Abstract
A continuing professional development (CPD) process should be implemented in all organisations involved in animal research to ensure professionals stay up to date with scientific advancements, best practices and regulations regarding animal welfare and laboratory animal science. These recommendations advocate for a lean and transparent CPD process to maintain the competence of professionals performing functions, roles and tasks outlined in Directive 2010/63/EU throughout a professional’s career. CPD starts after initial training and once individual competence has been achieved. The first step involves creating a CPD portfolio, which the ‘Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence’ reviews regularly to ensure it aligns with the professional’s personal development plan (PDP). A structured portfolio is proposed for tracking and assessing CPD activities, enabling monitoring. We recommend this monitoring in cycles of up to 5 years.
This document discusses the various types and formats of CPD activities, the minimum CPD requirements for professionals and the essential information that CPD certificates should include. This will be pivotal when developing a common framework for assessing CPD activities across institutions. To conclude, a harmonised CPD strategy that incorporates planning and record-keeping will facilitate mutual recognition and mobility of personnel. Moreover, promoting high-quality CPD will help motivate and reward staff while fostering a culture of care.
Introduction
Key requirements
The European Union Directive 2010/63/EU requires appropriate education, training and competence for all those involved in work related to using animals for scientific purposes (Directive 2010/63/EU, Articles 23, 24, 25, 26, 34 and 38). 1 Staff functions indicated in Article 23(2) include (a) carrying out procedures on animals, (b) designing procedures and projects, (c) taking care of animals or (d) killing animals. Article 23(3) specifies that Member States should establish and publish ‘minimum requirements concerning education and training and the requirements for obtaining, maintaining and demonstrating requisite competence for the functions’ set out in Article 23(2). Annex I of this Directive lists the learning elements that must be covered to fulfil the requirements set in Article 23(3). In addition to the functions (a), (b), (c) and (d), professionals can take on other roles and tasks referred to in the Directive 2010/63/EU, i.e. responsible for overseeing the welfare and care of the animals (Article 24(1)(a)); responsible for ensuring that the staff dealing with animals have access to information specific to the species housed in the establishment (Article 24 (1)(b)); responsible for training and competence (Article 24(1)(c)); designated veterinarian (Article 25); animal welfare body member (Article 26); inspector (Article 34) and project evaluator (Article 38). Each of these impacts animal welfare; therefore, appropriate training and competence also apply to all those responsible for roles or tasks beyond the functions outlined in Article 23(2).
Historical background
In 2010, before the publication of Directive 2010/63/EU, the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) proposed guidelines on continuing professional development (CPD) for all persons involved in the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. 3 It was suggested that the Laboratory Animal Science Associations could facilitate the introduction of CPD schemes and endorse courses.
Upon publication of the Directive 2010/63/EU, the European Commission established an Experts' Working Group (EWG) to develop a standard education and training framework for the EU in which the training for these different functions, roles and tasks is specified. This guidance document was endorsed by the National Competent Authorities for implementing Directive 2010/63/EU in September 2013 and was replaced with a revised version on 19 February 2018. 2 In 2024, the European Commission established another EWG to update this framework document. Regardless of the version, it is emphasised that all persons involved in the use and care of animals must remain competent and up-to-date with the latest scientific knowledge. Establishing a culture of care, improving animal welfare, and better implementing the 3Rs (Replacement; Reduction; and Refinement) and CPD are key principles in Framework Document. 2
Current challenges
The FELASA 2010 guidelines have not been adopted widely. 3 Laboratory Animal Science Associations play a relevant role in promoting and facilitating CPD schemes by organising events and training opportunities, keeping a list of CPD possibilities, and distributing information. The responsibility for ensuring and organising CPD lies at the establishments rather than with the associations themselves. Another element that was probably not underlined enough in the past is that responsibility for the CPD rests with each professional. These factors may help explain why, more than a decade later, CPD schemes have not yet been fully implemented across all countries or organisations.
Proposed improvements
FELASA now proposes a lean, transparent and adaptable CPD framework (tailored to meet the needs of each organisation) for all functions, roles and tasks. It intends to facilitate the implementation of high-quality professional development for all persons working with laboratory animals. The new FELASA framework aims primarily to guide the implementation of CPD schemes where they are lacking and contribute to the improvement of existing CPD schemes. Applying these recommendations to CPD strategies at individual and organisational levels may lead to a more harmonised process and approach. As a result, this will facilitate career development, mutual recognition of professional development activities and staff mobility across organisations and/or countries.
