VN Awarding Body to take ‘lighter touch’ following review

The Veterinary Nursing NVQ has bedded in well, and now it's time for the Awarding Body, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, to loosen the reins. That's one of the key findings of an independent review of the Veterinary Nursing NVQ Procedures.

Summary

The review was commissioned by the College in March 2005 and its findings have just been released. The objective of this qualitative review was to assess whether the current arrangements, including documentation, guidance and assessment methods, could be revised to reduce the burdens of time and bureaucracy on training practices. 

Methodology included an assessment of the paperwork, visits to practices and discussion with a range of veterinary organisations and individuals involved. With over 75 individuals taking part, the findings have proved a very useful snapshot of the current attitude towards the NVQ both in practice and within Veterinary Nursing Accredited Centres (VNACs). The report has highlighted where gaps exist between these perceptions and the real situation - indicating that some communication effort may be required.

The findings are largely positive: the qualification has been well established in the profession and is producing VNs of a high calibre. But there have been some criticisms of the Awarding Body which, whilst it has met the stringent requirements of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), is perceived to have an overly rigid and insufficiently supportive approach.

"The College is grateful to all those who participated in the review," comments Andrea Jeffery, who chairs RCVS VN Council. "It fully intends to take heed of the comments made and work with the Awarding Body to address them. Together we will build on the improvements which the report acknowledges have already been made in recent years".

"The College has said that it will adopt a 'lighter touch' on the strength of the report's findings that quality control systems are now well embedded in centres and training practices."

The review

Whilst accepting that the RCVS must work within the prescribed QCA guidelines, and that in the early days of the NVQ clear and detailed guidance and assessment was necessary, the report recommended that the time may have come to put more trust in VNAC and practice assessors and allow them to take some ownership of the scheme.

"This would show more than anything else that the RCVS respects and has confidence in its staff and in the VNACs and Training Practices," advises Sheila McQueen of McData Ltd, who carried out the review.

The need for a more flexible approach from the Awarding Body has largely arisen due to the hard work of the VNACs and training practices, who have built up robust protocols for implementing the requirements of the NVQ, under the guidance of the RCVS as Awarding Body.

It is also important to note that the majority of vets acknowledged they were "getting a good quality VN via the NVQ route". Even those who did not like the NVQ system appreciated its quality.

Another key area of discussion was the fact that the RCVS has a dual role as far as veterinary nursing is concerned: as the Awarding Body and to carry out regulatory functions such as maintaining the List and running VN Council. It is easy to see how the Awarding Body could be perceived as inflexible if thought of as part of the regulatory structure.  It may be fair to say that neither the RCVS nor the Awarding Body have made this distinction clear enough either internal or externally, and that this has affected the way the Awarding Body deals with its 'customers'.

Yet as Awarding Body, the College stands 'on the same side' as TPs and VNACs and this needs to be reflected in the way that it communicates with them. "There is fundamentally not much wrong with the system that a bit of thought and care for the customer would not put right," highlights Mrs McQueen in her report.

Praise was given for the work and support of the External Verifiers (EVs), but with the caveat that they need to maintain realistic expectations when making demands on VNACs and TPs.

The findings also suggested that the rigorous approach of the Awarding Body has made VNACs and assessors unwilling to take a more creative approach to accepting evidence, and working with the portfolio.

Moving forward

The report has provided a very useful benchmark against which progress can be made. In some cases, activities suggested were already taking place. For example, there was a call for increased standardisation of advice and guidance from EVs. Currently, the Awarding Body holds monthly in-house standardisation events, together with monthly Awarding Body meetings.

The report also suggested that only EVs with Internal Verifier (IV) experience should be appointed. In fact, a provision has been in place since 2002 that EVs must hold a D34 (V1) qualification.

In other cases, the report has highlighted areas for action. It suggested that, now the NVQ has a solid basis, the Awarding Body begins to devolve some areas of responsibility. This will be put in place as appropriate. For example, currently the Awarding Body only approves Training Practice applications upon receipt of all Training Practice (TP) and IV documentation. In response to the report, the aim is that from October, TP approvals will be processed on receipt of the full IV report only.

A detailed action plan has been produced to incorporate a range of activities over the short and medium-term and key developments will be reported as appropriate.