This is a backward step for our profession. It's difficult enough to have all practices respect and enforce LVT practices. The only way this should be allowed is for students currently in a NAVTA program who've been taught proper catheter placement, under the supervision of a DVM or a current LVT. 

I agree that this regulation needs to be amended to allow IV catheter placement by non-licensed, properly trained hospital team members. IV catheter placmeent is a very common need in our profession, and in a busy practice, pets could die waiting on appropriate IV fluid support or medication waiting for the Doctor to place the catheter. This is all complicated by the lack of licensed veterinary technicians in this state.. I recommend supporting this petition to allow the veterinarian and their staff to properly treat our patients.

I am in favor of trained unlicensed vet assistance to place IV catheters PROVIDED that a training standard is created.  I think this should apply across species.

I think this is absolutely necessary.  There is no reason why an experienced, trained, unlicensed assistant cannot place an IV catheter when necessary.  There are not enough licensed technicians available or working for it to be practical to only have licensed technicians place IV catheters.  Many practices don't even have a licensed tech on staff.  Having worked in other states, many unlicensed techs had more experience and were better at placing IVC than myself.

 I can properly train an unlicensed assistant to sterily insert an IV catheter. Having this ability for my technicians would certainly help me, at the very least, to practice emergency medicine, with the patient getting IV fluid administration (and perhaps saving a life) faster. I'm a solo practitioner, and 66% of my technicians have been with me more than 12 years. They will easily be able to learn the mechanics of putting in an IV catheter. I live in a very rural area and I can't afford a LVT, and one would probably not want to live in this area even if I could afford them. I think that most veterinarians would find that having their assistants have the ability to insert an IV catherter to be of major benefit, and the LVTs will feel that this is an intrusion on their practice. What needs to be remebered is that we are trying to make patient care better, and allowing an unliscensed, properly trained technician to insert IV catheters has no disadvantage.

I absolutely support this amendment to have trained, unlicensed veterinary assistants to place IV Catheters. Many unlicensed veterinary assistants can be taught to place a IV Catheter properly.

I fully support allowing non-licensed veterinary nurses/associates to place IV catheters if they're properly trained and under the supervision of a licensed professional. I have no doubt they can be trained properly and if they're allowed to draw blood from a vein, placing an IV catheter isn't that much different. In addition, there are several other states that allow this practice. I also think it's in the best interest of our patients, especially in emergency situations.

I am strongly against allowing unlicensed individuals having the authority to place IV catheters. We need to drive this profession forward, not backwards. If there are concerns about lack of licensed staff, this is why, because hospitals are trying to undercut the skills of a licensed technician by giving away their skills to cheaper employess. This is a medical profession and should be treated as such. If a hospital is concerned about lack of LVTs on staff who can place IVCs, then re-evaluation of hospital protocol should occur so more patients are getting catheters when necessary, so it's not left to the DVM/VMD to place it. Train the LVTs we have, let them continue to do what they are trained to instead of diluting the field with more under the table "technicians."

I strongly disagree with this change. Technicans are formally educated, board licensed and recieve continuing education to provide the highest level of care to our patients. We are already grossly unpaid for the work we do, our trade is misunderstood by the public and underappreciated across the board. This change pushes to blur the line between assistant (trains on the job, no formal or continuing education) and a Licensed Veterinary Technician, which furthers the devaluation of our skill sets and makes having a career as an LVT impossible for the average person. This would be a huge step backward for VA and is not in the best interest of our profession.

I strongly disagree with this change.  It will take Licenced Technicians a step backwards in value and support.  What is the point?  Those hospsitals who have assistants placing IV catheters now will continue to do so whether you change the policy or not.  Changing the policy just devalues the job of the licensed person who spent a lot of time and sacrafice achieving that title.  It also places the pets in jeopardy and their owners will have a lower respect for the licensed person whose job it is to ensure that pet is getting the best quality of care.

I am for allowing non licensed veterinary assistants to insert IV CAtheters.

I fully support this.  I have three extremely long term "nurses" that are capable of putting an IV catheter in just as well as our LvT or any of the doctors at our hospital do!  This could be helpful in emergency situations!