Implementing CPD
CPD is the maintenance and enhancement of professionals’ knowledge, expertise and competence throughout their careers according to a plan formulated in line with the needs of the professional, the employer, the profession and society. 4 It has been considered essential across various sectors, with relevance in healthcare and education.5,6 Importantly, CPD is also required for professionals involved in activities (functions, roles and tasks) related to the care and use of laboratory animals (Directive 2010/63/EU, Articles 23, 24, 25, 26, 34 and 38). 1 In laboratory animal sciences, CPD is crucial for ensuring high animal welfare standards, continuously improving care practices, and contributing to an organisation’s culture of care.
It is essential to note that CPD differs from continuing professional education (CPE), recognising that professional development encompasses more than attending courses. In this respect, many professional associations and regulatory bodies consider CPD more than just following a list of courses; they advocate it should include other activities such as private reading, social interactions and reflections on working experiences. 7 In the context of animal research, this means CPD could involve any verifiable activity leading to learning in laboratory animal science and related topics (see glossary below).
Establishing and monitoring a personal development plan (PDP) and proposing and/or approving CPD activities are the responsibility of the workplace. The role of ensuring supervision and guidance, according to Article 24(1)(c) of Directive 2010/63/EU, will be referred to in this document as ‘Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence’. The role of the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence is similar to the role of the “Named Training and Competence Officer” in the United Kingdom or the role of monitoring and recognising CPD undertaken by the governmental competent authority in Switzerland. We favour more than one person or a body taking on this role (e.g. Animal Welfare Body members) because decisions will be collegial, reduce subjectivity and dilute the assessment of one-to-one personal interaction. This strategy can also ensure that the persons undertaking the role of Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence will always have peers to establish and monitor their own CPD, as there should be no direct hierarchical relationship between a person responsible for training and competence and the laboratory animal science professional undertaking CPD.
What is and what is not CPD?
There is a need to distinguish between CPD and basic training. On the one hand, basic training encompasses initial training on the track to acquiring competence for a function, role or task, or regaining competence. On the other hand, learning to build new knowledge or skills on an established competence and retaining or deepening an acquired understanding by attending an advanced course also belongs to CPD. A grey area may be considered between basic training and CPD. Suppose a professional follows part of a basic course that allows refining or refreshing a technical skill or knowledge in certain aspects of basic training to ensure proper use of the animals. If such an activity was not considered CPD, there would be a risk that professionals would not utilise that opportunity. However, there is a need to ensure that CPD cannot be composed exclusively of basic training as a refresher to regain competence; this should remain an exception approved by the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence. 1
A completely different situation arises when a professional fails a competence assessment for a specific procedure or technique and is advised to repeat basic training to achieve that competence. This training will not be recognised as CPD as the person has not yet demonstrated competence in the procedure or technique.
Honey and Mumford suggest that the most effective and preferred learning strategy is prospective (i.e. planned, fitting the learning cycle model, as further developed under ‘The CPD scheme’).8,9 Dismissing opportunistic and intuitive learning strategies, as less valuable overlooks the fact that professionals also use these strategies effectively to enhance their competence. 10 These learning strategies can be applied when participating in a research group meeting, an ethics committee meeting or an animal welfare body meeting. It is relevant to consider such activities as CPD after approval from the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence. Many CPD systems include such non-verifiable activities, defining the proportion of verifiable (e.g. a course attendance; see also Table 1) versus non-verifiable (e.g. participating in an Animal Welfare Body meeting) CPD activities.7 Non-verifiable activities considered as CPD should involve more than simply attending these meetings; instead, they should include the development of an activity that implies knowledge gain, such as writing a recommendation or reviewing projects, which requires studying and active learning. That said, CPD cannot be comprised solely of non-verifiable activities.
List of verifiable activities that can be considered CPD.
We recommend that basic training as a refresher to regain competence, and non-verifiable activities should never account for more than 20% of all CPD activities within each CPD cycle. For functions (a), (c) and (d), which involve professional activities such as practical procedures that have a significant impact on animal welfare, skills training should also be recognised as CPD when it improves competence and fosters best practices. For CPD purposes, practical skills training with live animals should follow a tiered approach that minimises their use as much as possible: training should begin with alternative non-animal models, followed by non-invasive practice (e.g. using a syringe without a needle to mimic an injection — mock injection). Live animals should be used only when no alternatives remain, and competence can be achieved only by practising on live animals.
