Use of Distributive Models in Veterinary Medical Education: Over 30 Years of Success (and Counting)

by | Dec 1, 2025 | Animal Health Industry - Views, Views

Veterinary Distributive Model

After much debate and handwringing, the College of Veterinary Medicine at the Western University of Health Sciences–having developed and successfully implemented the very first full-scale distributive model of Veterinary medical clinical education–was awarded full accreditation by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Council on Education (AVMA COE) on March 10, 2010 . . . over 15 years ago. The school and its graduates have continued to achieve great success in the Veterinary profession since.

In similar fashion, including another substantial dose of fretting and apprehension, the Lincoln Memorial University-Richard A. Gillespie College of Veterinary Medicine–having developed and successfully implemented the second full-scale distributive model of Veterinary medical clinical education–was granted full accreditation by the AVMA COE on January 7, 2019 . . . over 6 years ago. Since that time, LMU continues to successfully pursue its mission of “…prepar[ing] career-ready, confident, competent veterinarians through innovation and excellence in Veterinary education…”

Soon thereafter in December 2019, another school employing a distributive model–the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine–achieved its first full AVMA COE accreditation. A number of additional schools with distributive models have been or are being launched and are currently in various stages of the accreditation process.

But these weren’t the first examples of successful distributive models. In the 1980s–over 30 years ago–leadership at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Veterinary Medicine created a distributive model to teach food animal medicine, surgery, and herd health management in an ambulatory setting.1 Unheard of at the time, the program was designed to meet accreditation’s core requirement of a primary-care, large animal ambulatory experience. Because of its then-new approach, skeptics were not convinced of the program’s efficacy as compared to traditional university-based ambulatory programs. For this reason, a program assessment was conducted to compare the two systems,2 the results of which suggested that the innovative model was indeed an effective approach that could be seriously considered for Veterinary medical education.

Based on these findings, we developed and implemented a similar distributive model program at Michigan State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine in 1995.3 Designed to teach examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of common medical and surgical conditions of horses and/or food animals, the experience was required of all students and met a core accreditation requirement. Noteworthy positive attributes of the program included:

  • Clinical caseloads – The practices provided a high volume of commonly-encountered, primary care conditions and situations to serve as teaching material.
  • Faculty-student ratio – The one-to-one (or in many cases, several-to-one) faculty-student ratio provided a level of access to clinical expertise and instructional supervision that was not possible to achieve in a university setting.
  • Speed of practice – Teaching and learning occurred in the context of ongoing, financially successful businesses, providing students a realistic picture of the necessary pace of activities in Veterinary practice outside a university setting.
  • Practice management – In these viable business enterprises, students were able to gain a sense of the basic requirement for a clinical enterprise to be financially successful.
  • Community – Students were able to experience the delivery of Veterinary medical services by a community of professionals to meet the needs of a broader societal community.
  • Connection – Active engagement with the practicing community clearly informed both teaching and research at the parent university.

These examples of the distributive model’s positive attributes should not be viewed as an exhaustive list, nor should they be considered unique to the program at MSU. These are benefits that can–and should–accrue to virtually any well-developed distributive model.

Since these early times, the distributive model of Veterinary clinical education has been markedly improved. Because of enhanced design and structure, control of the educational process is much greater, and accordingly the risk of substandard learning outcomes is markedly decreased. Noteworthy attributes now generally include:

  • Affiliated clinical educators who have received training in delivering education and in evaluation of students.
  • Clearly stated, competency-focused, educationally appropriate learning objectives.
  • Competency-focused assessment of learning.
  • Active monitoring of the educational experience.
  • Active engagement of, and communication with, affiliated clinical educators.

Importantly, the accreditation process has been modified substantially in recent years to provide assurance that these critical attributes exist.4 In fact, the specific accreditation requirement for clinical educators to be trained in educational methods is now actually more stringent for programs with distributive models than for traditional programs, where no such training is required.

With this strong track record of over 30 years of documented success, it is difficult to understand the level of skepticism that lingers in some circles. Perhaps the doubts are rooted in the very different structure (or lack thereof) associated with traditional externships. Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that students who graduate from a distributive model program are not well-trained veterinarians, able to successfully pursue any career pathway of their choosing.

It’s time that we embrace the efficacy of the distributive model for Veterinary medical education and eliminate unfounded perceptions that traditional models are inherently somehow better.

REFERENCES:

  1. MacWilliams BC, Easterday BC, McGuirk SM. The Wisconsin senior rotation in ambulatory service: A new approach to on-farm instruction in large animal medicine. J Vet Med Educ 9:5–18, 1992.
  2. Dartt, B.A., J.W. Lloyd, J.B. Kaneene, and F.J. Derksen. Evaluation of a practice-based ambulatory program in food animal medicine, surgery, and herd health management, J Am Vet Med Assoc 210(11):1590-1594, 1997.
  3. Kopcha, M, J.W. Lloyd, F. Peterson, and F.J. Derksen. Practice-based education at Michigan State University, J Vet Med Educ 32(4):555-561, 2005.
  4. American Veterinary Medical Association. Accreditation policies and procedures of the AVMA Council on Education (COE). Available at: https://www.avma.org/education/center-for-veterinary-accreditation/accreditation-policies-and-procedures-avma-council-education-coe (accessed 12.01.25).