Urge NAVTA to re-evaluate the VNI
Urge NAVTA to re-evaluate the VNI
The Issue
February 25, 2020
To the leadership of NAVTA:
We are submitting this petition to NAVTA requesting a re-evaluation of the priorities of the Veterinary Nursing Initiative (VNI), and for the leadership of NAVTA to allow and encourage open communication and transparency between NAVTA and members who oppose the agenda of the VNI. While we share common ground regarding title protection and enforcement of scope of practice for credentialed veterinary technicians in the United States, we are concerned with other aspects of the VNI and wish to have our views considered. Our primary concerns and requests are as follows:
1. From an outsider's point of view the VNI has neither the momentum nor traction necessary for implementing crucial changes to individual states' Veterinary Practice Acts. The factor that appears to stall legislation is the suggested title change - “Registered Veterinary Nurse." While legislators are failing to be swayed by the VNI to create this title, a schism has opened up within the veterinary community in stark contrast to the goal the initiative is meant to achieve: unity. Over the past two years, the VNI has failed in five states. This failure has generated concerns within the veterinary community about the ineffectiveness of NAVTA and the VNI. This has resulted in a growing body of individuals, both in and out of the veterinary profession, who oppose the title change. The American Nurses Association, along with individual state associations, overwhelmingly opposes the title change, especially due to the title protection they have earned in 39 of the 50 states. Failure to address this legislative hurdle is short-sighted and serves only to delay much-needed progress within the veterinary profession. As the nursing industry fears unregulated use of their title, our profession is already facing backlash from the introduction of "veterinary nurse" to the conversation; the lack of discernment in titling has emboldened unlicensed assistants to begin utilizing the term "veterinary nurse" for themselves. The lack of national credentialing given the existing legal titles has long been a source of contention amongst veterinary professionals whose unlicensed colleagues are free to refer to themselves as 'techs.' Without addressing this pressing issue first and foremost, NAVTA's efforts at passing the VNI and secondarily implementing title protection have been seriously undermined. We strongly encourage NAVTA to redirect the focus of the VNI from title change to title protection, scope of practice definition and task designation, and national standardization of the credentialing process.
2. Those who have openly opposed the VNI for its primary focus of title change are fearful of professional repercussions. We request an open dialogue with NAVTA, one which involves individuals both in favor of and opposed to the implementation of the RVN title. Those of us who are active members of NAVTA and credentialed VTs across the country want to engage in a productive discussion where our voices can be heard and our stances can be considered.
3. We would like NAVTA to guarantee the VNI will support reciprocity for credentialed technicians who have fulfilled the requirements to become licensed via an alternate route and/or grandfathering. Further, those technicians who were not required to take the VTNE for licensure shall not have their licenses revoked. There are many outstanding alternate route and grandfathered VTs in our profession, including several VTS’s, and they should both be included in the conversation regarding the VNI, with guaranteed license protection. The current lack of state-to-state reciprocity creates a financial and professional disadvantage for many credentialed VTs; by obstructing geographical movement of technicians, professional growth and development of skilled individuals may be hindered, and states in need of high-quality technicians may continue to face a detrimental shortage. We encourage the VNI to prioritize license reciprocity between all states, which would allow these VT’s to practice in any state once licensed.
4. We would like NAVTA to encourage unlicensed veterinary assistants (UVAs) to participate in the discussion of the VNI, especially those who are NAVTA members. Veterinary assistants are an essential part of the veterinary profession, and many look to the credentialed professionals in the field for guidance, especially in regards to the benefits of pursuing credentials. Currently, with no actual insight on the stances of UVAs, many feel they are excluded from the conversations of title change, title protection and enforcement of scope of practice. Job loss and reduced pay are large concerns brought forth by those without licenses. NAVTA should open up communication to allow UVAs to participate in the changes being sought by the VNI; they are vital members of the veterinary team and deserve transparency.
5. We request NAVTA begin legislation for a national collective scope of practice. All states have varying scope of practice for credentialed technicians, with several states having no explicit task designation, regardless of credentialing; one state completely fails to include technicians in their practice act at all. We would like NAVTA to prioritize task designation to protect our skills, our patients, and increase the value of our profession as VTs. Additionally, scope of practice for veterinary assistants and technicians with advanced credentialing should be written into veterinary practice acts and scope of practice. Credentialed veterinary technicians should have a clear job description that is standardized across the country.
