Managing Client Communication for Effective Practice: What Skills Should Veterinary Graduates Have Acquired for Success?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-one years ago, I continued a family tradition started by my grandfather and embarked on my chosen career as a veterinarian. I had been the recipient of a balanced education, with training in the core disciplines, and our mission was straightforward: Get out there and save lives. At the time of my graduation, anything I knew about communication I had learned from my mother. She declared herself a ‘‘good listener,’’ and I recall the many times I witnessed her sitting mutely while others droned on about themselves. If nothing else, I at least learned to keep my mouth shut while others spoke, even if I didn’t hear a word they said. Over time, I observed new communication styles (many from other veterinarians)—unconsciously adopting some while rejecting others. Except for the times when I struggled to explain to some of my Dutch dairy clients who spoke little English why their cows were developing sole ulcers, I hardly gave communication a second thought. Then, in 1991, I received a telephone call that would change my life. The chair of the complaints committee for the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO—the provincial regulator) invited me to join the committee. In time, I assumed the position of chair myself and eventually joined the staff of the CVO as a committee advisor. In my 14 years of involvement with the CVO, I estimate that I have participated in the investigation of over 1,500 complaints made against veterinarians. The single factor common to virtually all of these complaints was difficulty, in all directions, with the effective communication that is required for the practice of veterinary medicine. Thus, I have come to understand the importance of communication in veterinary practice and the role poor communication plays in the genesis of such complaints. My comments below come from this perspective. That many veterinary schools now include courses on communication in their curricula is a testament to the importance of this learnable skill. Perhaps those remaining schools lamenting the dedication of scarce resources to instruction in communication skills will be persuaded by reading my story.
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 | 0.022 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".