黑料网

Animal medicine; Production; Animal care; Clientveterinarian dialogue

Introduction

a. Creating a simulation of the client-veterinarian dialogue

Communication abilities have recently drawn more attention in both human and veterinary medicine. The significance of communication skills (CS) in human medicine has gained more and more attention during the past 20 years. There are many reports that discuss the significance for good medical practise.

Materials and Method

The relevance of CS for patients’ perceptions of satisfaction and compliance with treatment regimens has been demonstrated. For various illnesses, such as stroke or osteoporosis, the function of explaining health hazards, the justification for a therapy, and long-term strategy is thought significant and reported. In veterinary medicine, numerous reports and papers have emphasised the importance of communication skills in the contexts of clinical science, practise management, and veterinary education. Professional communication skills refer to a veterinarian’s capacity for appropriate and efficient client communication. It has been called a fundamental therapeutic skill since it has an impact on the client-veterinarian relationship as well as the outcome of the consultation and any subsequent treatment or other interventions. Interpersonal communication issues will negatively impact the patient-veterinarian connection. The Calgary- Cambridge model, which was initially [1-3] created to describe and define the necessary communication skills in human medicine, is a widely recognised model for characterising the interaction in a medical context. It serves as an example of how a physician and patient should communicate at a lot of veterinary schools and universities. The concept focuses on the consultation as a whole and depicts it as a helical-shaped process where the client and the veterinarian converse with one another. The model describes the need for both the customer and the veterinarian to establish a working relationship, in addition to the requirement that the consultancy itself be structured properly. The Calgary-Cambridge model was first created to help students learn how to communicate effectively; other models that were released in connection with the consultation process have more of an emphasis on practical matters, such decision making. The consultation procedure is based on the Calgary-Cambridge approach, which also applies to the majority of “conventional” curative farm animal practises. Similar procedures are involved in emergencies, critically ill farm animals, and some management-related issues: opening the consultation, gathering information, followed by examination, planning, and execution. Both the client and the veterinarian are involved in each of these elements. So, in both settings it is important to pay attention to the way the consultation is structured as well as the interaction with the client.

Discussion

The health of the particular animal, which implies the owner’s quality of life, is what motivates client-veterinarian collaboration in companion animal medicine. But, the purpose of farm animal practise is distinct. Economic decisions are more important, and veterinary care aims to improve health status and, as a result, increase the productivity of a production animal unit. Modeling the consultation is undoubtedly beneficial, but in veterinary advising practise, communication between the physician and owner goes beyond that: long-term strategies are typical whenever it comes to producing animals, and [2-6] information sharing and farmer education are crucial. So, this study will investigate the issue of what tools the veterinarian in veterinary advisory practise may employ and how communication should be structured. It will provide an overview of the most recent research and make recommendations for practise management and veterinary education using a model to explain communication processes. Communication’s function in dairy farm veterinary advisory practise Farm (producing) animal veterinarians frequently deal with issues that transcend beyond a single subject and the scope of strictly clinical actions. The goal of production animal medicine is to reduce illness incidence and prevalence in order to lower production costs, increase animal health, and ultimately increase farm profitability. To put it another way, production animal medicine focuses on boosting the proportion of healthy animals in a herd by various veterinary procedures like monitoring, early diagnostic warning, problem analysis, intervention, and prevention. It includes, among other things, monitoring feeding schedules and providing advise on ration composition, managing and analysing fertility data, providing advice on milk quality and milking technique, or consulting on the design, building, and arrangement of farm structures. Production animal medicine is evolving into veterinary advice practise as a result of these long-term initiatives, putting more emphasis on the performance and welfare of the herd than the individual animal’s health. Many titles have been given to this integrated strategy for managing herd health and productivity, including Herd Health Planning, Herd [6-9] Health and Production Management, Veterinary Herd Health Management, and programmes of Veterinary Quality Risk Management. The goal of veterinary advisory practise is to reduce risks rather than try to control damage once it has already happened. Unquestionably, the expertise and abilities of the practising veterinarian in (clinical) veterinary concerns and zootechnics, i.e., the knowledge of feeding, genetics, farm management, and other related fields, form the basis for success in this veterinary advice business. There are several illnesses that are simultaneously present in a dairy herd, including reproductive abnormalities, mastitis, claw lesions, and digestive or metabolic disorders. The veterinarian must be able to explain these difficulties to the client in a way that the customer cannot disregard them in this complicated setting of production animal practise. Hence, unlike companion animal care, the motivation for involvement in production animal medicine, such as on dairy farms, is different. For instance, Valeeva and colleagues describe a shared incentive to enhance udder health: economic considerations are significant in addition to internal, non-financial aspects directly associated to animal health.

