#1 Veterinary student preparedness for workplace clinical training - a brief overview

Welcome to my reflexive diary!

I will be performing thematic analysis of group interview data to discuss what it means for veterinary students to be well-prepared for undergraduate workplace clinical training and I will use this diary to document my thought processes and decision making. More details about the methods are coming in the next post, but first, it might be useful to give an overview of the entire study…

A few definitions to start with…

Workplace clinical training (WCT)

Workplace clinical training is a core part of veterinary school curricula which usually takes place in the final 12-18 months of the course. It is the students’ authentic but supervised participation in “real-world” veterinary clinical practice. Using a more informal and opportunistic approach, through the integration and application of knowledge, and the development of key non-technical skills, students transition to competent veterinarians. Assessment can be formative or summative and it is usually based on “day one” competences. In this context, it does not include extra-mural studies.

Preparedness

In this study, preparedness is a measure of the likelihood that veterinary students are going to be competent during their imminent WCT. Being well-prepared is an indicator for strong future performance as a student; integrating and applying knowledge, developing professional and practical skills and a capacity to successfully achieve the “Day One Competences” dictated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. As such, preparedness characteristics are tools which, if possessed, facilitate the student in achieving those learning outcomes.

The research questions

The main focus of the study is to answer the research question: ‘what does it mean for a veterinary student to be well prepared for starting WCT?’ (Q1). This is in addition to:

· Determining whether there are differences between the opinions of veterinary student and educators’ perceptions of what is required (Q2)

· Determining if perspectives on preparedness change as students experience WCT (Q3)

· Determining if perspectives on preparedness are different between participants working and learning in different environments/demographic groups (e.g. different veterinary sectors, in schools with different curricula) (Q4)

· Determining whether there is a relationship between Surrey students’ perceptions of preparedness and their performance during WCT (Q5)

An objectivist deductive approach

An objectivist deductive approach starts with general, abstract conceptualisations working towards observable or measurable data that is contextualised. We start with a review of workplace learning theory applied to the veterinary context, and from it hypothesise a set of preparedness characteristics built around four themes, and the latter are used as sensitising concepts (see below) for focus group discussions. The discussions generate refreshed and importantly verified preparedness characteristics grounded in the perceptions of key stakeholders in WCT. These populate a questionnaire which aims to answer the research questions.

Methodology - a mixed methods study

· An exploratory sequential design with three phases – we begin with the collection and analysis of qualitative data in the first phase. Then follows a development phase: designing a quantitative feature based on the qualitative results. In the third phase the researcher quantitatively tests the new feature. The researcher can interpret how the quantitative results build on the initial qualitative results or how the quantitative results provide a clear understanding because they are grounded in the initial qualitative perspectives of participants.

· Instrument development model– qualitative data are collected for the purpose of developing a quantitative instrument. The resulting instrument is grounded in the views, experiences, context and language of the participants rather than the researchers’ perspective or pulled “off the shelf” for use. With the culture specific development of the instrument, the likelihood increases that it will be seen as relevant to the group being studied.

· Since these designs begin qualitatively, they are best suited for exploring a phenomenon (preparedness for WCT). Such an exploration is needed for one of several reasons including that there is a need to make an existing quantitative measure as specific to the participants and culture as possible (and veterinary WCT is highly contextualised).

Methods

Phase one: key stakeholder online group interviews

· Sampling: purposive & convenience. Decisions about the makeup of different groups are made with the intent of interrogating and comparing data purposefully. A broad range key stakeholders are be invited.

· Group composition: homogeneous in background, not attitudes

· Semi-structured interview questions are based on sensitising concepts from a review of the literature on learning theory in the context of the veterinary workplace (awareness, behaviour, knowledge and skills, personal attributes)

Phase two: theoretical thematic analysis of focus group data using a deductivist content and codebook approach for semantic themes – see the next blog! The output of phase two will be a group of important preparedness characteristics grounded in the perceptions of key stakeholders in veterinary WCT.

Phase three: pairwise comparison questionnaire where participants pick which of two preparedness characteristics are more highly valued in students commencing veterinary WCT. Results will be fed into an mElo algorithm to generate a stable ranking of preparedness characteristics from most to less important, and inter-group comparisons can also be made.