board of regents meetings monday, june 1, 2015 tuesday ... pages/documents/2015 acvim … · bill...

BOARD OF REGENTS MEETINGS

Monday, June 1, 2015 Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Marriott Hotel, Indianapolis, IN

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Indiana Convention Center

Board of Regents Meetings Marriott Downtown Hotel, Indianapolis, IN

Monday, June 1, 2015 Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Indianapolis Convention Center Saturday, June 6, 2015 (Wrap-up)

Monday, June 1st 2015 8:00 am – 5:15 pm LOCATION: Indiana F

8:00 am – 9:00 am Introductions Board Roles, Responsibilities & Protocol 9:00 am – 9:20 am Call to Order & Introductions Consideration of Consent Agenda

Ratifications of email votes 9:20 am – 10:40 am Chair’s Report (Buechner-Maxwell) 35 min President’s Report (Kornegay) 45 min 10:40 am – 10:55 am BREAK 11:00 am – 12:35 pm Treasurer’s Report (Roussel & Troxel) 60 min

Marketing and Communications Report (Wright) 35 min

12:35 pm – 1:45 pm LUNCH - on your own

1:45 pm – 2:45 pm ACVIM Forum Program, Exhibits & Sponsorships Report (Gaschen) 10 min ACVIM Forum Moderator & Abstracts Report (Behrend) 25 min ACVIM Forum Consensus Statement Report (McClure & Labato) 10 min

2:45 pm – 3:00 pm BREAK 3:00 pm – 3:30 pm IOCART Taskforce Activities - Morrison (30) 3:30 pm – 5:15 pm Specialty President’s Reports- Rush (15), Vite (10), Bryan (10), Couetil (40),

J. Sykes (20)

Monday, June 1st 2015 5:30 pm – 6:30 pm LOCATION: Texas

5:30 pm – 6:30 pm BOR / Foundation BOD Reception

Tuesday, June 2nd 2015 8:30 am – 11:30 am LOCATION: Indiana F

8:30 am – 9:30 am Brief Orientation 9:45 am – 10:45 am Awards Report (Leah) 15 min

International Relations Committee Report (B. Sykes) 15 min JVIM Report (DiBartola & Hinchcliff) 15 min ACVIM Foundation Report (Settles & Miller) 10 min

10:45am – 11:00 am BREAK 11:00 am – 11:30 am Additional Discussion Topics, wrap up and adjourn

Tuesday, June 2nd 2015 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm LOCATION: See Below

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm ACVIM Foundation Board of Directors Meeting Indiana F

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Specialty Presidents’ Meeting Phoenix 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm JVIM Editorial Board Meeting Denver

Saturday, June 6th 2015 2:00 pm – 5:30 pm LOCATION: CC 102

2:00 pm – 5:30 pm BOR Wrap-up meeting

ACVIM Forum 2014 Board of Regents’ Meeting Consent Agenda

1. Advanced Continuing Education (ACE) Committee Report

2. AIMVT Report

3. Appeals Committee Report

4. ACVIM Foundation Report

5. CEO Report

6. Certifications Examinations Report

7. Constitution Committee Report

8. Education & Research Committee Report

9. General Exam Committee Report

10. Maintenance of Credentials Committee Report

11. Membership Services & Job Ads Report

12. Nominating Committee Report

13. Professional Liaison Report

* * * * * Thank you for your dedication and service! * * * * *

Table of Contents

Title Author Page # Chair’s Report Dr. Virginia Buechner-Maxwell 1

President’s Report Dr. Joe Kornegay 7

Treasurer’s Report Dr. Allen Roussel 8

Marketing and Communications Report Dr. Zachary Wright 15

ACVIM Forum Program, Exhibits & Sponsorships Report Dr. Frederic Gaschen 18

ACVIM Forum Moderator & Abstracts Report Drs. Barbara Kitchell & Ellen Behrend 21

ACVIM Forum Consensus Statement Report Drs. J.T. McClure & Mary Anna Labato 24

IOCART Task Force Report Dr. Wallace Morrison 26

Awards Report Dr. Leah Cohn 27

International Relations Committee Report Dr. Ben Sykes 30

Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine Report Drs. Ken Hinchcliff & Steve DiBartola 31

Specialty Reports

Specialty of Cardiology Dr. John Rush 35

Specialty of Neurology Dr. Charles Vite 39

Specialty of Oncology Dr. Jeff Bryan 43

Specialty of Large Animal Dr. Laurent Couetil 49

Specialty of Small Animal Dr. Jane Sykes 65

Consent Agenda Reports

Advanced Continuing Education (ACE) Report Dr. Marilyn Stiff 81

AIMVT Report Ms. Linda Merrill 83

Appeals Committee Report Dr. Bill Fenner 85

ACVIM Foundation Report Dr. Elizabeth Settles 86

Chief Executive Officer's Report Ms. Roberta Herman 88

Certifications Examinations Report Mr. Finn Ruehrdanz 91

Constitution Committee Report Dr. Bill Fenner 93

Education & Research Committee Report Dr. Robert Goodman 94 General Exam Committee Report Dr. Jen Gold 95

Maintenance of Credentials (MOC) Committee Report Dr. Jane Armstrong 96

Membership Services & Job Ads Report Ms. Stephanie Peters & Laurie Nelson 100

Nominating Committee Report Dr. Leah Cohn 103

Professional Liaison Report Dr. Bill Fenner 104

Written Board Reports

ACVIM Chair of the Board of Regents Author(s): Virginia Buechner-Maxwell

1. CHAIR’S REFLECTION

The year that I joined the Executive Committee of the ACVIM Board of Regents (2010) was the year that we undertook a general

overhaul of our central office. Our organization had outgrown its earlier management structure, and significant changes were required to

better match our management and financial organization with the rapidly growing size and needs of the ACVIM. The experience

afforded me the great privilege of working with some very dedicated members of our College, including Eleanor Hawkins, Jean Hall, and

Leah Cohn. I doubt the membership will every fully appreciate the effort that these people made on behalf of the ACVIM. As a result of

their hard work, we now have a central office that is managed by very talented people, and under the guidance of a Certified Association

Executive, Roberta Herman.

Our finances and budget are in order and our investment portfolio aligns with best practices for non-profits. Our data is accessible and

under our control, and we have a password secure community which allows us to communicate, conduct business and archive

conversations. We have restructured our leadership to ensure continuity and expertise in much needed areas, like finances, and we

have proposed a reorganization of our Executive Committee, which we hope will increase leadership efficiency. We are also working to

ensure residents receive a consistent, high quality experience by revising training program requirements. Through the current job task

analysis, we are in the process of gathering information that will also allow us to better align residency-training requirements with the

current needs of our profession.

