Veterinarians and vet techs- roles

[brightness]

As I mentioned in the pre-vet forum, I work at a small rural animal hospital. I love it!!! I have worked there for 3 years and there are three veterinarians- the owner and two "part time" veterinarians.
On the flip side, we have two veterinary technicians. At any given time there is usually only one vet tech, unless one of our vets is doing surgery- then both of them will be there. This weekend we had an interesting situation. There were two ladies at the front desk (I'm basically just a receptionist), one vet, and one vet tech. We got incredibly backed up. Our vet tech has no education beyond high school, and it is difficult for her to communicate with clients about their animals' health issues. We got very behind, to the point where I had to go in the back and tech. I'm a college senior with a dual degree in psychology/biology, but I have no formal vet tech education.
To wrap it up, what is the normal balance between vets and vet techs? Where I work our "main" vet is 56 and the other fill in vet is 65. Our new vet is about 30 or so, and he seems to "need" more than one vet tech. Is this normal? What is the "normal" education for veterinary techs- and do most facilities have techs that have a formal education in their field?
I'm just wondering. My office manager has been sort of confused about how our new doctor is used to practicing, and how we can learn to accomodate him.

Any thoughts are welcome!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ShelterGirl]

Our new vet is about 30 or so, and he seems to "need" more than one vet tech. Is this normal?

From what I've seen, it varies widely with the particular vet in question - and with the work required (surgery vs. exams, for example). We have 3 DVMs where I work. One needs very little assistance - maybe a tech once in a while, but she does a lot of the exams & diagnostics herself. Another needs help restraining large dogs and running routine labs. The third could probably use 5 techs full-time all day every day

Doctors have different comfort levels with different animals. Other doctors have different assumptions about what techs are there for - are they there to serve the doctor's every whim, to assist them with routine tasks? Something else altogether?

What is the "normal" education for veterinary techs- and do most facilities have techs that have a formal education in their field?

Many facilities do have at least one certified vet tech on staff. We have 3. They all went to a 2-year program and then took national and state boards. The education and certification process probably varies by state, though.

 

[david594]

Where I work the general trend is 1 - 2 more techs than the number of vets. And there are normally 3 vets working at any given time. The techs with formal training are the ones who normally assist during surgeries, do dentals, intubations, cysto urine samples. The rest of the time the formally trained and on the job trained techs perform similar roles

The vets will almost always take a tech in with them on an appointment to help get the animal up on the table, restrain, etc. Other jobs that are delegated to the techs include preparing meds, taking and developing x-rays, giving sub-q fluids, giving (some)injections, drawing blood, running inhouse lab work, nail trims, reading fecals, and reading UA's.

 

[pressmom]

Some operations I've worked at have 1-2 more techs than doctors, others have had over twice as many techs as doctors. It just depends on what the head doctor is used to. One clinic I dropped my resume off at had 1 tech/receptionist for 2 doctors. I think when I graduate I want at least 1-2 more techs than doctors.

Also, when I worked in NC where there was a nearby tech school, most clinics had 1-2 techs that were LVTs, but the rest had learned on the job. At the clinics I worked at in KY, they were mostly learn on the job types.

Hope this helps!

 

[Bill59]

Our vet tech has no education beyond high school, and it is difficult for her to communicate with clients about their animals' health issues.

Then she's not a veterinary technican. Veterinary Technicians have graduated from a vet. tech. program, which is either a 2-year associates degree or a 4-year BS degree, plus clincial training.

I know a lot of people misue the term "vet. tech." indcluding veterinarians who don't want to pay for trained technicians but it's not fair to call anyone hired off the street a vet. tech. any more than it would be to call them a veterinarian.

 

[brightness]

You are totally correct- I guess what I was trying to say was, these are the people who function in the "vet tech" role. Really, I believe they are only supposed to be called veterinary assistants? I know that was my title at a different vet clinic I volunteered at. I was allowed to do many things, but I didn't take appointments or anything like that.
It is very disappointing to me how poorly veterinary technicians are paid. I've though about being one before, but it doesn't seem like one could support a family on that salary.

