Abstract
This journal recently published two excellent and thought-provoking letters from Drs Gröne and Hayashi (2010, vol. 47, no. 1), highlighting the increasingly formalized links among the American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP), European College of Veterinary Pathologists (ECVP), and the Japanese College of Veterinary Pathology. Considering the special focus of the edition—as eminently summarized by Dr Brown, “Emerging Diseases: The Global Express”—such internationalism should be applauded. Both letters, however, raise the issues of accreditation and, more important, from my perspective as a diplomate of the ACVP, the issue of reciprocal recognition. The debate is fraught with controversy, and many find it difficult to divorce the concept of competency from accreditation, taking any questioning as both a personal and professional affront. It is therefore with some trepidation that I raise the issue in a public forum. However, I believe that it is an issue worth airing.
One assumes that any accrediting body ensures that its members (or diplomates) are at the very least competent (the issue of ongoing competency is, if anything, more inflammatory than accreditation, and it is not the intent of this letter to examine it). However, many governing bodies still have, to use Dr Gröne’s term, de facto members—or, in the parlance of the founders of the ACVP, charter members. In the case of the ECVP, membership status was awarded without examination during the years of 1995 through 1998, and therefore, by default, a high proportion of members are de facto—that is, they gained membership by means other than that of direct examination. As of February 2010, a total of 102 out of 209 ECVP diplomates were de facto members. This is not in any way unique: Following the ACVP’s inception, charter members were elected (albeit based on demonstrated and perceived competency). In the case of Australia, specialization now requires an examination component, be it ACVP, ECVP, or Australian Fellowships—all of which are credible examinations with equally high attrition rates. However, in the recent past, specialist accreditation was afforded to individuals who had not completed any examination component. In Australia, examination is merely one of the components assessed on behalf of the applicant’s state Veterinary Practitioners Board.
In almost all fields of science, the concept of membership by examination—of having passed an exam set by one’s peers—is very important indeed. Since 1951, ACVP membership has been gained via examination only. It is perhaps unfortunate that, to my knowledge, charter members did not insist on retroactively sitting the examinations, which would have provided a transparent criterion and set an extremely rigid precedent. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions' founding members have found it appropriate to insist that all nonexamination members sit and pass (even retrospectively) the defining examination, whichever one that may be.
As Dr Gröne indicated, both the ACVP and ECVP “mutually accept the signature of a member, certified by examination, as a sponsor for their examination” (italics added). Rather than merely demonstrate that both colleges value each other’s examination (ie, the accreditation process), the statement implies that allowing membership of such bodies without examination is in some sense inferior—or else, why insist on this clause?
Veterinary pathology bodies are not alone in attempting harmonization across jurisdictions and countries, and it is certain that in the near future, other jurisdictions will approach both the ACVP and the ECVP for equivalency status. The mutual recognition by ACVP and ECVP is a logical progression and one that I personally think is an excellent arrangement. Both colleges are robust; both support training; and both have, in great depth, experienced members (however one wishes to define the quorum) whom the bodies can call on. However, as a general principle and for the future, I remain to be convinced that the ACVP should recognize de facto membership as the equivalent of membership by examination. I hope that as such situations arise, the ACVP encourages a transparent debate among its members.