So I took my dog to the vet yesterday morning to be spayed, we (my dog and I) are called into the assessment room by this woman who introduces herself as the "RN" who will be taking care of my dog.
Ofcourse I am skeptical, I question her "You are a Registered Nurse?"
She replies, that yes she is a RN, the training is EXACTLY the same, except that it is for animals, and that she had to pass a board exam. She actually goes on about it for a couple of minutes.
At this point I am so stunned, that I decide not to say anything, as I am already in a highly irritated mood because I am sleep deprived, starving because I am fasting for blood work, and actively fighting with my insurance coverage to get any prescription filled anywhere, and I am afraid of over reacting. I make sure that I sound highly skeptical when I say "Oooookayyy"
I am usually not very political or sensitive to nursing slights. I am comfortable with who I am and happy with what I do. I laugh at slights to nurses on tv more often that not, but this just kept itching at me.
When I left they gave me a addressed envelope and a survey to fill out. I am considering using the envelope to write a letter to the vet to inform her that she has at least one tech that is calling herself a RN and that by allowing this to go on in her practice that she is opening herself up to potential liability.
Obviously we are just going to disagree on this subject. I guess my point is really this: It seems like you all are more concerned about protecting RN because nursing school is tough, being a nurse is tough, etc., rather than worrying about some whack-job pretending to be an RN and killing people. That's what I don't understand. You talk about the general public not knowing what nurses really do. I AM the general public, and I have a pretty freaking high opinion of nurses. I know what's involved with being a nurse, and it scares the crap out of me. That is why I would want the title of nurse protected (not because it's not fair for Sally MA to say she's a nurse because she didn't miss quality time with her kids to go to LPN/RN school). I still don't think I would fight a battle in the ANIMAL world. You may be able to change my mind.....tell me, what is the REAL problem with a vet tech saying she's an RN (please don't say it's because it's illegal).
I agree with the person who said you should spend way more time fighting for the pay YOU DESERVE. It is sickening what nurses get paid.
By reading your above reply I think that you have missed the point of this thread all together.
...tell me, what is the REAL problem with a vet tech saying she's an RN (please don't say it's because it's illegal).
You have identified the answer yourself...
....worrying about some whack-job pretending to be an RN and killing people.
When nurses are licensed as nurses, the public EXPECTS that they are appropriately educated, licensed and credentialed in order to carry out nursing care safely to the benefit, and not the detriment of anyone within the health care system. That is what a NURSE does, and what the public expects. For people. Not for animals. And that is my main concern, protection of the public. The legality of the use of the title "nurse", is both assurance and 'insurance' for the public...when a person represents his or herself as a nurse, they are indeed a registered/licensed nurse with the right to refer to themselves as such. Yes, it is a legal issue. It is just as much an ethical and moral issue as well IMO.
Up here a trained, certified vet. tech is a full time college diploma, that takes at least two years. So they are "registered" nurses for animals.
This is a true statement, before nursing school I worked in a Veterinary office for a number of years. In the "human world" a tech is a low skilled unlicensed support person. The term "vet tech" is the equivalent to an RN in the animal world.
She should have never said she was an RN at the vet office, but don't we sometimes explain things to people in terms that they can understand?? It is easier for someone to understand that she is the "nurse" (who assists the doctor) with the care and treatment of their pet than to figure out what a tech is going to do with their pet....make sense?
Their training is the same as mine was for nursing school. I am a two year ADN and they are a two year program and can put the letters LVT after their name once they pass the licensing exam for their profession.
Where I worked the techs did more than the docs with the animals (hmm...sounds similar with RNs...)
The techs did simple, basic care like trimming nails all the way up to being the surgical techs assisting in surgery. During surgery, they were the animal equivalent of a CRNA!! (certainly without the pay)
We should be more concerned with the type of care that our pets are receiving and not caught up on the legalities of one single word.
Currently I am a nursing student, but I am a Registered Veterinary Technician with certifcation in Emergency/Critcal Care and degrees in veterinary medicine, biology, and phramacology. School for veterinary technicians ranges from two to four years depending on the degree you want to get, and is no way cheaper than any other degree, including nursing. Grooming is not a job of a veterinary technician, any more than cutting hair is the job of a LPN or RN. An educated, certified/registered/licensed(depending on which state you live in) veterinary technician is the life blood of an animal hospital, just as nurses are the life blood of a hospital.
Thank you! Typically a groomer, or even a "kennel aide" would be the person cleaning, bathing, feeding, etc.
You are someone who could elaborate and educate about how much you are responsible for, and the knowledge base that you must have.
While their documentation is not as much as ours, they are responsible for full head to "paw" assessments, meds, IVs, pre and post surgical care, educating the owners on care, meds, etc. I&Os, and yes, they are even the ones that notice when a hospitalized animal is not doing well, and will assess and alert the Vet to their findings.