Then she's not a veterinary technican. Veterinary Technicians have graduated from a vet. tech. program, which is either a 2-year associates degree or a 4-year BS degree, plus clincial training.

I know a lot of people misue the term "vet. tech." indcluding veterinarians who don't want to pay for trained technicians but it's not fair to call anyone hired off the street a vet. tech. any more than it would be to call them a veterinarian.

 

[david594]

Your looking at the role of a Certified Veterinary Technician within a very limited scope. At a small clinic they will tend to preform a role that is more along the lines of a "jack of all trades" doing whatever is necessary to run the clinic. At the same time though they could be working at a larger animal hospital with a much more specialized role and will subsequently be paid a higher salary. There are also the jobs within the research community which are also very specialized and offer higher pay.

 

[AuburnPreVet]

There are also the jobs within the research community which are also very specialized and offer higher pay.

I dont have experience in private research centers -- but in a university research setting this is not true (on average). We even have one poor sole with a masters degree making less than 30K.

 

[chris03333]

I dont have experience in private research centers -- but in a university research setting this is not true (on average). We even have one poor sole with a masters degree making less than 30K.

They need to quit then, because veterinary technicians (if they are hired as Veterinary technicians) in research make MUCH better salary than do veterinary technicians in practice

 

[Bill59]

They need to quit then, because veterinary technicians (if they are highered as Veterinary technicians) in research make MUCH better salary than do veterinary technicians in practice

While that's all true, many people don't become technicians to do research, they want to work in clinical practice. Just like most veterinarians go into clinical practice even though that's not the most financially lucrative area of veterinary medicine.

 

[chris03333]

While that's all true, many people don't become technicians to do research, they want to work in clinical practice. Just like most veterinarians go into clinical practice even though that's not the most financially lucrative area of veterinary medicine.

See if you read what I said is (if they are hired (not highered 🙂 )as a veterinary technician in research).
I am speaking of Clinical lab animal medicine veterinary technicians...

Not all research positions are research😎

 

[david594]

See if you read what I said is (if they are hired (not highered 🙂 )as a veterinary technician in research).
I am speaking of Clinical lab animal medicine veterinary technicians...

Not all research positions are research😎

Bingo.

A girl I worked with recently came from a Clinical lab animal facility. They did a significant number of surgeries every day such that it was a Techs responsibility to open the animal. The DVM would then preform the surgery while the tech proceeded to open the second animal. DVM would move on and a tech would then close the first animal.

.... or at least that was how it was explained to me.

 

[chris03333]

Bingo.

A girl I worked with recently came from a Clinical lab animal facility. They did a significant number of surgeries every day such that it was a Techs responsibility to open the animal. The DVM would then preform the surgery while the tech proceeded to open the second animal. DVM would move on and a tech would then close the first animal.

.... or at least that was how it was explained to me.

They likely had a veterinary technician to run any pre op blood work, prep, premed, monitor anesthesia, recover the animals, and administer post op treatments as well.😉

 

[Orthonut]

Then she's not a veterinary technican. Veterinary Technicians have graduated from a vet. tech. program, which is either a 2-year associates degree or a 4-year BS degree, plus clincial training.

I know a lot of people misue the term "vet. tech." indcluding veterinarians who don't want to pay for trained technicians but it's not fair to call anyone hired off the street a vet. tech. any more than it would be to call them a veterinarian.

Thank You ! Don't forget that in order to be a vet tech, you must have also taken and passed the VTNE (national vet tech boards)

The general rule given by practice management gurus is 1.5-3 techs per DVM, with 1-2 assistants for EACH CVT. There are going to be places that can use more and places that get away with using less. The important thing to realise is that by leveraging your technicians and VAs you can be way more productive. Think about it. Why should the DACVS be drawing bloods and placing catheters? he shouldn't. That's why he has me (the CVT/vet student) In any given day even in general practice, I can keep two other CVTs busy, with each of them plus me using the skills of a well-trained VA. Surgery days add two additional CVTs for the OR stuff.

