What should it take to become a credentialed technician?

The state of California recently passed an amendment broadening the pool of applicants who could qualify to take the registered veterinary technician exam. People who haven't completed a two-year training program can now take the exam if they have completed a certain amount of education and have five years of clinical work experience. The California Veterinary Medical Board says that just 24 hours of education is sufficient when paired with the clinical experience. The California Veterinary Medical Association disagrees and thinks such an allowance would weaken the entire veterinary profession. (Read the full story here.) What do you think?

First we can't call ourselves "nurses" in the State of New York.

Now they're saying why bother with school?

I'm of the opinion that the two-years of school at an AVMA-acreditted technician program should stay as a requirement.  Nothing beats being able to have the KNOWLEDGABLE background that goes into why a procedure is done the way it is done. 

Especially the pharmacological background.  ANYBODY can count pills, put them in a bottle, and bill out the client (I've had to put the brakes on my receptionist several times on doing this when she's in a rush and the LVT hasn't gotten to the order yet).  Only someone who's taken a pharmacy class, and retained that knowledge of how to calculate a dose and know what the side-effects of a medication is, is going to look at the label and go, "Um, doc...isn't "Fluffy" only six pounds?  I think this dose might be too much... (or too little...etc.)." 

That's why techs NEED to go to school.  No, it isn't veterinary school, but it is a great way to instill "checks and balances" in a system that is getting more and more fraught with litigations for negligence and malpractice.  I always encourage our LVTs to ask questions, and to even privately question the doctor as to protocols and treatments.  Someone trained only clinically, who learned the "follow orders" method of procedure, isn't going to say, "Hey, Doc, you know, when I was in school, they taught us this technique..."

Honestly, even in states that have laws mandating LVTs, RVTs, CVTs or whatever we're called these days, there isn't enough AVMA oversite, or enough unity on the part of technicians, that get us what we deserve career wise.  I can't remember the last time in the five years since I passed my boards that an AVMA audit has come though any hospital I worked at and asked "Are all the technicians performing those procedures licensed?"  No human hospital would allow a candy striper to administer treatment to a patient...and yet in veterinary medicine, lay people do so all the time, with the "don't ask, don't tell" consent of DVMs and LVTs.

Not being able to call ourselves "nurses" really doesn't even give the public an idea of exactly what a technician does!!  All they see us do is wrestle their pet and poke them with needles, and have no comprehension of the education behind our physical labors.  So the public complains when veterinary fees increase to support the salaries of LVTs because all they perceive us as is labor, not as professionals!!

 It makes having that little piece of paper nothing but some art on the wall.

And now California, the state known to have the highest level of veterinary standards and achievement, really wants to pull the rug out from under technicians by basically reducing it to nothing more than paid labor instead of acknowleding that those who took the time to go to school and learn "how to do things the right way" deserve to be treated as educated professionals?

I'd've stayed in retail if I wanted to be that under-valued.

I am a CVT in Florida, where hair stylists and nail technicians have to be licensed, but I don't. I, like many others, went to school because we believe that knowing why is just as important as knowing how. Anybody can give an injection, we teach clients how all the time, but it is knowing what happens after you give it that sets graduates of accreditaed programs apart. I was always taught that credentialed technicians were in place to protect the welfare of the patients as well as the practitioner. I know the proper dosing and of medications not so I can prescribe it, but so I know if someone forgot a decimal point, and I can catch it before a mistake is made. You can not cram the amount of background knowledge it takes to be a good, valuable to the practice,  terchnician into the equivalent of 3 days of school. Most 2 year programs struggle to teach everything in the maximum credit hours allowed in 2 year degree programs. I suggest the california board read every text book I had to in just 24 hours, and then see what they retain, and how comfortable they feel performing those procedures.

Furthermore, the Veterinarians that use credentialed technicians should be outraged. Anything a CVT, LVT, RVT does is ultimately the responsibility of the licensed DVM, and he/she is the one who is accountable for any errors we make. By using credentialed technicians , those practioners are choosing to use a person who is trained to a set of national standards, not the doctor down the roads standards. They know we know legally what we can do, how to do it properly, and they are counting on that to protect themselves and their patients. The state of california has just taken that security away from them, opening up those doctors to greater liabilty and patient error they are ultimately responsible for.

I attend the BVM meetings here in Florida, and the Veterinarians who are brought before the disciplinary board have one thing in common, they do not have credentialed technicians. I was dumbfounded the first time I attended the disciplinary hearings. The number of Doctors who were being cited for records viloations, Contolled drug log violations, and other various infractions that could have been prevented if they had a credentialed technician was astounding. We are trained to properly maintain records and controlled substance logs. There was even a doctor who injured a kitten in an exam room, because he had an owner restraining instead of an assistant or technician.

The worst part about all of this, is that the general public assumes that the person taking care of their pet is qualified to do so. Most people are horrified when I tell them that Florida does not recognize my profession. That their Vet can hire anyone off the street to anesthetize their dog. It never dawned on them that something like that was possible. Thankfully their are plenty of veterinarians who do see the value and use CVTs without being mandated to do so.

It is sad but not surprising to hear that shortcuts are even considered in California.  I will not make this political, however, but I will say that hard work does pay off in most accredited professions.  I can't believe that with advances in the veterinary and veterinary technician fields that these tactics are even considered. 

I spent a great deal of money and time (that I will probably never recoup) to acquire the hard earned degree and RIGHT to be called a credentialed veterinary technician.  So, you will have to forgive me if I am a little upset to know that someone who doesn't think that it means a hill of beans can also be a credentialed veterinary technician.  The knowledge that I gained in my education has opened my eyes and allowed me to "get it". 

I was an OJT for 9 years, and yes, thought that I knew plenty.  But, sorry, I did not.  I suppose that if I had had the opportunity to become credentialed without dishing out the dollars or study time, I might have jumped on it.  Unfortunately, that would diminish and devalue a profession that is continuing to show its worth daily in the field of veterinary medicine.  Now that I have gained credentialing the "hard way," I will fight for the respect that this profession deserves. 

I dare say, those on the CVMB or elsewhere that support these shortcuts, would be concerned if the same "fast track" to credentialing was considered in the human medical field?  I know that I would not want to leave my loved ones in the hands of anyone who had not met the educational and technical requirements necessary to care for them.  Is it so different with our clients who bring in their beloved companions?  I say no.  It is time for us to realize that the future is now and the field of veterinary medicine is looking to the future, which does not allow for "shortcuts".  Our clients do not expect or respect them either.

Happy National Veterinary Technician Week!!

First, just to clarify: California does not recognize the VTNE. The state test encompasses jurisprudence as well as medical knowledge in one exam.

As far as the "24 hours of education" is concerned, that was a last minute bone thrown to the CVMB. Originally, the law did not require ANY additional education, but people complained and so the law was amended to include the 24 hours.

Now, do I think it "weakens" the profession?

Well, the technicians applying for licensure still need to pass the test and it's not an easy test to pass. I have been fortunate enough in my career to work with and learn from some great technicians; some of them licensed and some not. Speaking only for those technicians that I personally know, this law would not weaken the profession, but gain from it. Sure there are technicians that have been at this a long time, but whose knowledge is still limited. Those are not the ones who will pass or even take the exam.

Now if we can only get California to require CE for technicians every year, that would be an accomplishment!