We have also revised our non-discrimination policy and created a statement of inclusiveness to assure all of our diplomates that they

are welcome and respected members the ACVIM’s community. Through management restructuring, improved fiscal planning, and many

generous donations, the ACVIM Foundation has regained financial stability and credibility and continues to provide support for research

and training opportunities in veterinary health related fields. We have Julie Ducote, Elizabeth Settles, Roberta Herman and the

dedicated members of the Foundation Board of Directors to thank for these accomplishments.

In just the past year, JVIM transitioned to an open access publication, a change that allows worldwide, free access to its contents. And I

have not begun to list the many Specialty Presidents, At-Large members, College and Specialty committee chairs and committee

members that have contributed to the long list of achievements we have accomplished in the past 5 years.

None of these endeavors could have been completed without our staff. This past winter, the ACVIM Board of Regents hired a

management consulting firm, Management Advisors Inc., to evaluate the function of the central office (a more detailed description of this

process is provided in the body of this report). In their final report, Management Advisors particularly acknowledged the expertise,

dedication, and positive attitude demonstrated by our staff, and attributed many of our recent accomplishments to their efforts. Having

worked directly with many of these individuals, there is no doubt that they are the backbone of our organization.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the Board of Regents, the ACVIM staff, and our organization’s community for affording

me this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I am also grateful to the current Executive Committee members for their support and guidance

during my service as chair. In particular, I would especially like to acknowledge Roberta Herman, Joe Kornegay and Bill Fenner. Who

could ask for better mentors?

As I step into the role of immediate past-chair for a final year on the Board of Regents, I look back on this experience as one of the most

challenging and rewarding that I could have imagined. The past and present accomplishments of our organization have required many,

behind the scenes hours of work by volunteers whose selfless contributions are amazing. Their commitment and dedication to our

organization serves as strong evidence of how one person’s efforts can make a difference. If you have not volunteered for an ACVIM

committee or task force recently, I strongly encourage you to do so. You will be rewarded by having the opportunity to make a positive

impact on our College and our profession, while meeting people who will become mentors and friends for the rest of your life. And if you

are thinking of running for one of the Board positions, I highly recommend it!

Sincerely and respectfully submitted,

Virginia Buechner-Maxwell, Chair, ACVIM Board of Regents

Page 1

2. SUMMARY OF POINTS NEEDING BOARD DISCUSSION &/OR ACTION

Topic Mission Div./Cat. Priority/Time

1. Ratification of electronic votes Administrative high /10 min

2. Introduction to the Board Administration high/20 min

3. Review of completed and on-going business Administrative med/15 min

3. BACKGROUND FOR DISCUSSION POINTS

4. HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES: List of Completed and On-Going Business

Welcome to our newest members of the Board of Regents

1. Suzi White (LAIM) is the new (and possibly last) ACVIM Vice President

2. Dusty Nagy (LAIM) is the new LAIM-at-Large Representative

Introduction to the Board

Completed Initiatives

1. JVIM Transition to Open Access

2. Diplomate Communication & Revised the Quarterly

3. Executive Retreat and proposal to Revise the Executive Committee Structure

4. Development of Statement of Inclusion and update of Non-discrimination policy

5. Completion of Management Advisors review of the ACVIM office

6. Decision to delay the development of Leadership Development Program for three years, retire Leadership development

committee

On-Going Initiatives

1. Compensation/Reward for Executive Committee Service

2. Award Nomination Protocol

3. Re-tasking of the International Relations Committee and Revision of Associate Status

5. DETAILED REPORT

1. Topic 1: Ratification of electronic votes

Motion Outcome

1 Approve the following panel members for the 2015 consensus statement on Seizures: Michael Podell (Chair); Mette Berendt; Wolfgang Loescher; Karen Munana; Ned Patterson; Simon Platt; Holger Volk

Approved 9:1

(yes/abstain)

2 Approve a video conference in the next January/February 2015 the topic of which will be a VetSOAP presentation on new strategies and funding opportunities

Approved 10:0

3 Approve funding (approximately $23,000) for Management Advisors proposed Administrative/Board Assessment and presentation at the February Executive Committee Retreat

Approved 10:0

4 Approve an additional member to the Strep equi panel CS, J Richard Newton of the Animal Health Trust in the UK.

Approved 9:1

(yes/abstain)

5 Approve the panel members for the 2015 transfusion medicine Consensus Statement. Chair: Jane Wardrop. Panelists:Michael Lappin, Adam Birkenheuer, Jane Sykes, Beth Callan, Marie- Claude Blais, Barbara Kohn

Approved 9:1

(yes/abstain)

6 Approve $6000 for software modifications for Maintenance of Credentials tracking Approved

Page 2

9:1 (yes/abstain)

7 Approve the motion that the ACVIM will present the prestigious Kirk Award for Professional Excellence during alternating years with the ACVIM Distinguished Service Award, such that only one of these awards is presented at each ACVIM Forum.

Denied (3:7)

(yes/no)

8 Approve the minutes for the November 2014 Board of regents meeting Approved (9:1)

(yes/abstain)

9 Approve retirement status Robert Matus, David Sherman, and Clay Calvert (all meet requirements) Approved 10:0

10 Approve Disability Status for Claudia Baldwin (meets requirements) Approved 10:0

11 Approve publication of EIPH Consensus Statement in JVIM Approved 8:2

(yes/abstain)

11 Approve the motion to table (suspend) consideration of the Leadership Development Program for three years and retire the leadership developing committee

Approved 10:0

12 Approve the motion to publish the Board Meeting Reports and minutes on the ACVIM diplomate website Approved 10:0

13 Approve the motion that the Board develop a College policy of non-discrimination with the understanding that any policy we institute must be reviewed and accepted by legal council

Approved 10:0

14 Approve the motion that the Board develop a statement of inclusion that contains the key points previously described in Board discussions

Approved 10:0

15 Approve the revised non-discrimination policy (wording provided in the body of the report) Approved 10:0

Approve the statement of inclusiveness (wording provided in the body of the report) Approved 10:0

16 Approve Marilyn Stiff's request for retirement status as of the end of the June Board meeting, when she will step off as the Chair of the ACE committee. She meets the requirements.

Approved 10:0

17 Approve the following amendment to current policy: If a diplomate's application for retirement status indicates that the member meets the requirements, retirement status can be automatically awarded and does not require approval by the Board. However, if it is unclear that the diplomate meets all of the requirements, the request must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Regents.

Approved 10:0

18 Approve revised Executive Committee Structure and division of duties Approved 10:0

Note: The purpose of ratifying the electronic votes is to validate the voting process and does not represent a “revote” on any

one or all of the motions

Topic 2: Introduction to the Board: (Virginia Buechner-Maxwell, Roberta Herman). At this beginning of this meeting, the chair and

CEO will provide a brief overview of the ACVIM structure and the function of the central office. In addition, the general duties of the

elected Board Members will be reviewed, and an overview of the major Board duties (On-line voting, ratification of votes, budget

development, exam outcome approval, board reports, board meetings, board email discussion) will be briefly described.

