1. Veterinary Development Council Veterinary Led Team Working Group Members:- David Catlow Neil Cutler Bob Moore Catherine McLaughlin Peter Scott Bill Reilly Secretariat:- Catherine Lawrence Rachael Gledhill

2. Terms of Reference To identify the range of services that could be supplied to the farming community by a veterinary led team Those services that could be undertaken by non veterinarians Those specialist services that could be delivered by the veterinarians Those services provided by others with which vets need to integrate/co-operate Those typical Official Veterinarian services that might be delivered as part of a veterinary-led team To identify how these services are currently delivered To describe the benefits of bringing non veterinary services into the team e.g. increased profitability, appropriate treatments, and veterinary contact To assess the desire of vets and non vets to work together to deliver the services

3. General Points Priority is animal health and welfare Overlap other groups – different models/shared staff

4. Clients Farmers AHVLA Practitioners Technicians WHO?

5. Farming perspective Foot trimming Blood samples for other than notifiable disease Vaccinations / injections Removal retained after-birth Uterine irrigations Scanning for pregnancy Mobility scoring Sampling for health screening e.g. bulk milk samples Welfare monitoring Body Condition Scoring Disbudding Calving Examples

6. Who should? Who does? Who could? Farming perspective

7. most appropriate and cost effective Vet (generalist/specialist) Technician under supervision Technician Farming perspective

8. Acts of veterinary surgery Only veterinary surgeons are permitted in law to carry out such procedures, although animal owners or their employees may undertake certain acts such as disbudding. Other lay persons (however trained or supervised) may not undertake such activities.

9. Acts of veterinary surgery for which an Exemption Order is in place These are confused. For example testing for tuberculosis can be carried out by suitably trained lay testers employed by AHVLA but not lay persons employed by veterinary practices. Lay persons employed by veterinary practices can blood sample for brucellosis but not for other diagnostic purposes such as metabolic profiling. Lay persons carrying out activities for which Exemption Orders exist have little or no regulation or supervision. Most of the Exemption Orders do not require direction or supervision, of the lay person, by a veterinary surgeon.

10. Activities that are not deemed to be an act of veterinary surgery For example cattle foot trimming. These be carried out by lay persons over whom there is no statutory control.

11. Farming perspective Wide range of potential activities Undertaken by appropriate people and charged accordingly Veterinary team includes technicians, generalists and specialist veterinarians Potential for veterinary led team

12. AHVLA Farmers need access to quality assured, affordable services Lay TB testers: would consider amending the legislation if support from the profession Blood samplers exempted for specific purposes change could increase the workforce available to us during disease outbreaks Some tasks are not acts of veterinary surgery such as inspections…we would not expect to prescribe who did it provided they were suitably trained and competent

13. AHVLA Support for the development of a veterinary team that included non veterinarians Appropriately trained

14. Veterinary Perspective 269 responders Targeted at farm, mixed and equine practice Survey Monkey

15. 26% Yes 74% No Does your practice currently employ any technicians? Veterinary Perspective

16. Equine dental technicians 3% (2) Scanners10% (6) Foot trimmers24% (16) Others63% What technicians do you currently employ? Veterinary Perspective

17. 36% Yes 64% No Has your practice considered employing technicians? Veterinary Perspective

18. yes 12% (28) no 88% Does your practice have an agreement with self employed technicians? Veterinary Perspective

19. Are you aware of your clients using technicians not provided by the practice? yes 67% no 23% not sure10% Dental technicians Scanners Foot trimmers AI Veterinary Perspective

20. Would you employ technicians in the future as part of a veterinary led team? yes 67% no 13% Veterinary Perspective

21. Potential for the development of a veterinary led team Need to be confident about training and supervision Veterinary Perspective

22. Technicians Perspective

23. Independent evaluation of the level of training undertaken by barefoot trimming organisations within the UK, enabling a mechanism whereby approved practitioners can be recognised by the veterinary profession In the interest of continuing professional development we are keen to promote shared learning across the veterinary-led team. The Equine Podiatry Association would encourage a more open and transparent relationship between client, hoof care provider and Veterinary Surgeon

24. Welcome any opportunity to improve links with the veterinary profession. One major problem faced by the foot trimmers is a lack of interest and engagement by some local vets. In some instances a lame animal will be referred by the local vet. This is not desired by the foot trimmer, who would prefer to be dealing with routine preventative trims. Improved communication will help fruitful partnerships develop between vet and farmer. We would agree that better partnership between the vet and trimmer would benefit the farmer in many ways. National association of Cattle Foot Trimmers We do not believe the foot trimming technician under the employment of the local vet is the preferred way of working. Instead, we would welcome any initiatives that would encourage all trimmers to engage in on-going CPD and that trimmers should be working towards, or attaining, a 'category 1' status While licensing of some form is not wanted. we realise it may prove necessary to encourage trimmers to attend professional development and check days.

25. Technicians Perspective Work more closely with the veterinary profession Partnership rather than employed Training and regulation

26. Better partnership working Technicians employed by veterinary practices Improved regulation, training Principles for the Way forward

27. Recommendation 1 The British Veterinary Association should undertake a consultation and opinion poll, which captures the views of the UK veterinary profession, to establish the appetite or otherwise with regard to allowing technicians to undertake specified veterinary service activities (such as blood sampling, disbudding and tuberculin testing) under veterinary direction.

28. Recommendation 2 The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should consider the best course of action to establish an acceptable process of training for, and regulation of, technicians who undertake activities under existing or new Exemption Orders. This should include a clear differentiation between veterinary direction and supervision. In addition the assurance of competency and appropriate approved training, accreditation and registration must be clearly identified.

29. Recommendation 3 Defra should consider the necessary further legislative changes that would allow suitably trained lay persons to carry out minor acts of veterinary surgery (such as disbudding) under the employment and direction or supervision of a veterinary surgeon.