It seems some New York RNs don’t want veterinary technicians calling themselves “nurses.” A complaint to the New York State Veterinary Board was advanced to ensure naming rights to the term and to limit its proper usage to the human nursing profession.
NY’s vet board has apparently caved and is letting its licensees know they should refrain from using the term “nurse” when alluding to their veterinary technicians.
It’s clear that someone in the human medical field has a bug up their backside on this issue. And I’ll wager that whoever ‘s responsible for this frivolous application to the law doesn’t keep pets—or else they’ve never seen a veterinary technician in action.
The implication, of course, is that the RN profession needs to protect its good name from the likes of those who would sully it by commandeering it to advance animal applications.
Those who have brought forth this action are suggesting that animal medicine—and the veterinary technicial establishment—is not deserving of so ennobled a designation as “nurse.” They infer that animals are not worthy of being “nursed” like humans are.
Though I’m insulted by this RN action, I have a hard time defending the word itself. “Nurse” is an anachronistic, misogynistic term. Veterinary technician or “vet tech” is a far more descriptive and doesn’t denote a maternal suckling thing that has no place in modern medicine. After all, human nurses are technical and scientific—no longer do they fluff pillows and soothe the soul through their womanly presence.
Nonetheless, if a hospital really wants to call its techs “nurses,” that should be their prerogative . At the University of Pennsylvania’s vet school they’ve been doing so for at least twenty years. Someone should tell the New York RNs that the horse fled the barn on this issue long ago and that they have no intrinsic right to that term.
But you know what really gets me going the most? That the New York Board of Veterinary Medicine acquiesced on behalf of all New York veterinary technicians. Vets may hire techs but they shouldn’t regulate their profession any more than RNs allow human docs to run theirs (so you know, RNs would go ape---- if anyone tried to pull rank on them in this way).
So all you animal-loving RNs…defend your fellow medical professionals. Tell your New York brethren how you feel.
And all you veterinary technicians in New York and elsewhere…make it plain you’ll make decisions on your own, not through state official veterinarians who have no right to muck about in your profession’s issues on your behalf.
Add Comment38 Comments
I think it's silly - why would a RN care? Surely they're not worried that clients would assume their animals are being cared for by human nurses rather than animal nurses - a quick glance at the two pay scales would fix that. I have to admit, though, that I feel kinda cheesy when I'm referred to as a "pet nurse"...I'd much prefer the term tech or assistant (for those who get offended at the lack of distinction).
anna June 1st, 2008 02:40:00 PM
Two words - inferiority complex. Some RN's get so tired of being ordered around by MD's with god complexes that they will jump at the chance to knock down another profession and assert their "right" anything nurse-related.
Meanwhile, it's usually those types of RN's that will self-diagnose and medicate their pets because they assume no veterinarian or vet tech can possibly know more about medicine than they do.
Don't get me wrong, some MD's and RN's are the greatest clients, namely because they understand the meaning of "preventative care" and "bloodwork before surgery". Then there are the self-absorbed ones, like these, who revel in their perceived superiority while shoving a Tylenol down their cat's throat.
Beth June 1st, 2008 06:11:00 PM
Actually, this is probably an extension of the issues surrounding the fact that others are called nurses in the human medical facility who do not have the training of an LPN, let alone an RN. As a former librarian I can somewhat sympathize. Not everyone in the library is a librarian - but people think they are.
Does a Vet Tech have the equivalent of a B.A. in veterinary medicine? That is what an RN has. (The traditional LPN has the equivalent of an Associate's Degree.) A med tech is not a nurse. How would you feel if everyone in the vet office was referred to as a veterinarian? This is probably where the attitude and concerns are coming from.
MLO June 1st, 2008 09:39:00 PM
Perhaps some of the spark in their anger came from the Banfield arny of "pet nurses" -- that is their corporate-designated title -- who are not required to have ANY experience at ALL to get a job with this title, much less a LVT/RVT/CVT license.
Given that so many vets out there run around calling staff members "techs" when they have not graduated from a veterinary technician program and do not have a license, I can understand why human nurses - WHO DO have to graduate from training programs and obtain licenses to get that title -- wouldn't want "veterinary technicians" being called "nurses" especially when so many of them are untrained (formally), unlicensed, and unqualified to hold that title.
I am very strongly in favor of ONLY licensed technicians being able to be called "veterinary technicians" and the whole Banfield "Pet Nurse" thing REALLY STEAMS ME as a consumer because it is incredibly misleading to consumers -- it causes consumers to make an equation in their minds of this "pet nurse" with a human nurse when in fact, there is NO comparison between the qualifications required to obtain the former title and those required to obtain the latter.