Topic 3: Completed Business (since the November 2014 Board meeting in Denver)

1. JVIM Transition to Open Access: The Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine Transitioned to an open access format on

November 1, 2014. During the Board meeting, two pertinent motions regarding the JVIM article publication fees were passed

Article Publication Charge (APC) for articles in which an active ACVIM Diplomate or Candidate is a co-author would remain

$300.00 through Dec 31, 2016.

All ACVIM candidates/early career Diplomates (w/in two years of residency completion) are allowed one free APC for articles

accepted for publication in JVIM.

A more detailed version of these motions is included in the November 2014 Board meeting minutes.

Page 3

2. Diplomate Communication & Revised the Quarterly (two editions since November). Two versions of the electronic quarterly

report have been published since the November Board meeting. Several diplomates have provided positive feedback on the effort

and content. Continue quarterly communication with our diplomates should occur through the ACVIM President, working in

conjunction with the MCC and ACVIM Staff.

3. Executive Retreat and proposal to revise the Executive Committee Structure: In February 2015, the ACVIM Executive

Committee members of the Board of Regents met for a two-day retreat in Dallas, TX. The main purpose of this meeting was to

discuss the executive leadership structure of the ACVIM, and related topics. The results of the recent management review

(described below) were also presented to the Executive Committee, which was followed by a discussion of the principles of non-

profit Board function. A proposed modification of the Executive Committee Structure was one of the main accomplishments of the

meeting. Duties associated with each of the elected Executive Committee positions were also clarified. Since February, the Board

of Regents has passed a motion to bring this proposal forward to the membership for consideration and approval. The proposal is

included as Appendix 3.

4. Development of Statement of Inclusiveness and update of Non-discrimination policy: In response to the passage of Indiana

bill 101 in March and in support of our diverse membership, the ACVIM Board of Regents reviewed and revised our existing non-

discrimination policy and authored a statement of inclusiveness. The specific wording of the statement and policy are as follows:

ACVIM Non-discrimination Policy: The American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) does not and shall not

discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, gender identity, age, national origin (ancestry),

disability, marital status, sexual orientation, military status or any other protected status in compliance with the applicable law, in any

of its activities or operations. These activities include, but are not limited to hiring and firing of staff or any term, condition or privilege

of employment, selection of volunteers and vendors, acceptance of candidates into residency training programs, certification of new

diplomates, and provision of services, including continuing education. In this context, we are committed to providing an inclusive

and welcoming environment for all members of our staff, volunteers, subcontractors, vendors, and clients. Moreover, the ACVIM is

an equal opportunity employer. To that end, we will not discriminate and will take affirmative action measures to ensure against

discrimination towards any employee or job applicant, who is a member of an underrepresented group, in their employment,

recruitment, in advertisements for employment, compensation, termination, upgrading, promotions, and other conditions of

employment.

ACVIM Statement of Inclusiveness: ACVIM is dedicated to maintaining a community of inclusiveness that respects the diverse

backgrounds and values of its members, candidates, staff and partners in all of its activities. We are committed to fostering a

welcoming and supportive environment for all individuals in our meetings and educational activities. Further, ACVIM strives to use

vendors, which similarly support ACVIM’s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity.

These actions provide strong evidence of the organizations commitment to maintaining a safe and welcoming environment for all

diplomates, candidates, staff members, Forum attendees and vendors.

5. Completion of Management Advisors review of the ACVIM office: Management Advisors is a consultant firm that was retained

by the ACVIM Board of Regents in 2010 to review the ACVIM staff and central office operations. The report generated from that

review provided guidance and recommendations that resulted in restructuring the management of our organization. This past fall,

Management Advisors was asked to provide a follow-up evaluation of our central office. The company representatives interviewed

the ACVIM staff and the Board of Regents members. They spent time in direct observation of the office operations and examined a

number of our policy and financial documents. In their report, they conclude that the deficiencies identified in 2010 have been fully

rectified. They also noted that our central office is staffed by very capable and dedicated people.

6. Decision to delay the development of Leadership Development Program for three years, retire Leadership Development

Committee. The concept of a Leadership Development Program was revisited during the February 2015 retreat. Based on the

Page 4

number of initiatives that are currently in progress, it was decided to table this proposal for a few years. Concurrently, the

Leadership Development Committee was retired since the committee no longer had any designated responsibilities.

Initiatives “in-Progress”

7. Compensation/Reward for Executive Committee Service: At the November Board meeting, we agreed to develop a task force

to investigate the concept of providing compensation/reward to executive committee members. This proposal was discussed

further during the February meeting, and a charge for the Task force was developed. The charge to the committee is provided in

Addendum 1. Michelle Barton has agreed to chair the Task force, and is aiming to provide recommendations by the fall Board

meeting

8. Awards Nomination Protocol: Identifying recipients for the ACVIM awards can be challenging. A motion to change the process

was made by did not pass. Does this topic require further consideration?

9. Re-tasking of the International Relations Committee and Revision of Associate Status: During the November meeting, the

Board recognized a need to revise the Associate Organization and Members policy. The international relations committee was

tasked to accomplish this goal and to create a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the committee. The committee chair will

provide an update on these efforts during the June Board meeting.

Page 5

Addendum 1: Charge to the Executive Committee Compensation Task Force

May 4, 2015

Executive Committee Compensation Task Force

Background: In the past few years, our nomination committee has found it increasingly difficult to identify qualified diplomates who are

willing to run for Executive Committee positions. To increase interest in these positions, the Board of Regents and Nomination

Committee members have considered offering some form of compensation for service on the Executive Committee. In particular, there

is recognition that diplomates in private practice are often paid on a commission, and devoting time to service on the Executive

Committee could negatively impact their income. However, as discussion of compensation progressed, it became evident that Board

members were uncomfortable with developing a compensation policy that provided some members a direct benefit, as this action could

be perceived as a conflict of interest by our diplomates. Based on this concern, the Board decided to ask an independent committee to

consider this proposal. Hence, the Executive Committee Compensation Task Force was proposed.

