Inter-Professional Practice: From Veterinarian to the Veterinary Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal health care is being delivered by an increasing number of professions and occupations. This article takes an inward look at the veterinary team, focusing on the day-to-day life of veterinarians and those with whom they work, such as veterinary technicians/nurses, physical therapists, and farriers. The evolution of the work of the veterinarian should be explored alongside the evolution of closely related occupations, as the current working practice of veterinarians is affected by the practice of these other occupations. An example is given of UK veterinary nurses (similar to veterinary technicians in North America) who are currently undergoing professionalization. Seminal implementations have included a register (2007), disciplinary procedures (2011), a declaration of professional responsibilities (2012), and required continuing professional development for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs). These implementations result in veterinary nurses who are now accountable for their actions. There are many potential benefits to good inter-professional practice for the practice itself, individual team members, clients, and patients, including better results produced by the whole team rather than the sum of the parts, financial benefits to using individuals in lower-paid occupations for shared roles, and greater client satisfaction regarding increased options for treatment. There are, however, many challenges to inter-professional working that center on the interlinked themes of hierarchy (power, status, and the understanding/appreciation of professional roles) and communication (lack of/poor). Inter-professional education (IPE) is suggested as a potential means to overcome these challenges; however, research into IPE exclusively related to the veterinary team is lacking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".