I agree with the human nurses, and moreover, don't think anyone should be called a "veterinary technician" who doesn't meet the AVMA definition of a veterinary technician -- that is, graduated from an accredited school and licensed. To use either term (nurse or veterinary technician) is otherwise DANGEROUSLY misleading to consumers who transfer in their minds the quals associated with human nurses to those individuals.
Stefani June 1st, 2008 09:51:00 PM
Hmmm, without bantering over degrees and expertise. How do veterinarians feel about the many PhD's that use the title "Dr." in FRONT of their name? --- Especially from fields not math/science oriented?
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 1st, 2008 10:00:00 PM
MLO,
There are BA programs in veterinary technology. These are somewhat new. Most licensed vet techs have a 2 year degree.
Robyn June 1st, 2008 10:13:00 PM
As far as I know, here in Australia we don't have "veterinary technicians" we have "veterinary nurses". I think the word "veterinary" before the word "nurse" conveys adequately that the person is not a nurse that works with people.
Alison June 1st, 2008 10:43:00 PM
Barbara: I don't know about other vets but at least two of us agree that Dr. is a designation that makes sense for anyone with a doctorate, including lawyes (JD). Historically, though, it's been a term used to connote medical doctorates so it does seem kind of pretentious when a Doctor of Philosophy calls himself "Doctor." But the only thing that really bothers me is when people *without* doctorates call themselves doctors.
Dr. Patty Khuly June 2nd, 2008 08:37:00 AM
MLO - most RN's still have "only" an associates degree. At least where I live. (I put "only" in quotes because my understanding is that it's a very rigorous and demanding associates degree program that only the top students can get into and only the best graduate from.)
Deanna June 2nd, 2008 09:04:00 AM
Misappropriation of known terms kind of bugs me. As an Architect, I see this new field of "Technology Architects" or "Network Architects" or "Systems Architects" that REALLY bothers me. When they go through 28 hours of rigorous testing and state state board exams, let them call themselves archtitects. Otherwise, I call them computer or software people. Let them get their own term - stop taking mine!
I think Stefani makes a good point about the Banfield issue - using terms like Doctor, Nurse, Engineer, Architect, etc. inappropriately misleads people. And I think it is done intentionally most of the time to imply some sort of proficiency or credibility where it may not exist. I personally would give pause for a term like "pet nurse".....sounds too much like "wet nurse"- kind of creepy. I think Vet Tech has much more substance. Techs should continue to lobby for clear definititions and use of the name "Veterinary Technician" to stand for someone that is licensed and certified, across the board.
Creature of Habit June 2nd, 2008 09:13:00 AM
I think the appropriation of the term is accurate and informs people. Most clients don't know what a vet tech is but can easily extrapolate what a vet nurse is. It is not an analogy but a direct equivalence. Since the 18th century when public dissections were carried out people have understood the basic similarities between human and non-human animal anatomy... and hence, I would argue, human and non-human animal medicial professions. That is to say a vet nurse does largely what a human nurse does, just potentially with 179 extra species.
emily June 2nd, 2008 09:24:00 AM
I have no problem with PhDs calling themselves doctors- the word originally comes from the Latin for "to teach". It would, of course, be silly if someone yelled out "Is there a doctor in the house?" and a Ph.D responded "I am!"
I have DVM/PhD friends who we call Doctor Doctors :)
Megan June 2nd, 2008 09:44:00 AM
as a former systems and network architect, i take offense to cofh's declaration that i am misappropriating the term "architect." i think the matrix movies did a lot more to humiliate masters or bachelors of architecture and computer scientists alike with their horrible representation of the Architect. let's fight the real enemy here!
shirley June 2nd, 2008 06:10:00 PM
shirley, sorry, I couldn't resist...
My husband, a consultant (brokerage) is sometimes hired under the title of "Business Architect." In a casual conversation with an acquaintance, recently, a gentleman asked my husband, "What do you draw?" ;-)
wife June 2nd, 2008 07:24:00 PM
I'm an RN with over 30 years in the profession, and more than 25 of those in the ER; I am proud of what I do and I worked hard to get there. But I really have no proprietary feelings one way or the other regarding titles. One or two days a week, I volunteer in a shelter; I work with the vet as a kind of "substitute" tech, as the shelter has only one paid licensed vet tech who works two days a week. In my "real" job, I do a lot of highly technical medical procedures on humans ranging in age from newborns to centenarians; I am licensed to do so by the state of PA, and also have certifications in Advanced Cardiac Life Support, and Pediatric Advanced Life Support. I start IV's, draw and interpret labs, do EKG's, interpret cardiac rhythms, etc., etc.
