Comment on veterinary technician educational standards
Published on
The AVMA Committee on Veterinary Technician Education and Activities® (AVMA CVTEA®) is accepting public comments on proposed changes to some of its educational standards for accredited veterinary technology education programs.
Comments are due no later than March 15, 2025, and must be submitted through this online survey.
The proposed changes involve these standards, related to skills and equipment:
- Standard 8 (Students), Section 8a only
- Standard 9 (Faculty), Section 9e only
- Standard 11 (Outcomes Assessment)
- Appendix F: Cyclical review of Instructional Equipment
- Appendix F: Cyclical review of Clinical Equipment
- Appendix G: Cyclical review of Section 2 (Pharmacy and Pharmacology)
- Appendix G: Cyclical review of Section 5 (Surgical Nursing)
- Appendix G: Cyclical review of Section 8 (Laboratory Animal Procedures)
Please note the following when reviewing proposed changes to skills:
- Required tasks are denoted by an asterisk (*).
- Italicized text denotes hands-on (psychomotor) skills. All other text denotes didactic (knowledge-based) skills. The term “demonstrate” along with a didactic skill means that the instructor is free to determine the best method(s) for the student to demonstrate mastery or understanding of that particular skill. The term “demonstrate” is not synonymous with “hands-on”.
- Skills indicated by the designation [GROUP] may be performed by a group of program students. The appropriate size of the group will be determined based on the task being performed, taking into account humane treatment of the subject animal. Each member of the group must play an active role in completing the task.
- Students are expected to physically perform skills that are italicized. Skill assessment is expected to be performed on live animals.
The survey should take about 30-40 minutes to complete.
Comments
Unified title/Title…
Unified title/Title protection first...
Comment
LVT CVT RVT of 13 years
Until the AVMA prioritizes universal title protection and creation in all 50 states, like DVM’s, this is pointless.
Uncredentialed people will still be call technicians and do things on this list whether you update it or not.
I also support a specific credentialed technician based regulatory board for our profession like human nursing. With all due respect, DVMs having control over us like this is in direct contradiction to the title Nurse as it is regulated in human medicine.
Respect my title and I’ll respect yours.
Agree!
Agree with everything you’ve highlighted. As a vet that has recently moved from the UK to the US, the lack of trained ‘techs’ in every practice is shocking.
Title protection and ensuring we have well educated trained technicians is the key to better career progression and better care for our patients.
The AVMA should be working hard with the state boards to get this legislation going in all 50 states. We need to settle on one title for all states and stop calling uncredentialed staff a title they did not earn. Only then can we improve the education and progression available for credentialed technicians.
Title protection
Graduated in 2011 with an AS
I waited another 5 years to sit for the VTNE because I found out that my pay wouldn’t increase and there were “techs” without student loans that were getting paid more than me. Now that I have my CVT I am more limited on what I can do or say compared to my non credentialed colleagues.
Until you get this changed most companies would rather train more and pay less. Credentialed Technicians are struggling and leaving the field because we feel our education and skills are unappreciated and undervalued.
It doesn’t matter how you change the education if most states don’t require it.
Add New Comment