Which professional (non-technical) competencies are most important to the success of graduate veterinarians? A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review: BEME Guide No. 38

Background: Despite the growing prominence of professional (non-technical) competencies in veterinary education, the evidence to support their importance to veterinary graduates is unclear. Aim: To summarize current evidence within the veterinary literature for the importance of professional competencies to graduate success. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted (CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, Australian and British Education Index, Dissertations & Theses) from 1988 to 2015 and limited to the veterinary discipline (veterinar* term required). Evidence was sought from consensus-based competence frameworks, surveys of stakeholder perceptions, and empirical evidence linked to relevant outcomes (e.g. employability, client satisfaction or compliance). Data extraction was completed by two independent reviewers and included a quality assessment of each source. Results: Fifty-two sources were included in the review, providing evidence from expert frameworks (10 sources), stakeholder perceptions (30 sources, including one from the previous category), and empirical research (13 sources). Communication skills were the only competency to be well-supported by all three categories of evidence. Other competencies supported by multiple sources of empirical evidence include empathy, relationship-centered care, self-efficacy, and business skills. Other competencies perceived to be relatively more important included awareness of limitations, professional values, critical thinking, collaboration, and resilience. Conclusions: This review has highlighted the comparatively weak body of evidence supporting the importance of professional competencies for veterinary graduate success, with the exception of communication skills. However we stress this is more indicative of the scarcity of high-quality veterinary-based education research in the field, than of the true priority of these competencies

Effective vaccination against rabies in puppies in rabies endemic regions.

In rabies endemic regions, a proportionally higher incidence of rabies is often reported in dogs younger than 12 months of age, which includes puppies less than 3 months of age; this presents a serious risk to public health. The higher incidence of rabies in young dogs may be the effect of low vaccination coverage in this age class, partly as a result of the perception that immature immune systems and maternal antibodies inhibit seroconversion to rabies vaccine in puppies less than three months of age. Therefore, to test this perception, the authors report the virus neutralising antibody titres from 27 dogs that were vaccinated with high quality, inactivated rabies vaccine aged three months of age and under as part of larger serological studies undertaken in Gauteng Province, South Africa, and the Serengeti District, Tanzania. All of these dogs seroconverted to a single dose of vaccine with no adverse reactions reported and with postvaccinal peak titres ranging from 2.0 IU/ml to 90.5 IU/ml. In light of these results, and the risk of human beings contracting rabies from close contact with puppies, the authors recommend that all dogs in rabies endemic regions, including those less than three months of age, are vaccinated with high quality, inactivated vaccine.Funding for the study in Zenzele was provided by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and World Animal Protection (WAP). Funding for the study in Tanzania was provided by the RCVS Small Grant Programme and the University of Edinburgh Small Grant Scholarship Program. Dog vaccines for the Serengeti study were donated by MSD Animal Health. Partial funding for the APHA was provided by the UK Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Project SV3500). JW receives support from the Alborada Trust and the Research and Policy for Infectious Disease Dynamics Program of the Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Fogarty International Centre, National Institute of Health.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from BMJ Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.10297

Planning your animal hospital.

Mode of access: Internet