Because of my background, at the shelter I have been taught to do a lot of things a tech would do in a normal vet's office practice--I can float a stool sample, dress surgical incisions, remove sutures, give vaccines, draw blood, give subq fluids, or start an IV line if necessary. I'm sure most of you who read this blog would take issue with me caring for your pets at your vet's office, as I'm not a formally trained and licensed tech; and I certainly respect that (and feel the same way regarding my own pets' care at my vet's office). But in a shelter environment where we rely on donations and volunteer labor, some days I'm all that's available. But I would never introduce myself as a vet tech, because I'm not. If asked, I usually say I'm the veterinarian's assistant, although if there were a "veterinary nurse" course/exam/certification, I'd probably go for it.
Shellie June 2nd, 2008 07:56:00 PM
If personnel wear a badge with their credential initials (or none) after their name---that should suffice, I would think. I didn't spend a lot of time staring at human badges in the hospital, but certainly wanted to know who the Doctors were.
My feelings are shared by PhD family members, that it is pretentious to title themselves as "doctor" in the every day setting, and also use initials for professional correspondence & publishing. I am now wondering how one that has 2 PhD's writes his--?
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 2nd, 2008 08:19:00 PM
Shellie, in my region, the accredited term is "registered veterinary technician." However, it is my understanding there is no requirement that veterinarians, here, hire personnel with such accreditation.
It's in their best interests to hire highly-qualified staff. And most do hire RVT's (or similarly-recognized titles). But there's no legal or ethical requirement for clinic staff to have any accreditation, at least where I live.
A "veterinary technician" could be as experienced and knowledgeable as an RVT, or even more so. Or he/she could have absolutely no relevant experience. That's why it's a good idea to get to know who's working at your veterinary clinic, and what, if any, accreditation those individuals have.
Marjorie June 2nd, 2008 08:36:00 PM
Marjorie,
There may not be any legal requirement for vets where you live to hire licensed techs, but that doesn't mean there isn't an ethical obligation for them to do so.
Where I live in Maryland, almost NO vet offices have licensed techs. It's not required, and they are allowed to call them "veterinary technicians" regardless of training or qualifications. While that may be legal, in my opinion it is unethical.
When my cat was left with the vet's son, who apparently had just worked there over a couple of summer vacations and had no formal training and certainly wasn't a licensed tech, he used a tuberculin syringe instead of an insulin syringe to give my cat insulin. In the wake of these events, the vet kept saying this was done by his "technician." Until I learned otherwise, I assumed because of the use of the word "technician" that the veterinarian had hired an experienced person who had credentials. It was not until later that I found out the "technician" wasn't a technician at all. It was his son, taking care of patients in return for being allowed to flop rent-free in the apartment under the hospital.
The use of that term is EXTREMELY misleading when applied to people with no formal training or credentials. While I know that there are very experienced and competent unlicensed veterinary staff, I as a consumer have no objective way of certifying their skills or competence. THAT is why, as a consumer, that licensure is very important to me.
Back to the Banfield thing:
Take a look at this post on a gripe site from a person who worked at Banfield for years. Here is a quote:
"They don't want vet techs, they want really smart high schoolers"
This is not only what is going on at Banfield, it is going on at thousands of veterinary clinics all over the United States, and when I walk in and see someone in scrubs, I don't know the difference between an LVT and a "really smart high schooler." And I WANT to know the difference.
That is why I drive across state lines to go to a hospital that has LVTs.
How many of you are comfortable with a "really smart high schooler" in scrubs who the vet blithely refers to as a "vetrinary technician" (or a "pet nurse") taking care of your pets, intubating them, administering meds, measuring and compounding meds, monitoring fluid rate, vitals, etc etc????
And as for "getting to know the staff," how many hours am I going to have to spend interviewing the "unlicensed vet techs" to ascertain whether or not they are qualified and not just "really smart high schoolers?"
Those of you here with veterinary training and credentials yourselves may have the ability to conduct assessments of all the technicians clinical knowledge at any practice you are considering, but I don't even have the requisite knowledge myself to do such an evaluation. (I'm just a really smart pet owner, that doesn't make me a vet or a vet tech). So what do I do? Beg the couple of vet techs I know to come "interview" all the unlicensed staff at any vet clinic I consider? How practical is that? How long will I basically have to go without a vet during this process? Will these people even tolerate such interrogation? Will I need to pay them for their time while I have them interviewed to see whether or not they know what they are doing?
This is why I'm looking for letters. Guarantee of perfection? No, it's not. Gurantee of basic competence? I certainly hope I can at least count on that.
I think its really too risky otherwise, but its easy to see where I am coming from. I just know it also happens to other people. I will drive hours for that peace of mind now, after what I have both personally experienced and read.
Stefani June 2nd, 2008 09:35:00 PM
Here's the link to the gripe site comment
http://www.jobvent.com/reviewDetail.php?ID=28644
Stefani June 2nd, 2008 10:10:00 PM
Stefani, You have my attention on this one and perhaps a future blog on what is within the realm of "Vet tech" duties and what is beyond. Intubating? Dispensing or administering narcotics, injectables? Yes, I think this does call for more than a smart high-schooler.