A 1 1/2 Dr practice should have at MINIMUM one CVT and one VA. That way the DVM can be seeing patients and the CVT can take care of the rads, labs, call backs, hospitalized patient treatments, etc. It doesn't do anyone any good to only have one technician-if there isn't a skilled restrainer, then there's no way to place catheters, draw labs, do treatments, etc. It is simply a waste of money for the DVM to assist in the labs/treatments/etc. Once in a while is OK but continually is ridiculous-it's only costing the practice money. The DVM belongs in surgery, the exam room, and sometimes doing client communications.


/soapbox

 

[Kara31191]

At the clinic I work at there is one doctor and two "technicians"/assistants. The "Experienced Veterinary Assistant" quit and seeing as it is a small clinic the pay probably isn't anything compared to a normal salary. We're down to one full time vet assistant, one part time vet assistant, me- Animal caretaker + fill in for any given job (25 hours a week), and another Animal caretaker who is there for about 9 hours a week. And then there is one full time receptionist. Not a lot of help.

She can't find anyone certified that will take the salary. Not even an "experienced veterinary assistant". We have to learn pretty fast, so we're catching on and can do appointments. The two vet assistants can draw blood, give vaccinations, and help during surgery. If there's something difficult, we need four people to help the vet because NONE of us have any skills.

 

[sofficat]

At the clinic I work at there are two doctors. The "Experienced Veterinary Assistant" quit and seeing as it is a small clinic the pay probably isn't anything compared to a normal salary. We're down to one full time vet assistant, one part time vet assistant, me- Animal caretaker + fill in for any given job (25 hours a week), and another Animal caretaker who is there for about 9 hours a week. And then there is one full time receptionist. Not a lot of help.

She can't find anyone certified that will take the salary. Not even an "experienced veterinary assistant". We have to learn pretty fast, so we're catching on and can do appointments. The two vet assistants can draw blood, give vaccinations, and help during surgery. If there's something difficult, we need four people to help the vet because NONE of us have any skills.

looks like your doc needs to suck it up and do what is best for the clinic- raise her pay and she'll find a good tech. sorry to hear about your situation. it really sucks to be in your shoes. i think we've all been there at some point.

 

[sofficat]

Thank You ! Don't forget that in order to be a vet tech, you must have also taken and passed the VTNE (national vet tech boards)

The general rule given by practice management gurus is 1.5-3 techs per DVM, with 1-2 assistants for EACH CVT. There are going to be places that can use more and places that get away with using less. The important thing to realise is that by leveraging your technicians and VAs you can be way more productive. Think about it. Why should the DACVS be drawing bloods and placing catheters? he shouldn't. That's why he has me (the CVT/vet student) In any given day even in general practice, I can keep two other CVTs busy, with each of them plus me using the skills of a well-trained VA. Surgery days add two additional CVTs for the OR stuff.

A 1 1/2 Dr practice should have at MINIMUM one CVT and one VA. That way the DVM can be seeing patients and the CVT can take care of the rads, labs, call backs, hospitalized patient treatments, etc. It doesn't do anyone any good to only have one technician-if there isn't a skilled restrainer, then there's no way to place catheters, draw labs, do treatments, etc. It is simply a waste of money for the DVM to assist in the labs/treatments/etc. Once in a while is OK but continually is ridiculous-it's only costing the practice money. The DVM belongs in surgery, the exam room, and sometimes doing client communications.


/soapbox

just to take the other side.....
i never worked at a practice where experienced 'vet assistants' were not called vet techs (our name tags even said that). no one was 'offended' by that, even the very few cvt's we had. honestly, when i'm in school to be a vet and i know more than the cvt and have better skills than her/him- ya'll better call me a vet tech! 😉 (no i'm not normally this arrogant but i'm trying to prove a point from the other point of view)

 

[sofficat]

also, every 'head tech' i've worked for was not a cvt- and we even had cvt's in the office. it's just that they were that good and experienced. 😛

 

[dyachei]

also, every 'head tech' i've worked for was not a cvt- and we even had cvt's in the office. it's just that they were that good and experienced. 😛

same here. The one person that was a CVT was incompetent - couldn't do very much without direct supervision. The managers and head techs were all "vet assistants" that had been working there for years and knew the ropes. I guess it depends on what state you live in. In some, you don't need to have to be certified, in some you do.

