Consultation on Supervision Requirements for Restricted Veterinarians Following the Discontinuation of the Preliminary Surgical Assessment

 

Click here to access the PDF Consulation Document

Question 1 — Minimum Period of Direct Supervision

Is one year of direct supervision necessary before a Restricted Veterinarian can be considered for indirect supervision?

Members are invited to comment on:

• whether a mandatory minimum period is appropriate;
• whether one year is an appropriate minimum; and,
• whether a shorter or longer period would be more appropriate;

Please provide the rationale for your position.

Question 2 — Surgery and Anesthesia

Should anesthesia and surgery be permitted under indirect supervision?

The proposed framework excludes all surgery and anesthesia from indirect supervision.

Members are invited to comment on whether this is appropriate.

If members believe that some surgical or anesthetic activities could be permitted under indirect supervision, please identify:

• which specific activities;
• what competency requirements should apply;
• what supervision or availability requirements should apply;
• whether different requirements should apply to routine versus emergency procedures; and
• what safeguards would be necessary to protect patient safety.

Question 3 — Number of Supervisors

Unlike many other jurisdictions, Restricted Veterinarians in Manitoba are not required to be tied to a single specific supervisor.

Under the proposed model, what is an appropriate maximum number of veterinarians who may supervise a Restricted Veterinarian in this context?

Members are invited to consider whether there should be:

• one Primary Supervisor only;
• one Primary Supervisor plus a limited number of additional supervisors;
• a maximum number such as two, three, or another number;
• no fixed numerical limit, provided all supervisors are appropriately identified and accountable; or
• different limits depending on the practice setting or scope of approved activities.

Members are encouraged to identify any additional concerns, risks, implementation issues, or safeguards that Council should consider.

In particular, feedback is welcomed regarding:

• whether the proposed eligibility criteria are sufficiently protective;
• whether the task-specific approach is practical for veterinary practices;
• whether the proposed reporting requirements are reasonable;
• how the framework could operate effectively in large-animal and ambulatory practice;
• whether additional activities should be expressly excluded;
• how often competency should be reassessed;
• how changes in employment or practice setting should be managed; and
• how the framework could ensure consistency in decisions made by the MVMA.