Table 1 lists the various formats that a verifiable CPD activity can take. Parts of basic training and meetings can be included only in exceptional cases (see above in ‘What is and what is not CPD’). The on-site or remote attendance format should not influence the recognition process of the training if the objective is independent of on-site tasks, such as hands-on training.
Finally, we may consider that a specialisation in laboratory animal sciences (Master’s or PhD degree in a domain related to laboratory animal sciences, training as a specialist in laboratory animal sciences, 11 or an European College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ECLAM) diploma, should be recognised as CPD if obtained following basic training for functions (Article 23(2)), roles or tasks.
Certificate as proof of CPD attendance or completion
Certificates of attendance or completion of courses, workshops, symposia, conferences, congresses (regional, national or international), lectures, webinars or sessions can be accepted if the subject of the activity is indicated in the PDP. To facilitate the completion of the individual CPD portfolio, the certificates should include at least the following information:
person’s identification, training topic, learning outcomes, species considered, teaching methodology (e.g. lecture-based, skills training, workshop, online tutorial, with or without individual or group tasks), duration of the activity,
and the mark or result if the training was assessed (and how it was assessed).
The assessment distinguishes between a certificate of attendance and a certificate of completion. If certificates lack information, it can be supplemented via alternative means (e.g. a copy of learning outcomes, a timetable, exam results or a glossary of the course).
‘Personal authorisation’—a landmark for CPD
Working with laboratory animals is allowed only after professionals have achieved competence following initial training for a specific function and/or species (Article 23(2) of Directive 2010/63/EU).1,2 Staff carrying out functions (a), (c) or (d) shall also be supervised in the performance of their activities until they have demonstrated the requisite competence. According to Article 23(2) of the Directive 2010/63/EU, Member States shall ensure, through authorisation or by other means that each person is competent. We will name ‘personal authorisation’ the authorisation or similar given to a person after ensuring this person is competent to work with laboratory animals or to perform the function(s) independently. FELASA recommends that a first ‘personal authorisation’ should be in place not only for persons achieving competence for all the functions of Article 23(2), but also for professionals performing tasks and roles defined in Articles 24, 25, 26, 34 and 38 of the Directive 2010/63/EU, after initial training and achieving competence. All ‘personal authorisations’ should be subject to revision and potential renewal depending on CPD completion.
Depending on the country, the ‘personal authorisation’ is issued by the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence, or at a supra-institutional or national level. FELASA recommends that CPD be accounted for when renewing the referred ‘personal authorisation’. Consequently, at each renewal of the ‘personal authorisation’, the CPD portfolio should be validated for the listed CPD activities (see below). Noteworthy is that, in this validation, value is given not only to each activity, but it should also be evident from the portfolio that the CPD activities align with the person’s professional development plan and that the quality of the activities is recognised.
FELASA recommends a maximum time frame for CPD revision, which should be no more than 5 years and, when applicable, must be linked to ‘personal authorisation’ renewal.
Personal development plan
Each establishment that is a breeder, supplier or user of laboratory animals is responsible for implementing its professionals’ PDP. The PDP is an essential prospective planning register that is part of the professionals’ CPD portfolio and should be used as guidance for the CPD. A professionals’ PDP may include more than only the topics related to laboratory animal science, welfare, health and care, such as personnel resource management, occupational health and safety, informatics or other. In the context of the present recommendations only the PDP related to animal research is considered.
The CPD portfolio should provide an overview of the competencies the professional has worked on in the past, and the plan should outline the competencies the professional intends to work on in the future. It is a self-directed tool used as a basis/structure for conversations with the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence. Specific to the aspects of professionals’ work with laboratory animals, these conversations should also cover how the evolutions in the field of laboratory animal sciences align with the needs of the professionals’ career development and those of the organisation. This part of the PDP must be revised regularly (see the paragraph below on the revision process of CPD activities).