She should have never said she was an RN at the vet office, but don't we sometimes explain things to people in terms that they can understand?? It is easier for someone to understand that she is the "nurse" (who assists the doctor) with the care and treatment of their pet than to figure out what a tech is going to do with their pet....make sense?
Yes, I understand what you are saying (but the vast majority of the public understands tech in reference to visiting the vet, they don't expect to see a nurse}. I think it's fantastic that there are associate degrees for vet techs. I have 8 dogs and believe me I appreciate a well trained and compassionate vet tech although I seriously doubt that my vet pays for an LVT and yet they use the title which is just as wrong as referring to yourself as a nurse when indeed you are not. You can nurse animals but that does not make you a nurse.
Their training is the same as mine was for nursing school. I am a two year ADN and they are a two year program and can put the letters LVT after their name once they pass the licensing exam for their profession.
Jenny
LVT, that's the point Licensed Vet "Tech", not "Nurse", as in RN or LPN.
How would you feel working in a vets office with two other techs who referred to themselves as LVT's when they actually only had on hands training and you were not recognized for your degree? I applaud you for having your degree with both animals and humans. That's really awesome! Be very proud and protective of both degrees! It's only fair.
Oh...See...I missed the part where she called herself an RN...I wonder if there's registered. She DID mention that she cares for animals and not humans....But I see what you're talking about.
Didn't realize how heated this conversation was getting. Holding the white flag....:icon_hug:
You can visit michigans website and in the same place where you can look up an RNs license you can lookup a vet tech license, and cosmotologist for that matter....
She is clearly not an RN and that was wrong, but everyone is saying that what she did was illegal....so what now??
Should someone call the police? Report her to the state BON? Sue the Vet hospital?
Illegal, immoral.....is it worth pursuing? Is it worth fighting with respected collegues over? Is it worth hurt feelings? Is it worth not going back to the Vets office where perhaps her animals have recieved a high level of excellent care and she has established a good relationship with said Vet?
I have been an Animal Health Technician (Canadian for "Veterinarian Technician") for many years, and am also in my 4th year of my Bachelor of Science in (HUMAN!) Nursing, so soon will be an RN as well.
I believe in England "techs" are called Registered Veterinary Nurses or Registered Veterinary Technicians. Many times technician and nurse have been interchanged, and I don't have a problem with this as long as the word "animal" or "veterinary" is in there somewhere. This tecnician should NOT have called herself an RN in my opinion. In fact, I have been called an "animal nurse" many times and I do not believe that this warrants correcting, but "animal RN" if not acceptable. There is a difference.
This is obviously a very controversial subject, and I like to believe it is a matter of professionalism. I would like to think that Veterinary Technicians (being a fairly young orgainzied profession) would want to pave their own path, so to speak, and not be grouped under the umbrella of human nurses. While veterinary technicians Are "animals nurses" in terms of care giving, performing similar skills, and following the "dr.'s" orders (doctors of veterinary medicine), they also, however, do a VERY different job in a number of respects. Not only do they work on a variety of species, as already mentioned (I have worked on dogs, cats, horses, sheep, cattle, reptiles, birds, llamas, moose, deer, tigers, lions, bears, chimpanzees, sturgeon.....the list goes on & on), but they are pretty much the ONLY support staff in a veterinary hospital. Their jobs are very diverse compared to RNs, who tend to specialize.
For example, in a day at the veterinary clinic, I will induce and monitor anaesthetic, perform small surgeries such as cat neuters and minor wound/abcess repair (closing wounds, placing drains, etc). I will make a cast, I will take countless radiographs, initiate IVs (and I'm proud to say that if you can hit a vien on a deyhdrated kitten or hampster, you can do it on almost any human around!!!). I also do dentistry (scaling and polishing teeth, doing root canals, extracting teeth), exams, perform and analyse laboratory tests....the list goes on and on! And I'm the cleaner, the surgical suite organizer, kennel girl, orderer of supplies, housekeeping, dietary....all thsoe things!
SO, as you can see, it's a demanding profession with a solid knowledge base, and I'm proud to be a technician, and tell the world. I don't lump it behind human nursing because it is that AND so much more. I also recognise the need to specialize, and will do so as an RN. I am proud to be an RN too!
I wonder if the initial poster's experience with the veterinary technician could have reflected a bit of insecurity or respect-seeking on the part of the technician? Perhaps she knew her client was an RN, and wanted to ensure that the client knew she had the proper training to care for the client's dog?
I know that in MANY of the veterinary clinics I have worked in, there is a type of coding on files of animals belonging to RNs. This alerts the veterinary staff that the pet is owned by an RN. This is because there seems to be a history of friction between people in the medical profession for animals, or those for humans. Or at least a feeling of needing to be "on your toes" because some RNs will really challenge your knowledge.