Then again, does passing a theory test to obtain certification guarantee proficiency? And who and how many are being deceived to allow their pet's to be the "teaching tools" by the colleges circumventing the Animal Welfare Act (as is the case in New Hampshire with my personal experience) and Anti-vivisection statutes.
I'm going to venture a guess that this is where it is very different in human medicine---if you are in a clinical trial, you are given the written terms, if it is an experimental procedure--it is disclosed, if you are meeting with a resident--you're told, you are asked permission for interns to exam you.
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 2nd, 2008 10:39:00 PM
Stefani: I think I've mentioned this before but here goes anyway: In my area there are *very* few licensed/registered/certified techs to go around. There probably aren't even enough for every hospital to have .75 of one--fewer when you consider that the specialty hospitals hog them all.
Though it's slow in coming, we vets do have power over this issue to some extent. We can hire them and pay them more--but many vets balk because it's tough to pay a relatively inexperienced person (a new grad) more than your veteran "techs" with no degree. Or we can support the local tech program (which we helped create about 6-8 years ago) with lectures and awards, etc. But it's slow going.
I wish I had even ONE certified tech. All I have is a twenty-year veteran "tech," a nutrition and physical therapy student with 3 years of vet hospital experience and an Argentinian veterinarian seeking US licensure. The others are assistants with over five years of experience and don't help in surgery or the lab but they take beautiful X-rays and I trust them to recover *any* pet from anesthesia.
It's hard when you have no techs with certification to choose from. I'd love nothing better than to work with only certified techs but there's nothing more than I can do about it at the present. Consider that some areas are just behind the curve on this for a variety of geographical, cultural and financial issues.
In my hospital's case I don't think it's unethical to source non-certified techs. But it is if I do nothing to help bring about the change to a better system where certification becomes absolutely vital.
Dr. Patty Khuly June 3rd, 2008 10:47:00 AM
Stefani- When I'm in the states I live in northern VA. I work in a vet hospital (I'm a vet student). There is an incredible shortage of LVTs in the area. My boss has tried to hire more, but its virtually impossible. Right now she has 1.5 working in the hospital. Many would rather work in the specialty hospitals, and there are a ton in the area.
The VA practice act is worded in such as way that lets vets hire OTJ trained techs. There are very few things that are specifically limited to LVTs. And as horrible as what happened to your cat is (and there is no excuse for it), giving insulin does not require a LVT. We have owners do it all the time. If you can read you can figure it out, assuming that you take the time to do it properly. Yes, someone has to explain it to you, but a degree is not required to understand the concept. We (my coworkers and I) have all been trained to check 4 times- check the insulin, check the syringe, and check the dose.
As a side note, I'm willing to bet that a large number of veterinarians have worked at some point as OTJ trained techs. All the ones I know have.
Alli June 3rd, 2008 12:50:00 PM
Stefani, what I meant was that there is no professional ethical standard mandating the hiring of accredited RVT's (my region). You and I may think it's the minimum standard, but the profession apparently doesn't. (Don't read anything trenchant into that. Y'all know what I mean.)
To clarify a bit more, it's one thing for there to be a law requiring all working vet. tech's to be licensed RVT's. It's another if there's no law, but the veterinary licensing board has a professional ethics standard advising veterinarians that it is unethical to hire unaccredited vet. tech's (or not having at least one RVT on staff, where possible, yada yada yada - I don't think I have to spell that out in every possible scenario). ;-) But there isn't either, as far as I can tell. It is up to veterinarians to ensure a proper standard of care for their patients, whether that means their employees are licensed RVT's or not.
Personally, I believe it is in any veterinarian's best interests to hire accredited staff. I accept there may be reasons for not doing so in some cases, at some times, in some regions...
On a few occasions here, I've mentioned a long-time friend of mine, who's a veterinarian. When she bought her first clinic a few years after graduating, she had a hard time finding licensed RVT's. I think she had one who followed her from the last clinic she worked at. Most of the applicants had experience, but were not licensed RVT's. With immigration being so high, many of her applicants were foreign-trained veterinarians awaiting their licenses to practice here. While I would think that could be a terrific opportunity, the old buggaboo of being "over-qualified" does come into play. I.E. There's a good chance they'd leave after just a few months, and she'd be back to square one again. There was often a language barrier. And I suppose there's the possibility of 'too many cooks in the kitchen' in certain regards. In any event, it wasn't an easy process for her but, as I recall, most of her vet. tech's were RVT's.
She sold that clinic and is now in the process of building a brand new one, from scratch. So, in the mean time, she's working at another clinic. I just checked that clinic's web site, and four of the six tech's are licensed RVT's. I'm guessing the 'veterinary assistants' have a lower rank, in terms of the clinic's organizational chart, along with modified duties, in comparison to the RVT's. But I'm just guessing.