 

[Orthonut]

honestly, when i'm in school to be a vet and i know more than the cvt and have better skills than her/him- ya'll better call me a vet tech! 😉

Absolutely not. you are not a vet tech, I will call you a veterinary student. You had better change this attitude that vet students "know more" than CVTs because in the VTH you will be learning your clinical skills from CVTs. Lab procedures, sx assisting, sx prep, periop anaesthesia care, nursing skills etc.

I worked my ass of to get my CVT and I refuse to let anyone take that accomplishment away from me.

If you want to call yourself a tech, then take the VTNE and become licensed. That's what everyone else has to do.

Would you call a person off the street a DVM if they "could do all the same things" no, because it is inappropriate.

 

[david594]

Absolutely not. you are not a vet tech....

So I looked up the laws regarding this in my state(Massachusetts)

1. DEFINITIONS
A.Massachusetts Veterinary Technician Association Executive Council: a committee comprised of certified veterinary technicians from the Massachusetts Veterinary Technician Association (MVTA)

B. Certification: the confirmation by the MVTA that an individual has documented fulfillment of requirements for certified status as established by the committee.

C. Certified Veterinary Technician (CVT): a term used to indicate an individual who has been recognized by the MVTA as having documented fulfillment of the requirements for certification.

D. Veterinary Technician: a person knowledgeable in the care and handling of animals, in the basic principles of normal and abnormal life processes, and in routine laboratory and animal health care procedures. The role of a veterinary technician is to assist in the practice of veterinary medicine under the direction, supervision, and responsibility of a veterinarian.

So it would be wrong to claim to be a Certified Veterinary Technician, but there is nothing that says I can't be referred to as a Veterinary Technician. Also, having a degree in animal science or biology and 1500 hours experience I could take the test to become a Certified Veterinary Technician.

 

[sofficat]

Absolutely not. you are not a vet tech, I will call you a veterinary student. You had better change this attitude that vet students "know more" than CVTs because in the VTH you will be learning your clinical skills from CVTs. Lab procedures, sx assisting, sx prep, periop anaesthesia care, nursing skills etc.

I worked my ass of to get my CVT and I refuse to let anyone take that accomplishment away from me.

If you want to call yourself a tech, then take the VTNE and become licensed. That's what everyone else has to do.

Would you call a person off the street a DVM if they "could do all the same things" no, because it is inappropriate.

calm down. first of all i would never call myself a certified vet tech. i really like what david had to say about that in the post above. second of all, i never meant to put down cvt's because many of them kick ass. i just wanted to make a point and stimulate discussion by what i said in my previous post. just because you are a cvt doesn't make you better/smarter/more skilled than 'vet assistants' and just because you are a 'vet assistant' doesn't mean you have lesser skills/less knowledge than cvts.
to sum up i do (did) call myself a vet tech, so did the drs and cvts that i worked with. however, i never did and wouldn't call myself a cvt/lvt.

 

[sofficat]

You had better change this attitude that vet students "know more" than CVTs because in the VTH you will be learning your clinical skills from CVTs..

to clarify- i never said anything about vet students knowing more than cvts. i said in an example that if i work with a cvt and know more then him/her and have better skills, why can't you call me a vet tech? (again... not a cvt, just a vt). i have great respect for many cvt's. and it's funny because there are many drs that know their skills with certain things (iv caths etc) aren't as good as their techs' skills. 😀

 

[Orthonut]

So I looked up the laws regarding this in my state(Massachusetts)



So it would be wrong to claim to be a Certified Veterinary Technician, but there is nothing that says I can't be referred to as a Veterinary Technician. Also, having a degree in animal science or biology and 1500 hours experience I could take the test to become a Certified Veterinary Technician.

Then take the test! according to NAVTA, you must be credentialed to be a Veterinary Technician (either certified, licensed, or registered according to your state practice act)

In most states, it is illegal for anyone who is not a DVM or C/L/RVT to do things like extract teeth, induce anaesthesia, suture, etc. Essentially, by referring to everyone as a "tech" you imply that they are all able to complete ALL of the relevant tasks in the practice act.

