Guidelines for Implementing a Low-Cost Volunteer Desexing Skills Training Program for Veterinary and Veterinary Technology Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although desexing surgeries are considered a core clinical skill for small animal veterinary practice, it can be challenging for veterinary schools to provide students with adequate training opportunities in the traditional curriculum. At the Massey University School of Veterinary Science, we recently established an innovative extracurricular volunteer program designed to have students teaching other students how to perform different elements of desexing procedures as they progress through their degree. This program includes administrative and assistant roles for first-year students (responsible for client communication, patient restraint, and medical record keeping), physical exam and recovery roles for second-year students (responsible for assessing patient fitness for surgery, drawing up anesthetic drugs, and monitoring patients in recovery), anesthesia and neuter surgeon roles for third-year students (responsible for inducing, preparing, and monitoring spay patients and performing cat neuter surgeries), and spay surgeon roles for fourth- and fifth-year students (responsible for performing cat spay surgeries, discharging patients, and following up with clients to monitor recovery). This program has been successful in improving student confidence and competence while also providing a valuable low-cost desexing service to the community. In this article, we discuss the practical considerations and processes involved in implementing this program, including mapping the existing surgical curriculum, recruiting patients, setting up the surgical facilities, purchasing equipment and supplies, establishing standard operating procedures, developing training materials, maintaining clinic records, and monitoring program outcomes. These resources can serve as guidelines for other veterinary schools looking to expand desexing surgery training opportunities for students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".