Marjorie June 3rd, 2008 01:21:00 PM
Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful responses on the issue of LVTs.
Re: "It's hard when you have no techs with certification to choose from. I'd love nothing better than to work with only certified techs but there's nothing more than I can do about it at the present. "
I have to say that I would still advocate going to bat with your management to try to establish a cooperative program with an AVMA certified program in your area. This is what the hospital I take my pets to (Alexandria Animal Hospital in Alexandria VA) does, and this is why, I think, they have many licensed technicians. If they have a talented and promising assistant, they will pay some part of the tuition for them to attend the local AVMA accredited program. I believe that they must agree to work there a certain number of years after.
The lack of LVTs is definitely a self-fulfilling prophecy in my state, and I suspect elsewhere. For a brief time, I hooked up with a former member of the State Vet Board to see if I could help get a program established in our county, since I had been told a shortage of LVTs was critical. It makes no sense; this is one of the richest counties in the country.
I learned that the local veterinary association did NOT have the WILL to pursue the issue, and I was told that this is in part becase they DON'T WANT to pay higher wages associated with LVTs. They think "it ain't broke, don't fix it" or else "whine whine whine, I'd love to have some LVTs, but I sure as heck am not going to pay to train them, or raise money to establish a local program."
As a consumer, this sounds an awful lot to my ears like:
"My profit margin is more important than patient safety."
I gave up my short-lived involvement in trying to get a vet tech training program established here. My goal was to improve the level of care so that the things like what happened to my cat become less frequent. What I learned was that the vets really don't care enough to do what it takes.
I am driving to Northern Virginia to one practice that seems to care enough to make sure they have LVTs. Meanwhile, Maryland still sucks, and one of the richest counties in the country remains one where pets face high levels of risk from potentially ill-trained staff BECAUSE THE VETERINARY WILL IS NOT THERE to address the problem. One vet on the board tried -- not enough people have been willing to work with him on it to make it happen.
The vets aren't the victims here, they have created, and perpetuate, the problem (I am talking about practice owners, and veterinary associations, not staff vets, who don't have the power to fix it even if they wanted - I think many do.
Stefani June 3rd, 2008 01:39:00 PM
I want to know if the person assisting the dr (human) is a PA, licensed nurse (and which title), CNA, or a house trained 'assistant'. I also want to know the same for whoever is caring for my pet.
I don't believe it's mandatory for human drs to only have licensed nurses working at their offices, and I believe it's the same at vet offices. But I want to know what training they've qualified for, whether they're practicing on humans or animals.
I like that the vet field is trying to come up with uniform naming of certifications. And while I find the arguments about whether a person certified to care for a pet can call themselves a nurse (as opposed to a "pet nurse") interesting, I see no need for you to be so insulting about it.
Sherri June 3rd, 2008 02:26:00 PM
Stefani how much do you actually know about profit margins in vet med? They really aren't as large as the public percives them. Ultimatly, the cost of the program your suggest (and the cost of employing all LVTs, which would be absurdly expensive in areas with major shortages) will be passed onto clients. Sure, you may be willing to pay more for that-but most people aren't. Veterinarians go into vet med because they love animals, yes, but it is still a business. Its unrealistic and unfair to ask vets to work for free (give up profit margins) because they "love animals". Doctors got into medicine presumably because they want to help people-no one expects them to work for free.
So-its really not that simple. There are a lot of factors that go into the staffing of vet hospitals. And to be honest I'd rather have someone with 20 years of on the job experience treating my pet than someone with a brand spanking new LVT degree.
Alli June 3rd, 2008 04:02:00 PM
Alli, if you are in the vet industry, you probably know more about the profit margins of "normal" clinics than I do -- but some of the places around where I live I know are VERY profitable. This is the Wash. DC area, tho, so I admit it is probably atypical, and I am also thinking of the high end places. Even there, it's the practice owners that make $$, not the staff vets (one that comes to mind is Friendship Animal Hospital in DC -- multimillion business, and one year they were cited for 8 unlicensed vets working there.)
In spite of whatever skills unlicensed persons may have, it is in violation of the Veterinary Practice Act in most states to allow an unlicensed individual to do a whole host of duties that licensed individuals may do. If a practice is using unlicensed staff, and allowing them to -- unsupervised -- perform certain tasks, that practice is violating the Veterinary Practice Act in most states.
The fact that this **wink wink** **nudge nudge** goes on all the time in vet med is a source of great concern to me. And I believe that average pet owners do not realize how little experience or training many people-in-scrubs-at-the-vets have.
I do not expect vets to work for free, never have. I know some people do, and that vexes me as well. There are many problems to be addressed in vet med; financing the increasing cost to the consumer is one -- that way vets get paid. Bringing the level of care up to consumer expectations is another. Then, the customer must understand that quality is more expensive (which goes back to financing).