The CPD portfolio
Equally important to having a PDP plan is the process of tracking and retrospectively documenting CPD. FELASA strongly recommends that each professional build a CPD portfolio that registers all attended initial education, training and CPD activities (proposed format: Annexe I). The professional is responsible for keeping the CPD portfolio up to date and sharing it with the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence. This portfolio (paper or digital) contains a summary of CPD activities, accompanied by certificates that prove attendance, including the topics, the duration of the CPD activities and how they relate to the part of the PDP that concerns work involving animals. FELASA recommends an output-driven approach to show that the CPD requirements are met. Such an output-driven scheme relies on professionals’ assessments of their needs and utilises reflective learning and self-evaluation, which are reliant on a professional development plan.12 Therefore, an essential element in the CPD portfolio is the professional’s reflection on each activity. A frequently cited quote from Fowler illustrates the importance of this reflection and links to the PDP: ‘The real test of CPD is not whether you attended a particular course or read a particular book; nor is it to supply evidence to meet your professional institute's membership criteria. It is whether your CPD actually improves your professional competence and adds to the achievement of your personal career objectives’. 13
The CPD portfolio and PDP should include minimal information so that any organisation can understand and any person in charge of validating the CPD portfolio can review the CPD activities of any professional. On an institutional internal platform, which may vary among organisations, all information may be detailed; however, in a personal CPD portfolio, the information should be concise yet comprehensive. Annex I — proposed CPD portfolio template — consists of four fields:
A list of functions, roles, and/or tasks and date of start and end for each. Dates when competencies have been assessed, related to functions (a), (b), (c) and (d), and for which species. PDP and the register of the meetings with the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence. A list of all CPD activities attended with a summarised reflection on the added value of the activity to the person’s professional development.
Lines will be included for each field according to the needs of each professional. The CPD portfolio framework allows the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence to oversee everyone’s CPD activities. In case an organisation decides to have only one person for this task, someone else must be appointed to sign the CPD portfolio of the Person Responsible for Training and Competence.
In addition, the CPD portfolio enables practitioners to track their CPD and facilitates its recognition in other institutions, promoting free movement and mutual recognition within Europe and other countries.
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) policy will be applied to the CPD portfolio kept in any institutional archive.
The CPD scheme
The institutional responsibility related to CPD is to implement a process performed by the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence, ensuring that CPD is carried out and monitored. FELASA proposes a CPD scheme (Figure 1). The scheme can be modified to the needs of each organisation. Still, the general structure should be maintained to ensure future exchanges of CPD documentation between organisations, or even at regional, national, and international levels. One of the most relevant parts of the CPD scheme is the CPD portfolio with a summary of all activities (Annex I). This will be valuable for the ‘personal authorisation’ renewal evaluation or CPD follow-up. Essential to keep in mind that CPD is personal and is an individual responsibility, even though there are several responsible persons for each part of the CPD process/cycle, for a given function, task or role as defined in the 2010/63/EU Directive Articles 23 to 26, 34 and 38. 1
CPD scheme based on the construction of a CPD portfolio with the registration of ‘personal authorisations’ (or other recognition process), CPD activities and PDP. Arrows in green indicate the yearly CPD cycle starting with the discussion of the PDP component related to the use of animals for scientific purposes; orange arrows represent the proposed process of ‘personal authorisation’ renewals in cycles of a maximum of 5 years. CPD portfolio validation is done either by the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence or at a supra-institutional level. CPD: Continuing professional development; PDP: personal development plan.
The scheme (Figure 1) starts with designing a PDP and includes planning CPD activities. A discussion should occur between the CPD portfolio’s owner and the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence, who can take on the role of a mentor in these discussions, as it has been shown that mentoring plays a role in CPD. 12 Mentoring or peer support involving regular meetings to revise the PDP and the CPD portfolio, ensure appropriateness and achievability, monitor progress and amend and update over time. Ideally, the discussion should take place at least once a year and can be amended at any moment if the direction of training needs changes or new CPD opportunities are identified. Such discussions can also reduce the administrative workload associated with the reflection process and the evaluation of activities. Between these meetings, professionals are responsible for participating in CPD activities and updating their own CPD portfolio.
The information gathered in the CPD portfolio will contribute to maintaining competence in a function, task or role at the organisational level. The CPD portfolio with CPD activities can be used for ‘personal authorisation’ renewal. This will be valuable for the ‘personal authorisation’ renewal evaluation or CPD follow-up. Furthermore, CPD can motivate and reward staff, ultimately contributing to a culture of care. 14
Minimum requirements for CPD
There is currently no consensus on a common CPD strategy in Europe for persons with a function, a role or a task related to the use of animals for scientific purposes. FELASA recommends defining minimum requirements, which will give momentum to harmonising and adopting CPD across Europe or elsewhere.