The Executive Committee Compensation Task Force is charged with completing the following tasks:

Task 1: Investigate the potential benefit of providing compensation to diplomates who serve in the five elected officer positions (VP,

Pres-elect, President, Chair, and Past Chair) of the ACVIM Executive Committee and provide the Board of Regents a recommendation

regarding further action on this initiative

Task 2: If the TF recommends providing compensation, then the Board requests that the TF generate a prioritized list of suggested

compensation options for the Board to consider

We suggest that the committee approach this effort by considering the following questions

Determining what compensation/reward like associations provide members who serve in the executive leadership roles

Surveying past and current Executive Committee members to determine if they are supportive of providing some form of

compensation and, if so, what they might consider an appropriate and meaningful compensation

Present the Board with a report that

1. Advises the Board to support further action on this initiative or retire it. If the Task Force recommends further action, then was

ask that the report include

2. Brief justification and/or purpose statement for providing compensation

3. A prioritized list of recommended options, along with suggested recipients

Proposed Task Force Membership (5 diplomates and one ACVIM Staff member).

Chair - who will select the remaining diplomate members

Two past executive committee members

Two past voting Board of Regent members

One ACVIM Staff member, selected by our CEO, who will participate in discussion and assist with information gathering activities

We request that the Task Force submit their final report and recommendations by the Fall Board Meeting (Oct 28-31). If you have

questions please feel free to contact me, Virginia Buechner-Maxwell, Chair of the ACVIM Board of Regents

Page 6

President’s Report Author(s): Joe Kornegay

1. PRESIDENT’S YEAR IN REVIEW

The ACVIM President is tasked with several specific responsibilities, most notably developing a “State of the ACVIM Report” to be

delivered to the membership on-line through ACVIM 360 and coordinating the program for the Thursday membership luncheon during

the Forum. As part of the Thursday membership luncheon, the President makes a report on certain membership metrics and other

items. For sake of both the “State of the ACVIM Report” and membership luncheon presentation, I plan to focus somewhat on our

ongoing marketing/communication strategies (relying on input from Zack Wright from the MCC); the transition of JVIM to open access

and associated issues related to Article Processing Charges (APCs); and the refinement of the ACVIM’s non-discrimination policy and

development of a statement of inclusiveness. In keeping with the President’s role as the “public face” of the ACVIM, I was asked to

take the lead in discussions with our international colleagues, particularly relating to the APCs. For sake of the APCs, I have worked

with Chair Virginia Buchener-Maxwell and JVIM Co-Editors Ken Hinchcliff and Steve DiBartola to determine the best utilization of $15k

allocated by the BOR to the three European specialty colleges. Related to this issue, there is an ongoing dialogue between Chair

Buchener-Maxwell on the role of the International Relations Committee, with a request having been made to develop an SOP for

committee activities. The President is also responsible for appointments to certain committees but ACVIM staff has (graciously)

completed this process. With the advent of the Financial, Investment, and Audit Committee (FIAC), the President is no longer

responsible for oversight of the financial and investment policies of the ACVIM. However, I have still served as a liaison from the BOR

to this committee and have been involved in ongoing discussions.



1. State of the ACVIM Report /Membership Luncheon Presentation Improve Board Governance Medium/15 mins

2. JVIM Article Processing Charges (potentially with JVIM Report) Improve Board Governance Medium/15 mins

3. Roles of Chair and President in Communication (President as “public face”) Improve Board Governance Medium/15 mins


A. Topic #1 – Brief review of ongoing activities and plans.

B. Topic #2 – Update on where things stand with the APCs and the $15k allocated to the European colleges. Probably to be

discussed in the JVIM report.

C. Recent issues such as the transition of the JVIM to open access and discussions that arose within the ACVIM regarding the

“Indiana” religious freedom law led to some confusion on how/when the Chair and President should engage with the

membership on issues.

4. HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES

See “President’s Year in Review”

5. DETAILED REPORT

See “President’s Year in Review”

Page 7

Treasurer’s Report Author(s): Guy Pidgeon and Sue Ann Troxel

1. COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

Since the November BOR meeting, the Committee met via conference call to review financial reports, audit results, IRS filings (990) and the year-end data from Syntrinsic, our investment management firm. A draft committee charter was distributed for review in preparation for presentation to the BOR. The committee met by conference call in May, to discuss the 2015-16 budget process, review financial reports and review 1st quarter 2015 investment results from Syntrinsic. The ACVIM investments portfolio was allocated into two accounts in accordance with the revised investment policy approved by the BOR in November. A review of the budget guidelines, budget request process and related forms is underway.


Topic Mission Div./Cat. Priority/Time 1. Budget Requests and Timeline Support & Advocacy High / 5 min 2. Financial Statements / ACH options for speakers & BOR reimbursements Support & Advocacy High / 15 min 3. Investment Executive Summary / funds transfer to operating budget Support & Advocacy High / 20 min 4. Allocation between short term and long-term investment pools Support & Advocacy Med / 10 min 5. Approval of the Committee charter Support & Advocacy Low / 10 min


See DETAILED REPORT


See COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

5. DETAILED REPORT

Budget requests and timeline: As the Committee is seven months into its first year of existence, we are in something of a discovery phase. We believe the BOR should utilize some of the money generated by our investment portfolio for the organization and intend to bring proposals to the June Board meeting. A conservative approach to money management is laudable, but the organization may have been over cautious by allocating funds representing a full year of operating expense into the “same as cash” investment account. Holding 6 months in this pool would provide plenty of lead-time to begin moving funds from the main investment account in a time of crisis. Our Committee enjoys great support from the ACVIM staff and we look forward to our first involvement in developing the annual budget. To that end, revised budget request forms were distributed on May 15th and will be due back to the home office by June 14th. The following timeline will be used for development of the 2015-2016 budget: June 14 Budget requests are due to the central office

July 2 Distribute budget worksheets to staff (w/ May actuals) July 9 Return worksheets & year-end projections to Sue Ann July 14 Compile 1st draft / staff review July 16 Return changes to Sue Ann July 20 Compile 2nd draft / staff review July 21 Send budget to FIAC for review July 27 Face to Face Meeting with FIAC in Denver Aug 3-7 Modify budget per FIAC Committee Review Aug 17-21 Finalize budget approval from FIAC Committee Aug 25-28 Present budget to BOR (Date / time tbd) Sept 30 BOR budget vote (at the latest)

Page 8

Financial Position and Overview of Current ACVIM Financial Statements as of March 31, 2015: The financial position of the ACVIM remains very strong. The following Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss statements include comparison with the same period in the previous fiscal year:

ACVIM

12:32 PM

Balance Sheet Prev Year Comparison 05/04/2015

As of March 31, 2015

Accrual Basis

Mar 31, 15 Mar 31, 14 % Change

ASSETS

Current Assets

Checking/Savings

1000 · Cash On Hand 1,408,345.29 2,029,679.01 (30.61%)

1100 · Investments - Unrestricted 6,619,453.24 5,369,270.70 23.28%

1120 · Investments - Restricted 51,225.45 31,675.15 61.72%

Total Checking/Savings 8,079,023.98 7,430,624.86 8.73%

Accounts Receivable 500.50 539.43 (7.22%)

