A Scalable and Effective Course Design for Teaching Competency-Based Euthanasia Communication Skills in Veterinary Curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary staff must be able to navigate end-of-life care with sensitivity and skill to create the best possible outcome for the patient, client, and veterinary team collectively. Despite the clear importance of euthanasia communication and procedural skills in veterinary practice, recent graduates of veterinary programs identified gaps between skills deemed important in clinical practice and skills emphasized in the curriculum. Little time is allocated to euthanasia procedural or communication training across the board in US veterinary programs. Thus, it is of paramount importance to establish intentional and well-designed instruction and assessment of euthanasia communication skills for veterinary trainees. A course on veterinary euthanasia communication skills was designed to emphasize themes and topics essential for a competent veterinarian. Through course evaluations, students expressed the sentiments that this course improved their euthanasia communication skills, that euthanasia communication skills are essential for their careers, and that the course content should be integrated into the core curriculum. This article presents a scaffold for the instruction and assessment of veterinary euthanasia communication skills in alignment with a competency-based veterinary education (CBVE) framework and outlines specific learning interventions used in the course that are scalable and may be extracted and incorporated into existing courses.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".