitive Level and Structural Reliability, and the Impact of these Characteristics on Student Performance.

Students entering the final year of the veterinary curriculum need to integrate information and problem solve. Assessments used to document competency prior to entry to the clinical environment should ideally provide a reliable measurement of these essential skills. In this study, five internal medicine specialists evaluated the cognitive grade (CG) and structural integrity of 100 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) used to assess learning by third-year students at a United States (US) veterinary school. Questions in CG 1 tested factual recall and simple understanding; those in CG 2 required interpretation and analysis; CG 3 MCQs tested problem solving. The majority (53%) of questions could be answered correctly using only recall or simple understanding (CG 1); 12% of MCQs required problem solving (CG 3). Less than half of the questions (43%) were structurally sound. Overall student performance for the 3 CGs differed significantly (92% for CG 1 vs. 84% for CG 3; p = .03. Structural integrity did not appear to impact overall performance, with a median pass rate of 90% for flawless questions versus 86% for those with poor structural integrity (p = .314). There was a moderate positive correlation between individual student outcomes for flawless CG 1 versus CG 3 questions (rs = 0.471; p = < .001), although 13% of students failed to achieve an aggregate passing score (65%) on the CG 3 questions. These findings suggest that MCQ-based assessments may not adequately evaluate intended learning outcomes and that instructors may benefit from guidance and training for this issue.

Interactive clinical cases in veterinary education used to promote independent study.

This study set out to encourage veterinary undergraduates to adopt independent and deep approaches to their study in a five-week third-year course on the alimentary system by incorporating problem solving and decision analysis. We were interested in exploring the effectiveness of two implementations of online interactive case scenarios and the amount of staff time required to develop, deploy, and support their use by students. The majority of students who responded to our questionnaire attempted all the cases available and were able to work with very little tutor input. Cases that prompted students to type an answer before allowing them to progress were rated by all students as making them think more. The realistic nature of the cases, the way they stimulated students' interest, and the need to apply existing knowledge gained in lectures were cited as three of the five characteristics that students most liked. These characteristics map to a range of learning processes that are considered to form a fully developed deep approach by research in this field over the past 40 years. While resource implications are still high, this use of these case scenarios did engage the vast majority of students in independent and deep approaches to their study.

Calculation of doses of drugs in solution: are medical students confused by different means of expressing drug concentrations?

INTRODUCTION: Our hypothesis was that clinical medical students find the different means of expressing the concentration of drugs in solution confusing. We are concerned that lack of formal teaching on this topic may make students liable to make drug dosing errors after they have qualified. Administering the wrong volume of a drug may have serious consequences for patient safety. STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANT GROUP: Web-based electronic multiple-choice examination of clinical medical students. METHODS: We asked clinical medical students at our university three multiple-choice questions concerning the concentration of lidocaine (lignocaine) and epinephrine (adrenaline) in solution and the maximal recommended dose of lidocaine. The incorrect options were wrong by factors of between 4 and 1000. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-eight clinical students out of 350 contacted responded to an invitation to participate (response rate 48%). Twenty-seven percent answered every question incorrectly and 10% answered all three correctly. The mean score for all students was only 1.24 out of 3 (standard error 0.96). However, final-year students performed significantly better (p = 0.016), implying that some knowledge had been acquired informally. Their higher mean score resulted from correctly identifying the amount of epinephrine (p = 0.005) and lidocaine (p = 0.018) more frequently. Only 27% knew the maximal recommended dose of lidocaine, with no difference between years (p = 0.724). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial majority of medical students are unable to calculate the mass of a drug in solution correctly. There is evidence that some students are picking up this skill during the course, because final-year students performed significantly better than first-year students. Modern medical student pharmacology teaching is highly sophisticated, encompassing genomics, molecular and cell biology. The ability to calculate drug doses safely appears to have been overlooked. Students should be familiar with these concepts, so as to avoid dose errors and associated morbidity, mortality and cost when they begin prescribing. To simplify calculations, drug packaging should express the concentration of drugs in solution solely as mass per unit volume, e.g. milligrams per millilitre.