I don't dislike VAs-there are some I literally trust with my life (recovering equine and bovine anaesthesia can be extremely dangerous) There is no one I'd rather have restraining when doing procedures on fractious animals.

but when we start referring to everyone as a technician, we cheapen the technician's hard work-and also the public's perception of them. Think of it like calling everyone a registered nurse-, RNs, LVNs, Practical nurses, RTs, MAs, Rad Techs...they're not the same, and neither are an assistant and a CVT. I think (and I have VA friends that feel the same way) that it actually cheapens BOTH sides of the argument. There are things that VAs are really good at, and there are things a CVT is required for-they are different jobs with different responsibilities. In some states (Texas comes to mind) there is even a certification program for VAs.

Ultimately, it comes down to this-if we want to be paid what we are worth, have benefits and CE provided-then we need to differentiate between the two. Why bother to go to school and spend all that money to work for minimum wage? And why as an employer would you even think about hiring a CVT at appropriate wages, when you can 'get someone just the same off the street' for significantly less?

Who would you rather have running your loved one's anasthesia, placing the central lines, evaluating labs, recovering from anaesthesia, monitoring in the ICU. A CVT who has proven his or her knowledge through taking the board exam and complying with state CE regulations, or someone off the street making $8/hr?

 

[sofficat]

Who would you rather have running your loved one's anasthesia, placing the central lines, evaluating labs, recovering from anaesthesia, monitoring in the ICU. A CVT who has proven his or her knowledge through taking the board exam and complying with state CE regulations, or someone off the street making $8/hr?

hehe... that made me laugh. kind of extreme for an argument. i know some experienced va's i'd trust placing central lines and monitoring anesthesia way more than some cvt's i know. now just some random person off the street? um... no need for anything to be said here. it's just a difference in opinion. it's fun to debate things on this forum. no hard feelings.

 

[dyachei]

Then take the test! according to NAVTA, you must be credentialed to be a Veterinary Technician (either certified, licensed, or registered according to your state practice act)

In most states, it is illegal for anyone who is not a DVM or C/L/RVT to do things like extract teeth, induce anaesthesia, suture, etc. Essentially, by referring to everyone as a "tech" you imply that they are all able to complete ALL of the relevant tasks in the practice act.

I don't dislike VAs-there are some I literally trust with my life (recovering equine and bovine anaesthesia can be extremely dangerous) There is no one I'd rather have restraining when doing procedures on fractious animals.

but when we start referring to everyone as a technician, we cheapen the technician's hard work-and also the public's perception of them. Think of it like calling everyone a registered nurse-, RNs, LVNs, Practical nurses, RTs, MAs, Rad Techs...they're not the same, and neither are an assistant and a CVT. I think (and I have VA friends that feel the same way) that it actually cheapens BOTH sides of the argument. There are things that VAs are really good at, and there are things a CVT is required for-they are different jobs with different responsibilities. In some states (Texas comes to mind) there is even a certification program for VAs.

Ultimately, it comes down to this-if we want to be paid what we are worth, have benefits and CE provided-then we need to differentiate between the two. Why bother to go to school and spend all that money to work for minimum wage? And why as an employer would you even think about hiring a CVT at appropriate wages, when you can 'get someone just the same off the street' for significantly less?

Who would you rather have running your loved one's anasthesia, placing the central lines, evaluating labs, recovering from anaesthesia, monitoring in the ICU. A CVT who has proven his or her knowledge through taking the board exam and complying with state CE regulations, or someone off the street making $8/hr?

Whether or not you agree, being called a vet tech in some states is not wrong (as someone posted above). I'm happy that you've gone the extra step and gotten the certification, but there are states where tooth extraction and the like are legal for vet techs that are not certified. And that example is outrageous. Most vet practices wouldn't let people in right off the street. I don't know about you, but I had problems finding a job with a vet, and I know a lot of people who had similar issues until they had experience. Even then, to do some things we were monitored until the vets were comfortable giving us responsibility.