Other Current Assets

1300 · Receivables from CV 397,966.00 266,899.00 49.11%

1400 · Prepaid Expenses 132,081.44 104,084.60 26.9%

Total Other Current Assets 530,047.44 370,983.60 42.88%

Total Current Assets 8,609,571.92 7,802,147.89 10.35%

Fixed Assets 549,719.17 637,515.95 (13.77%)

Other Assets 309,964.00 349,964.00 (11.43%)

TOTAL ASSETS 9,469,255.09 8,789,627.84 7.73%

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Current Liabilities

Accounts Payable 100,383.82 33,512.95 199.54%

Credit Cards 4,730.30 428.06 1,005.06%

Other Current Liabilities 2,608,263.32 2,522,645.69 3.39%

Total Current Liabilities 2,713,377.44 2,556,586.70 6.13%

Total Liabilities 2,713,377.44 2,556,586.70 6.13%

Equity

3100 · Unrestricted Net Assets 1,904,108.03 1,077,836.13 76.66%

3200 · Board Designated Net Assets 4,819,109.65 4,783,001.56 0.76%

3300 · Temporarily Restricted 364,593.49 405,064.19 (9.99%)

Net Income (331,933.52) (32,860.74) (910.12%)

Total Equity 6,755,877.65 6,233,041.14 8.39%

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 9,469,255.09 8,789,627.84 7.73%

Page 9

ACVIM

5:01 PM

Profit & Loss Prev Year Comparison

04/23/2015

October 2014 through March 2015

Accrual Basis

Oct '14 - Mar 15

Oct '13 - Mar 14 % Change Reason for Variance

Ordinary Income/Expense

Income

4000 · General Admin Income 51,703.38 82,910.62 (37.6%) Pacemaker funds down

4105 · Membership Income 569,533.60 425,874.15 33.7% Job Ad funds up

4205 · JVIM Income 92,252.66 90,647.78 1.8%

4300 · Program Income 226,844.97 190,958.37 18.8% Ace Course doubled

Total Income 940,334.61 790,390.92 19%

Gross Profit 940,334.61 790,390.92 19%

Expense

6000 · General Admin Expense 684,918.44 641,796.89 6.7%

8000 · Program Expense 751,596.44 515,811.04 45.7% Increased budget for:

Total Expense 1,436,514.88 1,157,607.93 24.1% Advertising 20K

Net Ordinary Income (496,180.27) (367,217.01) (35.1%) Job Task 55K

Other Income/Expense

Fellowships 75K

Other Income

Payroll 50K (new position)

9000 · Interest Income 124,201.11 94,458.37 31.5%

9200 · Unrealized gain (or loss) 47,425.79 246,641.90 (80.8%)

Total Other Income 171,626.90 341,100.27 (49.7%)

Other Expense

9400 · Federal/State Income Tax 7,380.15 6,744.00 9.4%

Total Other Expense 7,380.15 6,744.00 9.4%

Net Other Income 164,246.75 334,356.27 (50.9%)

Net Income

(331,933.52) (32,860.74) (910.1%)

ACVIM

5:12 PM

Statement of Cash Flows 04/23/2015

October 2014 through March 2015

Oct '14 - Mar 15

OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Net Income -327,411.29

Adjustments to reconcile Net Income

to net cash provided by operations:

1200 · Accounts Receivable -117.02

1300 · Receivables from CV -179,172.00

1400 · Prepaid Expenses -37,455.72

2000 · Accounts Payable -42,171.48

2100 · Key Bank Mastercard 1,472.50

Page 10

2050 · Foundation Payable -800.00

2200 · Payroll Liabilities 6,470.55

2300 · Salaries Payable -24,353.69

2310 · Vacation Accrued 11,544.85

2330 · FSA Clearing Account 3,002.12

:2410 · Def Membership Dues 198,110.96

:2431 · Def Course Fees - ACE 10,900.00

2432 · Def Exam Fees - Cardiology 25,830.00

2433 · Def Exam Fees - Gen Exam 6,895.00

2434 · Def Exam fees - LAIM -41,820.00

2435 · Def Exam Fees - Neurology 37,450.00

2436 · Def Exam Fees - Oncology 43,870.00

2437 · Def Exam Fees - SAIM 103,905.00

2440 · Def Specialty Sponsorships 46,000.00

2505 · Advertising Fees 8,235.00

2510 · Registration Fees 672,950.00

2530 · Event/Function Fees 2,727.00

2540 · Exhibitor Fees 94,790.00

2560 · Sponsorships 353,300.00

Net cash provided by Operating Activities 974,151.78

INVESTING ACTIVITIES

1715 · Acc Dep - Office Equipment 1,797.48

1725 · Acc Dep- Furniture/Fixtures 406.44

1735 · Acc Depreciation - Building 5,749.68

1745 · Acc Dep- Bldg Improvements 2,954.22

1755 · Acc Amortization - Software 26,829.90

1775 · Acc Amortization - Trademark 741.24

Net cash provided by Investing Activities 38,478.96

Net cash increase for period 1,012,630.74

Cash at beginning of period 7,066,393.24

Cash at end of period 8,079,023.98

Quick Pay for BOR reimbursements - ACVIM’s new bank, Chase offers a new payment option: Chase Quick Pay – This service is very similar to PayPal. You would sign up for this service at Chase .com and you would put in your banking information. ACVIM would set up a payment to be processed, you would receive an email message, and you would sign on to your quick pay account at Chase and use your activation code to accept the payment. We have the Chase Quick Pay information sheets for you to review. Please notify Sue Ann if you want to use this service. We will continue to offer reimbursement by check. With our new positive pay service, check holders can cash ACVIM reimbursement checks at any Chase bank nationwide. This will come in handy during Forum!

Page 11

Investment Executive Summary – The following is the summary for our investment accounts as of March 31, 2015.

Page 12

Funds transfer to operating budget – We have been encouraged by Syntrinsic to set up a spending policy that would transfer a specific amount of funds from the investment account into the operating budget for mission and strategic initiatives. We could set up an income account to receive these funds and to disburse the funds into the various programs as approved through the budget process. This would allow us to continue using one budget to fund both operating and mission/strategic initiatives.

Allocation between short-term and long-term investment pools – ACVIM has set up a short-term investment fund that is invested in “near cash” investments. We currently are holding one year of projected total expenses in this account which totals 2.4M. This account is earning a substantially lower rate of return. We recommend that we reduce this amount to 3 or 6 months of projected total expenses which would still be conservative (750K to 1.25M). The short-term funds would be immediately available in case of a financial crisis giving us time to sell long-term investments that would be needed to cover our costs.

Approval of the Committee charter – The FIAC has developed our committee charter and we are presenting the charter to the BOR for approval. We have our purpose statement, committee composition, committee meetings, and general responsibilities under finance, investments, and audit.