Results

Here, potential losses typically serve as greater motivation than potential profits. Financial considerations are somewhat significant in companion animal medicine, but they are crucial in the production animal industry. According to Hogeveen and others’ analysis of Dutch dairy farms, losses from clinical mastitis, for instance, are unpredictable and can range from € 17 to € 198 per cow per year. This would result in losses of $0.02 per kilogramme of milk produced in the latter scenario. Moreover, animal welfare considerations are crucial for animal agriculture since they take into account both farm-specific variables as well as public concerns about the origins of animal-derived foods. The various farming methods, such as pasture-based systems against highly intensive feedlot systems or family farms versus major dairy operations owned by companies, add to the complexity of communication on dairy farms. So, it is becoming more and more obvious that several communication modalities are necessary to connect with various client demographics. Therefore, it must be concluded that every model illustrating the communication process in veterinary advice practise must take personality differences among farmers and variances in farming practises into account. Using data from 24 interviews, Jansen and colleagues identified four different attitudes among dairy farmers, depending on how they felt about outside knowledge and how willing they were to change their behaviour. The group developed four distinctions: (1) pro-activists, (2) pro-reclusive traditionalists, (3) wait-and-seeers, and (4) do-it-yourselfers. So, the aforementioned veterinary advice practise goes beyond the simple consultation and instead involves the veterinarian, the farmer as the customer, and increasingly, specialists from related professions, resulting in advisory teams. The aforementioned aspects must be integrated into a systematic management approach, thus veterinarians must devise strategies to help this. In addition to having developed certain professional skills, such as the accurate interpretation of production data, feed ration calculations, and assessment of herd health status, the veterinarian engaged in veterinary advisory practise is also involved in a different kind of communication process with his client. First, interpersonal communication between a veterinarian and a farmer entails a personal connection, discussion of newly emerging herd-related issues, and long-term plans to enhance the performance and health of the herd. Second, additional techniques outside dialogue may be utilised to increase the client’s knowledge and give farmers training in areas related to the health of their herds. Somatic cell count (SCC) in dairy herds is affected by farmers’ perceptions of what is “normal,” according to Jansen and others. By “anchoring,” a farmer may mistakenly believe that a catastrophic situation—like a high SCC—is typical because of his prejudice from years of practise. To alter this view and alter the framework of what is considered to be normal, a number of tools, including as brochures and written standard operating procedures, adapted to the needs and circumstances as found on the individual farm, have been outlined. Chase and others have discussed the use of various media, such as internet-based education, study groups, or workshops, for farmer education. Jansen and others outline two possible approaches to approaching farmers in this situation. A primary strategy involves presenting information based on facts and arguments, which ultimately appeals to comprehension and conviction. A tangential strategy would concentrate on persuasive methods and the legitimacy of institutions and vets. The “You-Phase” relationship might resemble that which the fictional James Herriott figure might have experienced, as illustrated by the following examples: a farmer providing the vet with soap, a towel, warm water, and a cup of tea at the conclusion of the visit. The vet in a “I-Phase” relationship, on the other hand, is just a technician. We can envision the farmer making a particular request for the visit to be made, such as to screen 100 cows for pregnancy or to calve a cow, or to write a prescription for medications, in a manner similar to how he would place an order for the upcoming delivery of feed. Much less is the veterinarian’s opinion regarded or sought after. Dairy herd health management consultation, in conclusion, relates to a complicated conversation involving many motivations, personalities, styles, and considerations to take into account. The consultant production animal veterinarian provides more than just a technical service; in addition, he or she serves as a financial counsellor, source of resources for farm management, and process coach in matters pertaining to health and production. The capacity of the production animal veterinarian to convey and explain these complicated issues to the client is crucial to success.

Conclusion

So, this kind of advising practise necessitates a certain method of communication that goes beyond the simple consultation used in companion animal medicine. Using this in a model that illustrates the relationship between a veterinarian and a client and explains their interaction during the advisory process seems to be beneficial. This model would make it easier to determine how to build up a profitable veterinary advising practice.

1. Osayande UD, Bitto II, Okewale SA, Idahor KO (2017) .Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health9:154-158.

,

2. Gatimel N, Moreau J, Parinaud J, Léandri R D (2017) Andrology5:845-862.

, ,

3. Thomas J (2021)
4. Amao OA, Showumi KA (2016) British Biotechnology Journal 10:1-10

,

5. Babashani M, Lawa M, Njoku CO, Ate IU, Rekwot PI, et al.  (2014) J Vet Adv 4:616-622.

,

6. Shandilya L, Clarkson TB, Adams MR, Lewis JC (1982). Biol Reprod 27:241-252.

, ,

7. Hill D, Sugrue I, Arendt E, Hill C, Stanton C, et al. (2017) F1000Research6:1-5

, ,

8. Soares Neto CB, Conceição AA, Gomes TG, de Aquino Ribeiro JA, Campanha RB, et al. (2021) Waste and Biomass Valorization12:3965-3975.

,

9. Vandu RA, Mbaya YP, Wafar RJ, Ndubuisi DI (2021) Nigerian Journal of Animal Production48:33-46.