I am currently a veterinary assistant attending vet tech school. As placing catheters is part of the program, I agree that it is a fairly easy skill to learn. However, I'd argue that the issue at hand is more significant than just placing catheters. To have an LVT present to place the catheter means there's an LVT around to supervise the monitoring of anesthesia, to intubate, to review labwork, etc. As an assistant I can perform all the tasks associated with monitoring anesthesia, I know the normal ranges and for the most part I know what's abnormal and I can alert the vet. But, prior to attending the program could I actually read an ECG and understand it? No. Could I correct minor abnormalities such as bradycardia or low BP? Sure, but I couldn't begin to evaluate the underlying cause. Could I save a crashing patient? Well, I could hand my vet the atropine and epinephrine, and I could pray. At my previous hospital I read hundreds of differentials, and by "read" I mean identify the leukocytes from a pictogram on the wall - but there was so much more that I was missing because I was not properly trained. I have worked at a clinic that did not employ an LVT and in retrospect there was an egregious amount of oversight in the health of the patients. The role of the LVT is invaluable and cannot simply be replaced by training assistant's to place catheters. 

I do not support this change. I take my cats to a cat only clinic with fully licensed staff because I know they will be receiving the best care available. I would not want an unlicensed person placing a catheter in me, why would I want an unlicensed individual placing one in my cats?

This amendment is appropriate and consistent with the level of skill required to place an IV catheter. Having a veterinarian directly supervising provides the highest level of knowledge for staff support if needed without taxing the few technicians available in most practices. I support this ammendment and believe it will alllow us to continue to provide the standard of care without having to substantiall raise prices for higher level staff to be taken from other area of the hospital to fill the bill as it stands now. 

As a manager of a progressive, growing practice struggling to employ an appropriate number of LVTs, I can see the advantages of this petition.  We have multiple student technicians being intrusted with this task and several experienced assistants that we could train to perform it, as well, if this passed.  Originally coming up in a rural practice, I know first hand that most practices do not have licensed personnel for various reasons and training unlicensed people to fill the void is sometimes the only option.  It can effectively be and IS being done consistently throughout the state, despite current licensing requirements. 

All the practical arguments aside, as a seasoned LVT I am ultimately not in favor of anything that reduces our potential value to a practice.  As an industry we are plagued with gray area, blurred lines and halfass medicine in an attempt to meet all the patient/client/practice owner demands; we should be demanding more limitations for unlicensed personnel and more significant penalties for sidestepping these regulations, demonstrating a effort to raise the bar on standard of care, instead of undercutting those that have put in the time and effort to set themselves apart from the average employee.  I have interviewed numerous "technicians" that have been routinely utilized to perform LVT duties in other practices that are appalled/deterred/dissatisfied that our practice is attempting to practice a higher level of medicine and want our clients to know it by the people we put in certain positions.  As licensed technicians, we are definitely much more knowledgeable and independantly competant but unfortunately most practices don't really know how much of an advantage that alone is, only initially interested in an LVT for their technical skills.  A practice would never consider hiring or training an LVT to fulfill a DVM role, although many of us are more capable than a new DVM graduate.  This petition will only further reduce interest in investing the time and money into becoming a licensed technician, which in turn depletes the LVT pool even futher, making it even more difficult for practices to find any, let alone capable, LVTs.  This is most definitely a slippery slope and as licensed personnel trying to advance our profession, we can't afford to support this petition.

This is a horrible idea. Taking out the fact that this cheapens LVT's and degrades veterinary medicine on the whole, this indangers patients. What training will they receive to make sure the site is sterile? That they aren't damaging the cath causing possible thromboembolism. IVC's are indwelling and potentially a source of infection, the fact this is even up for discussion is  ridiculous. 

This amendment  devalues the need for credentialed technIliana. 

This is a terrible idea. 

It is so hard these days to be respected in out profession as a lot of people are leaning torward the fact that trained personel can do the same tasks why add one more thing to their fire of not employing LVTs.

I do NOT support

Very bad idea for the LVT profession!!! 

So technicians have struggled to be heard for years. If you prefer them over a LVT then should we just have google be the doctor? I cannot believe what they are allowed to do anyway with no knowledge.  Would anyone want anyone other than a nurse with a degree drawing blood, putting a catheter into a human.  Would you rather have a janitor monitor anesthesia?  If veterinarians want people to respect them for the medicine they provide then they need to have a staff that is as respectable and knowledgable as they present themselves to be.   You ask to be as respected as human doctors then you have to stand by your tech/nurses to uphold the education they have not street knowledge.  I have seen street knowledge record a glucose of 23 and walk away, why, they have no idea that is important for the animal that was brought in seizuring.