Unfortunately, I HAVE heard of a veterinary technician giving out advice to humans (and trust me, humans DO seek medical advice from veterinary staff regularily!). It happens on occasion when people are not cognizant of their professional roles, liability, etc.
Dishing out medical advice when you are not an RN is bad, but not not as bad as this: I have seen many RNs try and treat their pets by themselves. Like, for example, the RN who knew cat's urethra was blocked and decided she could unblock it herself with just some xylocaine jelly and a small catheter. OR the RN who thought that her dog had a splinter in his member (not knowing that there is actually a bone in there), and decided to try and dig it out on her own. Neither of these pets were given anesthetic for these "treatments", and both ended with tragic results. I believe this is cruelty. Or RNs who want to save costs by doing injections on their pets at home-fair enough, but can they landmark properly? I had an RN kill her own horse by accidentally injecting penicillin into a vien, where it entered the horse's CNS. The horse had a reaction to this, and began rearing and one of his forelegs struck the RN in the head, killing her. So now both the horse and the woman are dead, and the veterinarian feels ultimately responsible.
A technician can do damage to a person seeking medical advice only if that person follows the advice. But many times animals are restrained for proceedures and do not have a choice in the matter. To me, *SOME* RNs seem quick say that they are competent in veterinary medicine as well...I am sure some of you have used your medical knowledge to give advice on someone's pet. Now, I know the above are rather extreme examples, and do not happen all the time. But they are out there, and these are the reasons that such limitations need to me made clear: a veterinary technician IS registered as a nurse or technician, but for ANIMALS, and this should be stated every time. And an RN may have an excellent knowledge base, but needs to respect that there are differences in treating animals vs. people.
Anyways, as you can see there is a difference between the two. Not everyone here is going to agree with me, and that's fine. I have the unique role of straddling both professions and being able to see the differences between the two on a regular basis. So I just thought I'd share some thoughts with you. :)
Weren't these protection laws created for the HUMAN public? I just don't see the point in caring if an animal caregiver calls herself a nurse or an RN. It's silly IMO (to call yourself an RN or a nurse) if you're not, but in the animal world I just don't see the harm. I fully support protecting the RN title (even just plain old "nurse") in the human world, but I can't see getting my feathers so ruffled with a vet tech. It's rather flattering if you think about it :) It makes RN's seem conceited or snobby to be so offended. It really seems to go beyond just being concerned about "title protection." Many people in this world envy you as an RN. I'm sure this particular vet tech isn't trying to pull a fast one on anyone.
Here's the point:
It's against the law to call yourself an RN if you do not hold that title.
Here's another point:
As a previous poster mentioned, Some people seek "human" medical advice from veterinary personnel. If this person is arrogant enough to refer to herself as an RN when she is not one, she is probably arrogant enough to GIVE that advice. Do you see the problem? :)
I think the point is that title protection has to be enforced at every level, because when you start letting it erode, it's harder to enforce where it really matters.
If a CNA started calling herself a nurse, it could potentially be more difficult to get her to stop if we allowed CVTs or other vet techs to call themselves nurses, because we would have allowed the title to erode to the point where it meant not just an RN, but someone who was LIKE an RN.
It's not like she'd by arrested and thrown in jail for title misuse, but it is something that needs to be brought up and addressed. It's not saying that vet techs are inferior to nurses, but just that they are different.
I've been a nurse for 30+ years and have yet to run into even one of nurses. Being concerned about title protections means nothing. Having an opinion, speaking openly against the misuse of RN or Nurse is not being offended it's taking a stand and in some cases taking action.
I had a policy instituted in our hospital that we cannot take phone orders from MA's, only an RN or LPN. You would not believe how many nurses thanked me for taking a stand and taking action. The doctors weren't too pleased because most of them have to call in their own orders (don't hire real nurses) but you know what, they got over it and they respect me also.
Bravo! Good for you for taking a stand. This is a practice that is getting way out of hand. I frequently take orders from receptionists! no less. I only do this b/c I happen to know this DR and his staff and they always speak to him first and the DR really does not have time to take all calls on all orders. Believe me, I wouldn't take many orders from them more complicated than "admit to the unit w/x diagnosis and unit protocol". Also, I have plenty of experience in my field, and would know when to question an order that did not seem appropriate. Nevertheless, this practice is not only dangerous in theory, but, I think, illegal. Here's the reason for it: the MD is a cheapskate and doesn't want to pay a nurse to work in his office. He gets away w/it, for now, but I really wonder how long this can last. Too sad.
austin heart, BSN, RN
321 Posts
By reading your above reply I think that you have missed the point of this thread all together.