April 7, 2004
Dr. Barb Leslie, DVM, M.Sc.
College of Veterinarians of Ontario
2106 Gordon Street
Re: CVO’s Position Statement on Delegating to Auxiliaries in
Food Animal and Equine Practice
The OABP would like to commend CVO for inviting open discussion and for being very transparent and thorough concerning the role of auxiliaries in LA practice. OABP feel that auxiliaries would play a very important role in LA practice should they be allowed to practice as per the CVO “draft”. As the demand for LA practitioners grows, there are many repeatable and technical procedures that could be handled very effectively by “trained” para-professionals and/or licensed technicians. Provided the technicians are well trained, I feel public perception of the role of auxiliaries in LA practice will grow in a positive manner. The auxiliaries will help alleviate the “technical” workload for the veterinarian, thereby giving the veterinarian more time to focus on other herd related issues – diseases; reproduction; nutrition; periparturient problems; lameness; calf and heifer raising issues; investigation and problem solving; prevention and control; and monitoring herds on a regular basis.
The OABP executive has reviewed the “draft” and agree in principle with its contents. However, there are some changes we would like instituted before the “draft” is finalized:
1) The definition of “indirect supervision” should be broadened
to the following:
“the member is in face to face communication with their auxiliary at least once per day on the days that the auxiliary is performing a delegable task. The member should be available to respond to an emergency situation ( ie anaphylactic reaction; injury to animal – fracture; uncontrollable or prolonged hemorrhage; choke; etc ) in an appropriate manner within a reasonable time-frame as dictated by the nature of the emergency.”
2) The OABP executive also would like to see changes made to
categorization of certain delegable tasks:
We would like to see the following delegable tasks moved from “ Under Immediate, Direct or Indirect Supervision”
to “Under Immediate or Direct Supervision”:
9. Intravenous injections
17. The implanting of embryos into horses
18. Dehorning of cattle and goats less than two (2)
months of age
19. Cornual nerve block of cattle and goats
20. Castration of cattle, sheep and goats less than
two (2) months of age
21. Castration of pigs less than one (1) month of age
3) We ,the OABP executive, feel that the age for the dehorning of cattle ,sheep and goats by auxiliaries is too young. The majority of the OABP executive feel that the “trained” auxiliary, under immediate or direct supervision should be allowed to castrate and dehorn animals under 2 months of age.
These are the changes which the OABP executive would like made to the existing “draft” before it is finalized.
Another issue concerning OABP members is the policing and enforcement of these regulations. How will the delegation of tasks to auxiliaries be monitored by CVO? How will investigations into “disregard” for these recommendations be initiated? Who is going to police and enforce this document once adopted by CVO so that it doesn’t become a “lame-duck”?” There are lay-people who perform castration and dehorning services for producers now. Will they be allowed to continue to do so?
Thanks again for your openess and transparency on this issue. We are looking forward to your response to our concerns.