Veterinary Nursing Students’ Experience in the Clinical Learning Environment and Factors Affecting Their Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student veterinary nurses (SVNs) spend a significant proportion of their training time within the clinical learning environment (CLE) of a veterinary practice. These clinical experiences are vital for building practical and professional skills. To evaluate the current satisfaction of SVNs in the CLE, a cross-sectional survey design was used incorporating a previously validated instrument. To provide understanding of factors that may affect the SVN satisfaction, additional validated tools were added across factors, including resilience, well-being, personality, and workplace belonging. A total of 171 SVNs completed the survey. In addition, two open questions were included to provide greater depth of understanding of the SVN experiences. Results showed that 70.76% of respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with the CLE. Significant factors that affected the satisfaction scores included, depression, anxiety, and stress ( p ≤ .001), psychological sense of organizational membership ( p ≤ .001), agreeableness ( p = .022), and emotional stability ( p = .012). The qualitative data demonstrated shared SVN factors that are considered to contribute to clinical learning and those that detract from clinical learning. Educational facilities and training veterinary practices can support the SVN within the CLE by creating a greater sense of belonging, considering the SVN individual personality and well-being, and including the SVN in discussions around learning support needs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".