I, Theresa Hendrickson, DVM,  and former LVT would like to support the amendment to allow (cephalic and saphenous)  peripheral intravenous catheters to be placed by veterinary assistants which are under the immediate supervision of a veterinarian or LVT.   In the 30 years that I have been in this profession, I have never personally encountered any life-threatening concerns from an intravenous catheter placement  by a veterinarian, technician, or assistant, therefore,  I do not see any reason for us, or our clients to be concerned about sub standard medical care because immediate supervision of  catheter placement  assumes that proper procedure will be followed.   Being a former LVT, I do understand why LVT's would not want to see this ammendment passed.  I understand the concern that veterinarians will be less likely to see the value in hiring and paying more for an LVT when an unlicensed veterinary assistant  can do similar tasks.   This point is understandable, however there are other considerations that we must employ when deciding upon this amendment.  The reality of the situation is that there are just not enough LVT's in the Commonwealth of Virginia available to support every veterinarian.  There are not good licensed veterinary technicians who can't find work because veterinarians are unwilling to hire them.   Veterinarians understand the value of an LVT goes far beyond catheter placement and we need to consider how rare LVT's are in the more rural areas of our Commonwealth.  Having the  ability to have a trained assistant be able to place a cephalic or saphenous peripheral IV catheter is a time-saving advantage for veterinarians, which translates into cost savings for the veterinarian and ultimately to his clients.   I also think that empowering an assistant to be able to perform such a task often helps to encourage them to pursue a career in the veterinary field including becoming a LVT themselves,  and I think we can all agree that we need more LVT's!   Having LVT's , and allowing assistants to place catheters give more time to the veterinarian who then has more time to spend on what's important - the client/patient relationships,  the medical care, health and well being of our patients.

In closing,  I believe most veterinarians truly understand and appreciate the worth of a good licensed veterinary technician and therefore will not under value them when hiring  even if this amendment is passed, and, based on many many years of personal experience,  I do not believe that having a trained assistant place peripheral intravenous catheter's under immediate supervision of a veterinarian or LVT will endanger our patients. Therefore, veterinarians, their clients, and the pets we care for, are better served. I  support the amendment to subsection B of section 172 to replace the restriction on insertion of IV catheters by unlicensed assistants with a restriction on placement of jugular catheters. 

 I would like to thank the board for its efforts towards ensuring equal benefit for all parties affected by this amendment.  

Dr. Theresa Hendrickson, DVM.