6. We request that NAVTA stops encouraging colleges, state associations, corporations, and professionals of influence to refer to credentialed technicians by the term “veterinary nurse,” as this title holds no legal protection nor validity; it simply does not exist in any capacity in North America. Calling credentialed technicians by a title that is neither earned nor legal is akin to non-credentialed veterinary assistants calling themselves “veterinary technicians.” This misguided attempt to begin changing the official, legal title of “veterinary technician” before any legislation has passed has resulted in a counterproductive movement, whereby anyone is able to refer to themselves as a “veterinary nurse.” This is both misleading to the public and a failure to enact any sort of protection from title abuse by unlicensed staff. NAVTA should respect the legal titles which currently exist until there is successful national legislation stating the title has officially changed.
7. We would like NAVTA to refocus and prioritize their effort in states which do not recognize credentialed technicians and/or fail to include scope of practice restrictions for credentialed technicians in their practice acts. Without the inclusion of veterinary technicians in every states’ practice act, it will be tremendously difficult to establish a national level of title protection. NAVTA should work alongside the veterinary medical board and the veterinary technician association of each state to achieve this goal.
8. We request that NAVTA behave transparently with their financial and legal activities. As paying members, we do not have access to information on how NAVTA utilizes the membership dues we provide. Social media announcements, journal publications, and website updates remain vague and uninformative. NAVTA members have a right to know how our national representatives are acting on our behalf, and if they are not acting in a way which the majority feel is helping the field, deserve to address this issue and be acknowledged and supported.
We hope that the leadership of NAVTA receive this petition letter and keep an open mind and open communication with their paying members, credentialed veterinary technicians, and veterinary assistants. We all have similar goals: standardization, title protection, standardized scope of practice, and progression of the field of veterinary technology. As the main influencers of these items, we hope that NAVTA leadership receive this letter with open ears and listen to their members and colleagues in our profession.
The Issue
February 25, 2020
To the leadership of NAVTA:
We are submitting this petition to NAVTA requesting a re-evaluation of the priorities of the Veterinary Nursing Initiative (VNI), and for the leadership of NAVTA to allow and encourage open communication and transparency between NAVTA and members who oppose the agenda of the VNI. While we share common ground regarding title protection and enforcement of scope of practice for credentialed veterinary technicians in the United States, we are concerned with other aspects of the VNI and wish to have our views considered. Our primary concerns and requests are as follows:
1. From an outsider's point of view the VNI has neither the momentum nor traction necessary for implementing crucial changes to individual states' Veterinary Practice Acts. The factor that appears to stall legislation is the suggested title change - “Registered Veterinary Nurse." While legislators are failing to be swayed by the VNI to create this title, a schism has opened up within the veterinary community in stark contrast to the goal the initiative is meant to achieve: unity. Over the past two years, the VNI has failed in five states. This failure has generated concerns within the veterinary community about the ineffectiveness of NAVTA and the VNI. This has resulted in a growing body of individuals, both in and out of the veterinary profession, who oppose the title change. The American Nurses Association, along with individual state associations, overwhelmingly opposes the title change, especially due to the title protection they have earned in 39 of the 50 states. Failure to address this legislative hurdle is short-sighted and serves only to delay much-needed progress within the veterinary profession. As the nursing industry fears unregulated use of their title, our profession is already facing backlash from the introduction of "veterinary nurse" to the conversation; the lack of discernment in titling has emboldened unlicensed assistants to begin utilizing the term "veterinary nurse" for themselves. The lack of national credentialing given the existing legal titles has long been a source of contention amongst veterinary professionals whose unlicensed colleagues are free to refer to themselves as 'techs.' Without addressing this pressing issue first and foremost, NAVTA's efforts at passing the VNI and secondarily implementing title protection have been seriously undermined. We strongly encourage NAVTA to redirect the focus of the VNI from title change to title protection, scope of practice definition and task designation, and national standardization of the credentialing process.