Page 14

Marketing & Communications Committee Report (Includes Scientific Advisory Board) Author(s): Dr. Zachary Wright Dr. Christopher Byers Dr. Ashley Whitehead

Stephanie Peters 1. COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW The Marketing and Communications Committee (MCC) has been working on a number of initiatives aimed at promoting specialty veterinary medicine in general and developing tools to help members market themselves at the local level. The three main areas of focus are:

Animal Owner Awareness Campaign ACVIM and ACVS joined forces to create a campaign to raise awareness of specialty veterinary medicine. The campaign includes development of an animal owner focused website, improved search for a specialist tool and social media. A marketing and public relations campaign will promote the movement and get the word out.

Diplomate Marketing Toolkit A toolkit for Diplomates is being developed and will provide the opportunity for individuals or practices to customize marketing materials to meet their needs.

Local VMA Sponsorship Program The local VMA sponsorship program allows ACVIM to get the message out to primary care veterinarians in a consistent manner by identifying potential Diplomate speakers in major markets, providing training on delivering a cohesive message, providing sponsorship of those speakers at their local VMA’s CE sessions and getting feedback from both the Diplomate speaker and local VMA’s.

2. SUMMARY OF POINTS NEEDING BOARD DISCUSSION &/OR ACTION Topic Mission Div./Cat. Priority/Time A discussion about the MCC progress and the subsequent review of the LAIM marketing needs. 15 min. VetSOAP 20 min. 3. BACKGROUND FOR DISCUSSION POINTS N/A 4. HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES See details below on the following topics:

• Animal Owner Marketing Campaign • Marketing/Communications Plan • Local VMA Speaker Sponsorship Program • ACVIM Marketplace • New Committee Members and Leadership • Budget/Expense Update • Scientific Advisory Board Update

5. DETAILED REPORT Animal Owner Marketing Campaign/ACVS Coalition Website & Search for Specialist:

• www.vetspecialists.com was acquired • Logo selected by MCC and ACVS’s comparable committee • Animal owner directed internal medicine content being edited/written by SAB • Animal Survivor videos are being repurposed for the site • MCC reviewed and provided feedback on the site • Foundations for ACVIM and ACVS have been offered advertising space • Diplomate Dashboard was updated to better collect information for search feature

Page 15

Social Media: • New content will auto update Twitter; Hootsuite will be used by both ACVIM and ACVS to add additional content

Marketing:

• See attached communication plan • ACVIM website and email’s include “teaser” logo • Forum presentations at specialty meetings and at the general membership meeting • Presentation in Diplomate Lounge at Forum • Reminders in Cyber Café in Diplomate Lounge to update your information • Logo stickers distributed during Forum

Public Relations:

• Working with PR firm that specializes in the veterinary industry: Fetching Communications April: Internal FAQ developed. Press release and pitch support materials including media list development. Spokespeople selected (includes MCC members and Diplomates that have signed up in response to our communications). May: Prepare spokespeople for proactive campaign and reactive statement. Develop timeline for website launch and campaign. Training calls for spokespeople. Website content reviewed. Press release approved and finalized. June: Proactive media outreach. Interview coordination and follow up.

Marketing/Communications Plan As part of the budget request process for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the MCC received budget approval of $86,000 to implement the recommendations made by SE2 in the communications plan that include brand/logo redesign and development of a Diplomate Marketing Toolkit. Plan details are as follows:

April: Discovery interviews May: Logo redesign; survey to membership; review findings June: Design and copy for Diplomate Toolkit materials July: Finalize Diplomate Toolkit materials and prepare for use

Local VMA Speaker Sponsorship Program The local VMA sponsorship program allows ACVIM to get the message out to primary care veterinarians in a consistent manner by identifying potential Diplomate speakers in major markets, providing training on delivering a cohesive message, providing sponsorship of those speakers at their local VMA’s monthly CE sessions and getting feedback from both the Diplomate speaker and the local VMA’s. The program includes sponsorship of CE, speaker honorarium, travel and presentation materials.

Starting with the Dallas-Fort Worth (September 2015) and Virginia (November 2015) regions, a call for speakers went out and a list of interested people was collected. A guideline for selection of speakers is being developed, along with a training video, slide deck and speaker expectations document. Following the speaking engagement, feedback will be requested from the VMA and the speaker.

ACVIM Marketplace The ACVIM Marketplace provides members of the veterinary community with an easy solution for product and service research. It also provides vendors with a great opportunity to connect with this audience. Since launching the Marketplace in February through the month of March, we had 250 visitors to the site, with $7,500 in advertising revenue.

The Marketplace will be promoted throughout Forum with fliers to attendees and exhibitors, as well as signage and advertising in the program.

New Committee Members and Leadership The 2015-2016 year will bring some changes to the MCC. Chris Byers will be rotating off the committee (and we thank him very much for his years of service!). Zack Wright will serve as the chair and Bill Tyrell will serve as the assistant chair. Three new members also were added to replace those rotating off: Bill Bush (neurology), Kevin Christiansen (cardiology) and Cameon Ohmes (LAIM). In addition, Linda Fineman will become the Foundation representative, Harold McKenzie will represent the Forum Committee and Susan White will be the board representative.

Page 16

Budget/Expense Update Item Budget Actual Expense To-Date Expected Expenses VMA Sponsorships $25,000 $0 $6,000 Marketing/Communications Plan $86,000 $43,000 $43,000 Animal Owner Campaign $100,000 $60,000 $40,000

Scientific Advisory Board Update The goal of the ACVIM Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is to provide scientific and accurate information to animal owners through multiple media including ACVIM websites. Earlier this year the SAB developed and posted three fact sheets for each specialty (grand total of 30 fact sheets available on the website) and the ACVIM website was updated to use “Animal Owners” instead of “Pet Owners.” The SAB is now working on a new project for the joint ACVIM/ACVS vetspecialists.com website.

1. The Veterinary Marketing Firm is completing a keyword search research analysis for the new website to determine the most searched topics by animal owners. Future articles will be based on this research.

2. Some of the previous fact sheets that the SAB produced were modified to include key searchable terms and have sufficient changes to allow Google to re-index the content to the new website.

3. SAB members have been tasked with updating existing fact sheets to include keyword search language for animal owners. The original authors and the SAB will have the opportunity to review edited fact sheets before they are posted on the website.

4. In addition, the SAB is developing new “what is a veterinary specialist” articles for each specialty to be posted on the new website. These articles were completed in April.

5. The SAB wishes to thank Phoebe Smith and Andrew Isaacs for all their hard work and efforts during their term on the SAB. Their contributions have been instrumental in getting the SAB underway.

6. The SAB wishes to welcome Donna Spector as the new MCC representative. One additional representative is pending approval.

