Veterinary assistants should not be placing IV catheters.  This is a procedure that requires specialized education in a variety of disciplines to safely perform, and is much higher risk to the patient (and the owners who cherish those patients) than phlebotomy.  Since IV catheters remain in place in the patient for sometimes days at a time, the consequences of a lapse in any step in the process can be severe.  This procedure requires good working knowledge of species-appropriate anatomy, aseptic technique, and bandaging to preserve distal circulation.  An innocent gap in this knowledge base, which is inevitable with variable and often hasty on-the-job training, can put our patients at risk of life-threatening complications.  I am sure all practicing DVMs have unfortunately seen serious complications and sequelae of improperly placed or managed IV catheters in their patients. 

I have personally witnessed occasional complications of IV catheters throughout my 11 years of full time practice at a variety of institutions where I have worked and trained (including primary care settings as well as secondary and tertiary referral facilities).  Some of the worst complications I have witnessed have occurred in a teaching hospital setting - i.e. with inexperienced students learning a challenging medical procedure with a relatively steep learning curve.  The most common complications I have seen include improper placement (fluids being administered SQ instead of IV, for example, or worse, a crashing patient where life-saving medications are inadvertently not received systemically in time when a catheter is improperly placed), bandaging issues (at best a swollen foot, at worst necrosis of an entire distal limb), and infection associated with the catheter ( again, varying from local dermatitis to systemic sepsis). 

This procedure is dangerous for untrained assistants to perform and it is unfair on multiple levels to expect them to step into this roll.  When I saw this proposed regulatory change, I could not think of one reason that this deregulation would be of benefit to our profession or our patients.  This proposed rule is a misguided, miopic attempt to hastily sidestep some of the systemic issues we all are facing in veterinary medicine (inadequate labor supply of LVTs, burnout, public perceptions of cost:benefit of care, COVID's impacts on caseloads).  We need to do better not just for our assistants and our patients, but also for the public and our Licensed Vet Techs.  The more we devalue their degree and expertise by implying that anyone can pick up these skills with on-the-job or informal training, the more of a skilled labor shortage we will face.  It is also unfair to the assistants themselves to be put in a position of potentially causing serious harm to a patient through lack of appropriate education and training.  We have a duty to people as well as animals in our profession - the owners entrusting us with the care of their animals (who are ignorant of the nuances of these regulations), our Licensed Vet Techs, and our assistants as well.  I hope we can work with integrity to address the very real issues our profession faces without compromising our duty to first do no harm to the patients, coworkers, and the public depending on us.