2. Those who have openly opposed the VNI for its primary focus of title change are fearful of professional repercussions. We request an open dialogue with NAVTA, one which involves individuals both in favor of and opposed to the implementation of the RVN title. Those of us who are active members of NAVTA and credentialed VTs across the country want to engage in a productive discussion where our voices can be heard and our stances can be considered.
3. We would like NAVTA to guarantee the VNI will support reciprocity for credentialed technicians who have fulfilled the requirements to become licensed via an alternate route and/or grandfathering. Further, those technicians who were not required to take the VTNE for licensure shall not have their licenses revoked. There are many outstanding alternate route and grandfathered VTs in our profession, including several VTS’s, and they should both be included in the conversation regarding the VNI, with guaranteed license protection. The current lack of state-to-state reciprocity creates a financial and professional disadvantage for many credentialed VTs; by obstructing geographical movement of technicians, professional growth and development of skilled individuals may be hindered, and states in need of high-quality technicians may continue to face a detrimental shortage. We encourage the VNI to prioritize license reciprocity between all states, which would allow these VT’s to practice in any state once licensed.
4. We would like NAVTA to encourage unlicensed veterinary assistants (UVAs) to participate in the discussion of the VNI, especially those who are NAVTA members. Veterinary assistants are an essential part of the veterinary profession, and many look to the credentialed professionals in the field for guidance, especially in regards to the benefits of pursuing credentials. Currently, with no actual insight on the stances of UVAs, many feel they are excluded from the conversations of title change, title protection and enforcement of scope of practice. Job loss and reduced pay are large concerns brought forth by those without licenses. NAVTA should open up communication to allow UVAs to participate in the changes being sought by the VNI; they are vital members of the veterinary team and deserve transparency.
5. We request NAVTA begin legislation for a national collective scope of practice. All states have varying scope of practice for credentialed technicians, with several states having no explicit task designation, regardless of credentialing; one state completely fails to include technicians in their practice act at all. We would like NAVTA to prioritize task designation to protect our skills, our patients, and increase the value of our profession as VTs. Additionally, scope of practice for veterinary assistants and technicians with advanced credentialing should be written into veterinary practice acts and scope of practice. Credentialed veterinary technicians should have a clear job description that is standardized across the country.
6. We request that NAVTA stops encouraging colleges, state associations, corporations, and professionals of influence to refer to credentialed technicians by the term “veterinary nurse,” as this title holds no legal protection nor validity; it simply does not exist in any capacity in North America. Calling credentialed technicians by a title that is neither earned nor legal is akin to non-credentialed veterinary assistants calling themselves “veterinary technicians.” This misguided attempt to begin changing the official, legal title of “veterinary technician” before any legislation has passed has resulted in a counterproductive movement, whereby anyone is able to refer to themselves as a “veterinary nurse.” This is both misleading to the public and a failure to enact any sort of protection from title abuse by unlicensed staff. NAVTA should respect the legal titles which currently exist until there is successful national legislation stating the title has officially changed.
7. We would like NAVTA to refocus and prioritize their effort in states which do not recognize credentialed technicians and/or fail to include scope of practice restrictions for credentialed technicians in their practice acts. Without the inclusion of veterinary technicians in every states’ practice act, it will be tremendously difficult to establish a national level of title protection. NAVTA should work alongside the veterinary medical board and the veterinary technician association of each state to achieve this goal.
8. We request that NAVTA behave transparently with their financial and legal activities. As paying members, we do not have access to information on how NAVTA utilizes the membership dues we provide. Social media announcements, journal publications, and website updates remain vague and uninformative. NAVTA members have a right to know how our national representatives are acting on our behalf, and if they are not acting in a way which the majority feel is helping the field, deserve to address this issue and be acknowledged and supported.
We hope that the leadership of NAVTA receive this petition letter and keep an open mind and open communication with their paying members, credentialed veterinary technicians, and veterinary assistants. We all have similar goals: standardization, title protection, standardized scope of practice, and progression of the field of veterinary technology. As the main influencers of these items, we hope that NAVTA leadership receive this letter with open ears and listen to their members and colleagues in our profession.
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on February 25, 2020