Clinics save money by not hiring LVTs at all but it is at the expense of quality services and animal safety. It makes it harder for LVTs to find a good job unless they go into management. That is unfair to them. The LVT profession gets devalued.  Rules like these don't just make it easier to function without an LVT. It threatens the need to hire them at all. This is not a corner that should be cut for convenience. 

We should not be putting our patients at risk using unlicensed assistants just because there is a shortage of employable LVTs.  We should focus on improving the supply of LVTs to ensure our patients are given proper care by trained and licensed professionals. We should aim to improve patient care and support licensed technicians. This proposal devalues the importance of licensed technicians in providing quality care to our patients.

I do not support having assistants/non LVTs place an IV catheter. 

Our profession is progressive and changing. What was appropriate for assistants to perform two decades ago is not current with the needs and wants of our clients. Clients today expect their animal to be cared for by trained licensed professionals. A standard needs to be set for our profession to maintain credibility, reputation and trust as a whole to meet the expectations of our progressively evolving clientele.

I do support this amendment to allow IV catheter placement in a peripheral vein by a trained but unlicensed assistant under the supervision of a veterinarian or a licensed technician.  The key is the training.  If there were enough LVTs that each practice could have several on staff, and if clients were willing to pay for the increased cost of having only fully licensed staff work with their animals, then it would be a far easier choice to say no.  Right now it doesn't seem like a step backward, but merely a way of being able to provide care for the animals in need. 

I find it interesting that most of the support for this amendment comes from veterinarians, and most of the negative responses are LVTs.

I full oppose this amendment! I luckily work at 2 hospitals that utilize and respect technicians. We are an important part of the Veterinary field and to have untrained personnel place IVC would not only cheapen the education and state license Technicians worked very hard to achieve!

While placing an intravenous catheter may seem like a simple task, if done incorrectly it could seriously infringe on a patients health. Patients can easily become septic from poor sanitary technique while placing the catheter. Not to mention, if the placement is performed incorrectly, part of the catheter can break off and form a deadly emboli within the patient. Lastly, if certain medications are addimisterd through an IV catheter that was not properly placed, the medication can cause severe damage to the surrounding tissue. Licensed personnel like myself  go through rigeriois training to assure issues like these do not arise. While a person can be trained on the job, they typically are not monitored at the level that is required when they first start performing invasive task. This is where problems arise. The first rule of Veterinary Medicine is do no harm. By allowing this to pass, we would be breaking this rule. 

It seems like a good proposal if the text reads that it would be permissable in the absence of a licensed tech on premises. If the aim of the legislation is to provide authority to a non-licensed person, it seems logical to caveat it to be permitted in the absence of a license holder. That would negate the argument that the legislation is undermining the LVT. If one is not available, a non-licensed catheter placement is better than no catheter placement..

I oppose this bill

Sufficiently trained and fully supervised unlicensed veterinary assistants should be able to play peripheral IV catheters as needed. 

I do not support unlicensed personnel placing IV catheters because it is a set back in the direction this profession should be going. The only exception to this would be veterinary technology students under the supervision of  a LVT/DVM. 

This is a bad idea. I do not support it. Leave this to licensed professionals. 

I find it interesting that most of the support comes from DVM and negative from LVT.  Obviously if this proposal was taking away from the value of a DVM I would expect the consensus would be different. I have seen many practices already who do not employ an LVT (or are unable to keep/find one) due to toxic environment or the desire to save money by having unlicensed personnel preform the tasks of an LVT for less hourly pay. I do not believe we should lower our standards or devalue our LVTs because practice owners and DVMs wish to cut corners for cost. This kind of thing would never happen in human medicine and I find the proposal a cheap excuse that not only devalues our LVTs but lowers the standard of care we should give out patients. I do not agree with this proposal and I am disappointed in the DVMS who wish to potentially put our patients lives in danger for the sake of avoiding paying and employing an LVT.

I do not feel assistants should be allowed to place IV catheters. It's bad enough they do 90% of what is not allowed as it is. Instead of focusing on what they can do more of perhaps the state should start investigating what they are already doing illegally. We have these laws for what they can and cannot do but yet it's not enforced. Devaluing the LVT is pushing veterinary medicine back. If this was your child you wouldn't allow a nurses assistant to place a catheter or draw blood. We should have to adhere by the same rules. I think if we have the rules they should be followed. Just like DVMs we go to school to better ourselves and to be able to do specific tasks, we should not be degraded because people want it more convenient.