 

[birdvet2006]

I deleted my posting because I suppose it was a poor analogy and I didn't mean to "hijack" the thread.

 

[Poke]

Think of it like calling everyone a registered nurse-, RNs, LVNs, Practical nurses, RTs, MAs, Rad Techs...they're not the same, and neither are an assistant and a CVT.

The way you state this isn't comparable at all. Calling someone a registered nurse implies just that.. not any nurse, but specifically an RN. When you just call someone a nurse, you are not limited to a specific definition.. it could be someone in a variety of careers. Calling someone a certified vet tech implies academic education and certification, but just an ordinary "vet tech" doesn't relate to any of that.. It is merely a job title. At the clinic where I work, none of the techs are certified.. and none of them suture, induce anesthesia, yadda yadda yadda. That is not part of the job description in this particular workplace.

Honestly, I'd rather liken this to being a mechanic, not for the type of work done, but insomuch that some may learn through years of experience, others may go to school. One isn't necessarily better than the other, they have just learned through different means.

 

[chris03333]

Just an observation:
In a sense, the difference between CVT/RVT/LVT and "vet assistants" are similar to the differences between internship-trained vets and non-internship trained vets.

- the intern has paid a lot of money, in a sense, to gain valuable training and experience and has a certificate to show it (similar to CVT/etc.).
- yet the graduated intern is in no way "better" than a non-internship trained vet...just "different".
- the intern wants to get proper credit for working so hard, however the best credit is just the individual gain in knowledge, confidence and experience in such a short amount of time. Usually this pays off in somewhat increased salary, but not always.

Similarities - everyone becomes defensive on both sides of the debate. Everyone wants to feel valued in their respective roles.

Now I think this thread has went way off track.

birdvet, I have a problem with that analogy in that the VA has no formal education of any kind.
A non internship trained vet has their educational background but did not persue furthur training.

But that is an interesting viewpoint...

 

[Bill59]

Just an observation:
In a sense, the difference between CVT/RVT/LVT and "vet assistants" are similar to the differences between internship-trained vets and non-internship trained vets.

I'm going to disagree. A graduate veterinarian who has done an internship and one who hasn't are still both veterinarians because they both have a DVM (or equivalent). Legally they are identical.

But a LVT and a lay assistant are not both veterinary technicians, regardless of the fact that some people, including veterinarians, misuse the term. And legally they are different, at least in most regions.

I hate to seem like I'm nitpicking here, but veterinary technicians have worked hard over the past 20 years to gain acceptance as part of the veterinary care team, just as nurses had to do earlier in human health. Actually, IMO a big mistake we made at the outset was using the term "technician" instead of "nurse" because they are really the equivalent of nurses. But that's water under the bridge at this point.

Unfortunately, some veterinarians, especially older ones, still don't really appreciate what veterinary technicians have to offer. For us to move forward as a profession in this area, the first step is to stop misusing the terms.

 

[VAgirl]

Actually, IMO a big mistake we made at the outset was using the term "technician" instead of "nurse" because they are really the equivalent of nurses. But that's water under the bridge at this point.

At Banfield, vet techs are called veterinary nurses. But then, the term is used for both LVTs and the folks who have gotten to where they are by OJT alone. I worked there and my title was a "veterinary nurse," though I had no formal technician training. It didn't seem to matter much, as we all knew who was experienced and who wasn't. But perhaps client perspective was different.

This is an interesting topic.

 

[Kara31191]

looks like your doc needs to suck it up and do what is best for the clinic- raise her pay and she'll find a good tech. sorry to hear about your situation. it really sucks to be in your shoes. i think we've all been there at some point.

Oh goodness. I hope things get better at some point. We're supposed to have a certified tech (with 15 years experience) joining us next month. 😀 I'm super excited...

It's a fairly new clinic, and there aren't a lot of funds yet. What I don't understand is why she is investing more time into training people that are going to be applying to vet school this year and probably leaving us within the next year? Why not train more permanent people? 😕 I don't know. I guess I shouldn't say anything until I've been in her situation.