To: ACVIM Board of Regents and ACVIM Membership

To: ACVIM Membership

From: William R. Fenner, Professional Liaison

May 27, 2013

Dear Colleagues,

This has been a very productive year for the ACVIM and it continues to be both a privilege and a pleasure to work for you and to represent you in meetings with other specialty colleges. Thank you for the opportunity to continue to serve you:

My activities as Professional Liaison can be grouped into 4 major categories.

1)A major responsibility is to represent the ACVIM to other specialty colleges. Historically, most of this has been through my service as the ACVIM’s representative to the American Board of Veterinary Specialties (ABVS). In this role, with the strong support of the college’s staff, I prepared the annual report to ABVS. These reports were approved, maintaining the college's certification as a specialty college. We continue to be perceived as a leader among the other specialty colleges in our ability to grow and adapt.

I also had the opportunity to represent the specialty, along with two of your elected officers on the Board of Regents and your Executive Director, Roberta Herman, in a meeting with the leadership of the ACVS this past February. There were several topics of that meeting. One was to learn if there are common issues both specialties are facing with how we represent ourselves to the public and to our referring veterinary community. A second was whether we have an accurate understanding of the market for our services and, if we don’t are we appropriately providing candidates for residencies information about their future practice opportunities. This was a very productive meeting and continued cooperation with the ACVS and, now ABVS and AVMA, are ongoing.

Additionally, as a result of a stronger push by the practice based specialties, including ACVIM and ACVS, the ABVS and AVMA are taking more positive steps to increase specialty recognition among the AVMA membership and the general public. The ABVS and AVMA have sent letters to the individual state licensing agencies to clarify the use of the term “specialist”, as right now that use is unprotected in the majority of states. They are also asking the state boards to include the definition of what constitutes a board certified specialist in each state’s practice act.

2)I also represent the ACVIM to clients who bring complaints about diplomates, I answer questions from members of the profession at large, I respond to questions from candidates, and also to questions from the membership of ACVIM regarding policies and procedures of the ACVIM.

As you know from past reports, our clients hold us as ACVIM diplomates to a higher standard than general practitioners. This is both because of our additional training and also because of the complex nature of the illnesses in most patients that we treat. Thankfully, you continue to meet, usually exceed, most client’s expectations. The major client concerns continue to involve miscommunication. In many cases, clients failed to hear what they were told. In some cases, not all information was conveyed clearly to the client. I continue to be impressed by your willingness as colleagues to deal with these issues forthrightly. As always, with complaints, we communicate with the complainant and, if appropriate, refer them to the state VMA or state licensing board as indicated by the nature of the concern raised.

I continue to respond when an ACVIM diplomates brings forward an example of inappropriate use of the title specialist. I also continue to remind both our candidates and our membership that the use of the terms “board eligible” and “board qualified” are confusing and not considered appropriate. This is an ongoing process of educating the members of our profession, especially colleagues who have recently completed residency programs. As mentors grow in their understanding of why the terms are confusing to the public, the use of the term has declined. To help those mentors, the term that is most appropriate is “Residency Trained in”. That statement provides recognition of the advanced training and is truthful in not claiming specialty credentials. It is also acceptable to use the term “Practice Limited to”, but it is important for candidates to remember that anyone who limits their practice may use that terminology, it has no implications of additional training; it simply is an indication of a narrowly focused practice.

I want to thank all of you for your continued support of the college’sefforts to provide clarity, both to the general public and to our colleagues about the appropriate use of titles.

3)The third portion of my activities is updating the GIG. As you know, there are changes every year, all of which require review of the entire GIG to prevent development of new inconsistencies. This is an ongoing process as the college continues to grow. Each year the membership and committee provide excellent feedback on confusing or conflicting sections. Thank you for those reports. They are very helpful.

4)The fourth portion of my activities is working with various ACVIM Committees and with ACVIM staff in ensuring consistent responses to requests from candidates and mentors, whether dealing with an appeal, a program review, or a simple question.

Again, it has been a pleasure to represent you.

Respectfully submitted,

William R. Fenner, DVM, Diplomate ACVIM (Neurology)

Professional Liaison