Also, I am aware as you say, that there are many good unlicensed persons, but I come back to my original point which is: When I walk into a vet's office, I don't have any way of telling if they are good or not, and there is no way I can ascertain the skill level of every single person who might be involved in my pets treatment. So, yes, I choose to go to a place where I know they stratify duties between LVTs and veterinary assistants, and to pay whatever I have to for that. 5 years ago, I didn't know the difference.
FWIW, there are many vets (John Robb of Protect the Pets, the vet board member I also conferred with) who are also concerned about this, so I am not out in left field.
bxmwX June 3rd, 2008 05:30:00 PM
I know when I briefly mentioned, "...it's a good idea to get to know who's working at your veterinary clinic, and what, if any, accreditation those individuals have," I was referring to a basic knowledge of the staff's credentials, as well as any other information that can be gleaned ahead of time. I wasn't suggesting that every employee be interviewed, as that's unrealistic. But there are things pet owners can do.
Many veterinary clinics have web sites (as have all the clinics I've visited in, say, the past five years), and many of those proudly list their staff, along with any accreditation. When I responded to Stefani, I mentioned that I quickly visited one clinic's site, and it took under 10 seconds to learn that 4 of 6 tech's are licensed RVT's. If I was looking for a new clinic, I'd do exactly that; I'd visit the clinic's web site before taking my pet there. I'd probably only bother with the web site if the clinic came highly recommended, though. Word of mouth is one of the best ways to find a new clinic.
In 2000, after I agreed to take my current dog, but before my friend bought a clinic within a reasonable distance of my home, I had to find a new, local clinic. I asked around and was surprised that all but one person recommended the same clinic (it's actually a group of 3 clinics). (A seemingly quite profitable clinic network, I might add.) The vet. I saw (the owner) won me over immediately by laying on his back, on the floor, to remove my girl's spay sutures, rather than forcing her into some uncomfortable position. (Removing spay sutures is a relatively harmless way to try out a new clinic. A yearly exam might be another. They can't mess that up too badly, even if they're incompetent, and there's no expectation for the dog to be taken from the owner, even briefly.) "My male died last year," he added. I mean, it's stupid but everyone likes a vet. who fancies his/her breed, don't they?
I don't leave my dog unattended with anyone, so I'm present for any and all procedures at clinics. That's just the way I roll. (And, granted, I can always see my friend, if that becomes an issue. At least at her clinic, it's a non-issue.) But even so, I know that on occasions where I've walked past that clinic, my dog has been very excited about the possibility of going in. That says it all, I think. If people are recommending it, and the dog loves it, there's a good chance I'm going to continue to receive good service.
Only time will tell with any clinic, though. Even being a DVM doesn't automatically guarantee spectacular treatment. (There have been vet's convicted of animal cruelty, for goodness sakes.) Caveat emptor.
And while I'm less scrupulous in vetting my (human) medical doctors and nurses, at least I am comforted by well-known designations like "RN." A similarly-universal term for vet. tech's would go a long way in reassuring pet owners. I think everyone's in agreement about that.
I've been looking for a new, local clinic since I moved to this area two years ago. So far, none have measured-up. In addition to asking around, and checking online rating services (yes, they do exist for veterinary clinics, too), I will sometimes just stop-in. I might buy some trinket amongst the retail items in the reception area. Or I might ask to use the loo. At one clinic, boy am I glad I did!
The reception area looked tidy. The staff seemed competent and affable. Everything seemed okay. But I've been around the block a few times, and I wasn't yet convinced. So, I asked to use the washroom. Because it was located in the back, it allowed me to see the bowels of the clinic...literally. I wasn't impressed by what I saw.
It was dirty and cramped and it smelled bad. In order to get to the washroom, I had to step over a dog recovering from anesthesia (yet no one paid any attention to me in doing so). I was horrified when I stepped inside. The washroom was filthy. Absolutely filthy. It all became clear when I saw the duty roster on the back of the door, where employees initialed they'd cleaned the clinic on their assigned days. Those assigned days? Just once every two weeks! No wonder it was filthy!! I have four bathrooms in my home, and they get cleaned at least once a day!!! And this was supposed to be a medical facility?!? ...Shocking!
Well, at least that was one less clinic to consider.
With the exception of emergencies, I think pet owners can do a fair bit of vetting before they ever allow veterinary staff to have access to their animals. You can ask around. What are other peoples' experiences with that clinic and its staff? You can check the web site (if it has one), to see what the staff members' credentials are, if any. You can read reviews online (if available). You can do a test visit, just to get a feel for the place. But, after that, it's the owner's vigilance at each appointment that will best protect their pets. (As I said, I take that to another level, in that I don't leave my dogs with anyone unattended, vet. clinic or otherwise. That certainly ensures nothing happens that I haven't agreed to.) ;-)
Marjorie June 3rd, 2008 07:20:00 PM
Marjorie, Your points are well taken, but let's face it. It still comes down to "trust". Unless, you have found really amicable clinics---there aren't many that would allow you to be present during surgery (spay/neuters/teeth) or let you sit in the waiting room for hours for a cushing's screen, etc.
