The RCVS Operational Board has announced that it will ask Council to review its decision to remove postgraduate postnominals from the Register, following the largely negative response from the profession to the idea, including a petition from Derbyshire surgeon, Victoria Lilley.

The original decision was made by Council in June 2012 as part of a package of measures aimed at developing clarity around postgraduate skills and knowledge.

The College says that the removal of postgraduate postnominals from the Register was intended to help dispel confusion amongst the public and some members of the profession about the level of various qualifications, by introducing the Advanced Practitioner status alongside the existing Specialist list.

Chairman of the Operational Board, CEO Nick Stace, said: "Over the last few days we have listened to the disquiet amongst the profession - which has included direct contact with staff and Operational Board members, a petition and discussion on fora and social media - and feel that we should address some misunderstandings but also give Council the opportunity to review the decision at its 5 June meeting.

"Many good points have been made by members of the profession and I am pleased that the Operational Board has agreed to reflect on them and consider whether there is a better way to achieve the clarity we were seeking for the public and the profession.

"The introduction of Advanced Practitioner status is a positive move for both the profession and the public, and underlines the College's commitment to lifelong learning.

"It is important to have the profession's support for the direction we are taking in advancing standards across the sector."

The College has also provided some Q&A's concerning the original decision made by Council in 2012, as follows.

1. When did this process start?
   A Specialisation Working Party was set up in spring 2010 under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Kenneth Calman to review routes to specialisation, and clarity around postgraduate qualifications. It was, in part, in response to a report produced by Professor Philip Lowe, on behalf of Defra, around veterinary expertise in food animal production, although the Working Party's remit went wider.
2. Was the profession consulted?
   The recommendations of the Working Party were sent out to consultation amongst the profession and the public in November 2011. The story featured on the front page of the November 2011 issue of RCVS News, which was sent to every member of the College, and received media coverage. We received 290 responses: 265 from individuals and 25 from organisations or groups of individuals.
3. To what has Council agreed?
   Council unanimously agreed recommendations from the Specialisation Working Party in June 2012. As well as recommending increasing scope of the Specialist list, changing the wording in the Code of Professional Conduct, and setting up the Advanced Practitioner status, it was agreed that: "The RCVS should simplify significantly the listing of postnominal letters for qualifications against Members' names in the published Register and on the RCVS website (Find a Vet). Official lists should show only the registerable degree (eg BVMS, or DVM, or BVetMed etc), followed by either MRCVS or FRCVS, and indicating whether the individual is on the list of specialists or the list of advanced practitioners. Thus: i. John Brown BVSc MRCVS ii. Jane Smith BVM&S MRCVS Advanced Practitioner in Small Animal Surgery iii. Peter Jones, MVB, FRCVS, RCVS Specialist in Anaesthesia" This change would only have taken effect once the Advanced Practitioner list was in place and had bedded in.
4. Why was this proposal made?
   There were three key reasons for the decision in 2012: a) A qualification marks knowledge acquired at a specific point in time and is not necessarily an indicator of current knowledge and skills. Meanwhile, the status of Advanced Practitioner or Specialist will be revalidated every five years and require the individual actively to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. b) Market research has indicated that members of the public were unsure about the various postnominals and what they stood for. Veterinary surgeons are also confused about the level of different qualifications. c) It is increasingly difficult to adjudicate on which postnominals should be included in the Register, and new requests are made on a regular basis, including qualifications that are not straightforward to assess in terms of their quality or relevance. While it may seem easy to say that just RCVS postgraduate qualifications should be included, since we began phasing out the RCVS Diplomas and encouraging veterinary surgeons to take European ones, this has been less clear-cut.
5. Is the RCVS removing our qualifications?
   No. There has never been an intention to remove anyone's qualifications.
   The original decision in 2012 was not to print them in the Register or include on the RCVS website. Individuals would have been free to use them as they wished, for example, in practice marketing, on stationery etc.
6. How are veterinary nurses affected?
   There is no change to the position for veterinary nurses.
7. Is the RCVS devaluing non-modular certificates?
   Both modular (CertAVP) and non-modular certificates are valid for those wishing to apply to join the Advanced Practitioner list. Those with the non-modular certificates are asked to complete either the RCVS 'A' module in the CertAVP or other equivalent modules or 100 hours of CPD that covers the same ground, over their first five-year accreditation period.
8. Is Advanced Practitioner status just a money-making exercise for the RCVS?
   The Advanced Practitioners status is being introduced to give a clear signal to the profession and the public that a practitioner has developed their skills and knowledge in a specific area, and is committed to maintaining them. An administration fee is paid to the College to join and remain on the list, in the same way that it is for Specialists. It is not a money-making scheme and the fees are set to cover costs.
9. What's happening now?
   The RCVS Operational Board met on 24 April and considered the decision that had been made by Council in June 2012 and the subsequent unhappiness amongst the profession that had been catalysed by recently-published information about the Advanced Practitioner status. The Board felt that although the rationale behind the original 2012 decision was sound, the issues that the change aimed to address could now be tackled in other ways. It has therefore requested that Council review its decision at its 5 June meeting. A paper will be developed which outlines possible routes forward, which will be available on the RCVS website in due course.

PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.