7. Ashley Whitehead will assume the role of assistant chair and a new chair will be appointed.

Page 17

ACVIM Forum Program Committee, Exhibits & Sponsorships Report Author(s): Dr. Frederic Gaschen, Forum Chair Dr. Harold McKenzie, Forum Assistant Chair

Roberta Herman, Leah Gayheart, Ivy Leventhal


The Forum Program Committee coordinated the planning and scheduling of the scientific program for the 2015 Forum in close collaboration with subcommittees from each ACVIM specialty. In the past 6 months, the final program and schedule were successfully finalized. Research reports and late-breaking research reports were added according to templates agreed upon with each specialty subcommittee. Great attention was paid to avoid overlap in the scheduling of research abstracts, research reports or lectures in a particular specialty or special interest area (such as small animal uro-nephrology, gastroenterology, etc.). A last minute add-on session on canine influenza was organized in April with the help of ISCAID.


Topic Mission Div./Cat. Priority/Time Update on 2015 Forum ACVIM Forum High / 5-10 min


This short discussion will allow the FPC to provide a brief update on the Forum and make it possible to the BOR members to ask questions or offer constructive criticism as needed about the preparation of the 2015 Forum


See full report below

5. DETAILED REPORT

General Coordination of Forum Program: The specialty program subcommittees worked hard to put together great programs in their specific areas. Further collaboration in the development of joint sessions that would be of interest to diplomates from more than one specialty is a continued goal of the FPC. With the help of ISCAID, the FPC has added a last minute session on the recent canine influenza outbreak in the Midwest to the Saturday morning program. New to 2015 Forum: In October 2014, all ACVIM central office staff participated in a two-day facilitated immersion workshop titled „Innovation Lab.‟ The workshop focused on identifying Forum attendees‟ desired impressions...i.e. what we want attendees to say about Forum. Following the workshop, staff embarked on a journey to develop a list of actions to elicit the desired impression at each phase leading up to, during, and following Forum. After several months of continual refinement, we are thrilled to showcase a multitude of enhancements (some large, some small) for 2015 Forum. Personalized communications, welcome / thank you voicemails & videos, text reminders and increased signage are some of the enhancements you‟ll see this year. Also, we have increased the number of “Breakfast with the Expert” sessions, which are now offered to Diplomates and Candidates exclusively in the early morning on Friday and Saturday. Filming and streaming of sessions will not be available for the 2015 Forum because of organizational challenges. However, this pilot project remains very important to the FPC and will be implemented for the first time at the 2016 Forum. Additional exciting changes have already been identified for 2016. We look forward to your feedback! Keynote Address – We are pleased to welcome Mr. James Wight to deliver this year‟s keynote address. The son of James Herriot, bestselling author of the internationally celebrated books and popular All Creatures Great and Small television series, Mr. Wight will reveal „the man behind the stories.‟ With access to his father‟s papers, correspondence, manuscripts and photographs, along with intimate recollections of the farmers, locals, and friends who populate the James Herriot books, Jim Wight penned his biography of the man who was not only his father but his best friend. This keynote address is not to be missed. Connections with Comparable Foreign Congresses: The FPC has worked to solidify our collaboration with the ECVIM-CA Congress. Informal meetings between their Organizing Committee and the FPC are scheduled at both meetings. Chris Byers spoke last year at the ECVIM_CA Congress in Germany about of the challenges of our Diplomates in specialty practice, and the way our College is approaching them. At this year‟s Forum, Dr. Jepson from the Royal Vet College in London, UK is speaking on Friday

Page 18

morning about chronic kidney disease in cats. In the fall, our diplomate Dr. Paul Morley will be presenting at the ECVIM-CA Congress in Portugal about study design in clinical research. New Director of Conferences, Partnerships and Publications: Following the departure of Mya Sadler, Gena Erwin, CMP is the new Director and a new member of the Forum Program Committee since May 4, 2015. Summary of 2015 Research Reports and Late Breaking Research Reports: Summary statistics are provided below.

Research Reports Late Breaking Research Reports

Specialty/Discipline Slots Submissions Accepted Slots Submissions Accepted Equine 20 15 12 8 8 6

Food Animal 8 7 7 3 3 3 Cardiology 16 5 4 12 6 6 Neurology 16 16 12 4 4 4 Oncology 16 7 7 9 3 3

SAIM 16 16 8 8 7 7 TOTAL 92 66 50 44 31 29

ACVIM Forum Registration: As of May 12, 2015, registration for 2015 ACVIM Forum is 2,330 (excluding exhibitors). Diplomates and candidates account for 53% of registrations to date. Attendance breakdown for previous years is provided below for reference.

Exhibits and Sponsorships: As of May 12, 2015, approximately $1,063,005 in exhibit and sponsorship revenue, and miscellaneous income has been generated. Miscellaneous income categories include program advertisements, conference bag inserts, additional exhibitor badges and attendee mailing lists. New for 2015:

Five attendee lunch voucher sponsors

Virtual conference bag – inserts posted on the ACVIM Forum website.

Digital New Product Showcase – if 3 or 4 additional participants express interest, this new feature will be piloted.

Page 19

Abstract and Moderator Report Author(s): Ellen Behrend and Barbara Kitchell


Drs. Behrend and Kitchell, in their roles as Vice President and President-Elect, respectively, worked with Dr. Robert Goodman, chair of

the Education and Research Committee, and Ms. Ivy Leventhal of the central office to coordinate research abstract assignment and

judging. As of the time of writing the report, assignment of moderators/judges for the research abstract sessions remains to be done.

The software purchased last year to help with the process of abstract submission and judging seemed to work well and saved many

hours of work for Ivy. The previously established timeline was a bit tight with regard to the interval between receiving the reviews and

notification of authors. The responsibility for abstracts will transfer entirely to the Education and Research Committee for the 2016

Forum. It is anticipated that inclusion of a large number of Diplomates on the committee with varying subspecialties and interests will

aid in the review process and in identifying additional Diplomates for judging abstract submissions and moderating abstract

presentations.



Abstract review - current guidelines Education/Forum High/5 Min

Abstract review – criteria for automatic rejection Education/Forum High/10 Min

Abstract 250-word limit Education/Forum High/5 Min

Abstract scheduling Education/Forum High/5 Min


1. See detailed report in Section 5 for information on submissions and acceptances. 2. See detailed report in Sections 5A through D.


See below

5. DETAILED REPORT

Summary of 2015 Abstract Submissions and Judging: Summary statistics are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Submission numbers are down almost 20% in 2015 compared to 2014. The trend from 2011-2014 was consistently upwards. The reason for the large decrease is not clear. The percent of accepted abstracts for 2015 (86%) is comparable to the previous years. Submissions among disciplines had some notable differences; the total number of SAIM submissions decreased greatly. For Ms. Ivy Leventhal, “riding herd” over such a complicated process requires substantial time, energy, and, occasionally, diplomacy. Many thanks, Ivy!