Considering the system should be simple, relevant to animal protection and welfare and easily achievable for everybody, we recommend the following:
An average of at least 4 h per year of CPD—meaning a minimum of 20 h per CPD cycle of 5 years. The system should be based on duration-hours accounting. Time conversion factors may be used to account for the different types of CPD activities. Whatever the function, the role or the task a person takes, the total number of hours to fulfil minimal CPD requirements must be addressed in the context of the PDP and reflect the amount of basic/initial training the person has received. It should also align with the combination of functions, role(s) or task(s) that may occur. The total number of hours of CPD that a person needs to complete should span over a maximum period of 5 years. Each person should update their CPD portfolio, and we recommend conducting a yearly follow-up on both the CPD and the PDP.
The rule of 20 hours per 5-year cycle (or equivalent if the CPD cycle is shorter) is the most binding, as CPD compliance will be the critical step for ‘personal authorisation’ renewal.
The ideal minimum situation would be to have at least 4 h of CPD every year to complete the 20 h after 5 years. However, there will be years when more CPD training opportunities will be available than others. Thus, some tolerance may be accepted for the CPD hours per year, provided that they relate to the PDP. This means that, if a professional has not completed 20 h of CPD within 5 years, that person should not have their ‘personal authorisation’ renewed and would not be allowed to continue performing roles, tasks or function’s involving laboratory animals.
Time conversion factors would enable the weighing of hours according to the type of interaction during the activity and the level of assessment following it. For example, attending a seminar would not have the same weight as participating in a hands-on session with a final assessment. Therefore, the time spent on those activities could have different conversion factors. For the sake of CPD harmonisation and staff mobility, ideally, the conversion factors should be established at the European level.
Conclusion
CPD is essential for ensuring high standards of care, animal welfare and scientific rigour with high ethical responsibility in laboratory animal research. With the development of laboratory animal sciences, advances in technology, changes in regulatory frameworks and increased public awareness and scrutiny, there is an urgent need to establish updated, evidence-based recommendations for CPD tailored to all professionals working with laboratory animals.
The publication of a new recommendations paper on CPD in this area represents a critical step forward. It will provide a structured and harmonised approach to lifelong learning that supports professional competence, enhances animal welfare and strengthens the quality and reproducibility of scientific outcomes. Moreover, this guidance fosters a culture of accountability and professional growth across institutions, disciplines and geographic borders, contributing to mutual recognition of CPD and movement of personnel. In summary, FELASA recommends that each professional takes responsibility for building up a CPD portfolio that integrates a PDP plan. The institution designates Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence and provides opportunities for their professionals to attend CPD training. Consequently, the professionals take responsibility for attending CPD training, building up and updating a CPD portfolio that will be discussed and approved internally every year, and will be checked at every renewal of the ‘personal authorisation’ or by other means (Art 23 (2)). 1 The CPD cycle revision may be performed by the Person(s) Responsible for Training and Competence or at a supra-institutional level by the competent authorities or any other professional organisation recognised by the competent authority. Each professional should, every year, follow a minimum of 4 h of CPD. Revision and possible renewal of the ‘personal authorisation’ should be made after periods of no longer then 5 years.
This paper is a call to action for the laboratory animal research community, institutions and stakeholders to recognise and invest in the CPD of their personnel. By formalising expectations and best practices, we can collectively raise standards and promote mobility, reinforce the integrity of laboratory animal science as a whole and contribute to a culture of care. Now, more than ever, the publication of these recommendations is timely and necessary to align with global expectations, to support researchers and animal care staff, and to ensure that our practices reflect the latest knowledge, compassion and commitment to excellence.
Footnotes
Data availability statement
No data were collected to produce the present recommendations paper. We address issues related to education and CPD based on other published work and the FELASA’s experts group opinion.
Nevertheless, if you wish to contact the authors regarding its content, please use the first and/or last author's e-mail addresses (
Ethical statement
No ethical approval was required to develop the work that resulted in the present publication as no human or animal trials were conducted. We address issues related to education and CPD based on other published work and the FELASA’s experts group opinion.