From my experience, a person can be a scumbag with 15 initials after their name or not a one. A person may choose to scam one individual human/animal, and treat the next with utmost respect. It is pretty scary for a society and government to not uphold laws or statutes for a "little person", and allow others to violate them without any recourse---over & over & over.And the variations of consumer protection, state to state are overwhelming, no matter what (subject)you are interested in.
For instance, in New Hampshire there is NO requirement to submit proof of DEA license prior or subsequent to obtaining a veterinarian license. Massachusetts VPA clearly states that notification to the registry upon changes to DEA status must be immediate. Have you or anyone added the question "Oh, by the way, do you have a valid DEA license, including Schedule 11?"
Prior to me going "public", Dover Veterinary Referral Hospital, did have all the DVM's names, credentials, pictures, and staff photos on their web site and touted themselves as "experts" in orthopedic surgery, internal medicine, ophthamology & surgery, and diagnostic ultrasound----looked pretty convincing to the average "joe"... no where did it claim a teaching liason to Great Bay Community College.
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 5th, 2008 10:08:00 PM
Barbara, I wrote a reply that seems to have gone missing. I'll shorten it by saying that web sites can be marketing tools. I was only referring to accreditation, and not verbal claims of competency. The accreditation is the only thing that suggests a certain level of competency has been achieved. No amount of accreditation can eliminate negligence or malice.
I used to work in advertising, and even spent some time as a web developer. I've built a few veterinary web sites, and in my region, the licensing board has strict regulations about what claims can be made on a clinic's web site. You can't even write "excellent" care. Just "good" care. While I thought that was a bit heavy-handed at the time, I see how some people may be swayed by inflated claims of superiority. It probably is better to have some rules about what claims can and can't be made about a clinic's services and level of care, since all veterinarians would likely say they provide superior care, yet those kinds of terms are subjective.
Marjorie June 6th, 2008 10:02:00 AM
Well, a lot of DC metro people here. As to the original topic, I'm not impressed by the RN's position. I don't really think people were confused by the titles. As to whether vets should be required to have licensed vet techs -- well, I'm a lawyer and I have my own practice. I think the qualifications of your staff should depend on what responsibilities you delegate.
There's no reason you need a license to weigh an animal, take its temperature, take a history, clip nails, and do quite a lot of the duties at a vet hospital. If duties are assigned to appropriately trained personnel, there's no need for an across the board rule that all vet techs be licensed. Vet care is costly enough, and it is already a problem I keep seeing crop up that lower income owners just can't afford it.
And don't even mention Friendship to me -- I called them for emergency phone advice after hours and they told me that I could just "watch' my bulldog for an hour and see how she was doing. By morning she was gone.
Susan June 7th, 2008 03:15:00 PM
Susan: You bring up a great point: delegation. Because I have no licensed techs, I end up doing a lot more than other vets. Most vets I know no longer place catheters, draw blood, take their own X-rays or anesthetize their own patients. I do it all. I double-check fecal floats (though my staff is great at the microscope) I do my own cytology, I'm always present when pets are recovering from anesthesia and I even clean cages on Sundays (and whenever else, in a pinch).
I'd GLADLY pay a certified tech more so I could catch a break.
Dr. Patty Khuly June 7th, 2008 10:12:00 PM
As a licensed RN (BA + ADN) who volunteers with a breed rescue fostering medically-challenged animals, I'd be proud to have the vet techs I know refer to themselves as "vet nurses."
I, and most RNs, take issue more with medical assistants or vaguely in-house trained personnel in MD offices passing themselves off, or being passed off to the public, as "nurses." You've been trained to take BPs and temps, necessary and laudable skills, but they don't = nurse, which is a "protected title" in most states.
My vet tech friends 'round here seem happy with the title "vet tech," but they do every bit the work with their patients that I do, and take every bit the responsibility I'm expected to as a human nurse.
JudithL_in_NH June 8th, 2008 09:15:00 AM
Susan, sorry to hear of your bad experience with Friendship. You aren't the only one -- I'll leave it at that.
As for your point about appropriate duties, you said:
"There's no reason you need a license to weigh an animal, take its temperature, take a history, clip nails, and do quite a lot of the duties at a vet hospital. If duties are assigned to appropriately trained personnel, there's no need for an across the board rule that all vet techs be licensed"
Unlicensed persons performing non-medical duties in veterinary practices should be referred to as veterinary assistants, not veterinary technicians. I have no problem with the use of veterinary assistants (by definition, unlicensed) to do non-medical tasks such as weighing an animal or clipping its nails, cleaning it's poop and vomit up, helping to restrain, assisting the vet by handing him/her things, etc.
But those people should be called what they are: veterinary assistants. The term veterinary technician should be reserved for those who meet the AVMA definition, so that the consumer does not erroneously believe that the individual has skills he or she does not have. How would you like it if your mother or spouse was in the ICU, and everyone -- from the candystriper to the orderly to the chief of surgery -- were all called "Doctor?" (Or I guess, a more analogous example would be nurse). It would be very misleading.
I don't know that I am necessarily in agreement, however, that taking a history is something that should be done by an unlicensed veterinary assistant. The history is very important, and follow up questions to things I mention may be determined by my answers. I'd like the person to know enough medically to ask the right questions. An unlicensed assistant would not likely have that knowledge. I consider taking pertinent medical history a medical task.
Stefani June 8th, 2008 05:48:00 PM
Gosh, I'm getting more nervous now---hopefully, the last of any surgeries (knock on wood) are behind me. Anesthesia? Gees, I think human docs do that, not 2-yr. grads. Bloodwork---well, actually I've witnessed that twice by a "tech" with my own dogs. Once, I allowed 4 failed tries (because my dog was impervious to pain) and the other, I said after 2x---if you aren't 100% sure for #3, please get the vet. I've been a darn good sport, in the name of "learning"---but human "newbies" don't expect one patient to put up with multitudes of failed attempts, nor would a courteous & considerate one try.
A quick look at a prepared fecal float or cytology is a double assurance preventing missed pathology. What ever happened to blood smears? Gone by the wayside.
Taking medical history? Some are pretty darn sharp, at asking the right questions . I always repeat everything for the vet anyways.
Judith, as a licensed RN, you surely have more real "responsibility", as your malpractice insurance premium dictates. A vet tech can make a serious mistake, cost a life or disability, without "legal" concern that you would bear in same circumstance----BIG difference!!
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 9th, 2008 07:42:00 PM
Barbara, I have to relay a personal story.
I've only be under general anesthesia once (so far) (knock wood). The nurse inserting the IV needle was clearly nervous and inexperienced. I'd never had an IV attached before, so when the searing pain in my hand began, I tried to tough it out. (didn't want to be a wuss) But, at some point, the nurse was still fumbling, and I simply couldn't take the pain anymore. I said, "Uh, I think you're pushing that needle into one of my metacarpals." No sooner did I say that than my hand blew-up around the site, and turned green.
Unbelievably, the nurse mumbled something like, "Now look what you've done," as though it was my fault. I couldn't believe it!
He subsequently instered the IV in a vein on my forearm, without incident. (And my forearm made so much more "sense" anyway. Why would anyone want an IV in his/her hand???) But I'm left wondering if I was his first. I suspect I may have been.
On the other hand, a certain nameless veterinarian (no...no one here) :-) recently attempted to draw blood from my cat, and it took about eight tries. I'm reasonably experienced in these kinds of matters, and I'm pretty easy going, but I actually had a bit of difficult reconciling my role in holding my 18-year-old guy for repeated needle assaults on his neck. (The problem was the tight skin and lack of shaving. It was done here at home and after the third failed attempt, I tried to find my clippers, but was unsuccessful. They're packed away somewhere. I just don't know where, exactly.) That "one last try" was actually successful, thank goodness. And the bloodwork showed he's still healthy as a horse. Poor guy, though. I felt so bad for him. That's gotta hurt!
Marjorie June 10th, 2008 03:06:00 PM
I'm not sure where this all came from. In my experience, neither I nor any of my fellow vet techs have ever referred to ourselves as "nurses," since that term truly should be reserved for those that have devoted themselves to the care of humans. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that human and non-human animals all deserve the same consideration and compassion, but the emotional and intellectual components that come into play are vastly different between us. From what I can gather, human nursing requires not only knowledge of human anatomy and physiology, but also that rare ability to dissipate fear and offer comfort to the most complex animal, man. What separates a vet tech from a "nurse," other than the drastic disparity in pay and benefits, is that if a vet tech wanted to treat the human animal, given his or her experience with 100's of other species, he or she could at least find a vein. Could a "nurse" find the same in a Burmese python?
KAT August 17th, 2008 08:03:00 AM
This actually comes from the many lawsuits that have occured where people calling themselves nurses but have no training as a "nurse", gives care or suggests treatment courses, and then the poor patient thinks they are getting good advice. There have been many injuries and even deaths from this type of thing. Not saying that Vet techs don't have adequate knowledge for their base of practice, but there are people who think a nurse is a nurse is a nurse. Animal care does differ from species to species. So does drug treatment and various other nursing responsibilites. Its all about clarifing for public safety.
Liz December 11th, 2008 12:46:11 PM
Add Commment