Table 1. Comparison of 2010-2014 Submission Data for Research Abstracts

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total abstracts reviewed 402 425 473 500 403

Accepted submissions 346 (86%) 371 (87%) 420 (89%) 440 (88%) 345 (86%)

Oral presentations 200 187 158 121 205

Poster presentations 148 184 254 314 135

Withdrawn presentations 8 30 4 5 5

ACVIM Resident Research Award Eligible 106 88 98 90 76

Page 21

Table 2. Abstracts Submitted/Accepted and Resident Award Candidates by Discipline

Discipline Submitted

2104 Submitted

2105 Accepted

2014 Accepted

2015

Resident Award Candidate

2014

Resident Award Candidate

2015

Cardiology 56

(11.3%) 58

(14.4%) 50

(11.5%) 45

(13.0%) 7

(7.8%) 7

(9.2%)

Equine 97

(19.6%) 72

(17.9%) 81

(18.6%) 63

(18.3%) 18

(20.0%) 20

(26.3%)

Food Animal

32 (6.5%)

22 (5.5%)

27 (6.2%)

21 (6.1%)

9 (10.0%)

5 (6.6%)

Neurology 28

(5.6%) 30

(7.4%) 20

(4.6%) 26

(7.5%) 8

(8.9%) 11

(14.5%)

Oncology 13*

(2.6%)

21*

(5.2%) 10*

(2.3%) 19*

(5.5%) 5

(5.6%) 5

(6.6%)

SAIM 270

(54.4%) 200*

(49.6%) 248

(56.9%) 171*

(49.6%) 43

(47.8%) 28

(36.8%)

Totals 496* 403* 436* 345* 90 76 * 4 mandatory abstracts in 2014 (2 VCS poster, 2 VCS oral). 5 mandatory abstracts in 2015 (1 from ESVE, 4 from VCS ESVE is poster, 2 VCS poster, 2 VCS oral).

A. Abstract review process – confusion over current guidelines that need to be clarified

Rule regarding presentation in the previous 9 months. The wording on the submission site was: Abstracts that have

been published as an abstract and/or presented elsewhere within the 9 months previous to the ACVIM Forum may

be submitted for consideration, but must pass the ACVIM abstract review process as for any abstract. The place of

prior publication and/or presentation and copyright permission must be disclosed at the time of abstract

submission.

o This past year, it was believed that for abstracts that were presented within the past 9 months, the abstract had to be submitted as above; anything older than 9 months was allowable if accepted and did not require additional scrutiny.

o Dr. Behrend believes the initial intent of the ruling was that anything older than 9 months was not allowed at all.

Single case reports – some reviewers thought that inclusion of 2-3 cases was a “single case report” B. Abstract review process – criteria to consider for automatic rejection

Areas to consider are: o Abstract receives a score below a cut-off, e.g. max score is 20; some abstracts were accepted with scores of 6.33 o Abstract format not followed o Unethical treatment of animals o Use of off-label drugs in food animals o Experimental studies using laboratory animals in species not germane to ACVIM, e.g. rabbits o Anything not allowed in JVIM

Rules of automatic rejection, if any are accepted, will need to be included in the submission guidelines and instructions for the abstract judges.

It would be ideal if any identified as automatically rejected are not sent to reviewers; screening could be done by ERC committee members.

If prescreening occurs, it is still possible that some that should be automatically rejected are sent to reviewers. Furthermore, it is plausible that a reviewer could not realize rejection is required but makes an illuminating comment. Extension or alteration of the timeline should be considered to accommodate the additional scrutiny, e.g. time for the Education and Research Committee to read the abstracts before being distributed to the reviewers and to review all comments and decide on required rejections before scheduling occurs. This year to accommodate some post-review

Page 22

decisions, Ivy had to send 2 emails – one that said an abstract had been accepted or rejected and a follow-up regarding type of presentation and scheduling.

C. Abstract review – other issues

Many reviewers commented on the lack of information present in an abstract and deducted points accordingly. The 250-word limit is at fault.

For 2016, how decisions on abstract rejection are made will be included in the reviewer instructions. Understanding of the process may aid in the quality of review.

D. Abstract scheduling

Scheduling of abstracts is complex.

Two things to consider for easier and better scheduling: o Abstracts in the category “Other” should be scheduled in a specific area if it fits o It would be optimal if a past Forum chair could be included in the scheduling; consideration should be given to the

chair that is leaving the board doing the scheduling for 2 years. II. Summary of 2015 Research Reports and Late Breaking Research Reports: Materials on the Research Reports are provided in the Forum Program Committee report. The Research Abstracts and Research Reports acceptance and scheduling process intersects if/when Research Abstracts are seen as suitable for Research Reports. In fact, some presenters submit in both categories, with a preference for selection as a Research Report and the Research Abstract as a fall back. Ivy coordinates with the Forum Program Committee to integrate this scheduling.

Page 23

Consensus Statements Small and Large Animal Author(s): Mary Anna Labato, J.T.McClure


There was successful publication of the 2014 CS on Antimicrobial Use in Animals and AMR ( Chair- Scott Weisse ) in JVIM. The 3 LA

CS being presented at the 2015 Forum are revision statements of 1. EPM (Chair- Stephen Reed), 2. IAD( Chair- Laurent Couetil) and

3. Strep equi (Chair- Ashley Boyle) . Not expecting any problems here.

The SA 2013 CS Role of Carbs in Feline Obesity and DM is presently reviewing the manuscript that had been submitted to JVIM. The

2014 CS Management of Uroliths in Dogs and Cats was presented at the 2014 Forum. The committee is working on manuscript

presentation for JVIM, they are delayed in submitting but are working toward a new end date of June 2015.

Both SA CS for 2015 are on schedule for presentation at the 2015 Forum. One is a revision of the Recommendations for Transfusion

Medicine (Chair- Jane Wardrop), and new is Management of Seizure Disorders (Chair- Michael Podell)

Still need to finalize guidelines for joint consensus statements between ECEIM and ACVIM-LA as well as guidelines for revisions of CS.

We have a draft guideline for revising CS but should finalize it in the next year.


Topic Mission Div./Cat. Education Priority/Time

New statement- Evidenced-based use of Antacids in Dogs and Cats (recommendation Chair – Stanley Marks). Currently the LA membership is being solicited for recommendations of a new consensus statement as well as revision of a previous statement.

Education/Forum 3 minutes

Revision statements- SA Management of chronic vascular disease in dogs ( Chair TBA)


Brief discussion to confirm the BOR financial support going forward for revising consensus statements in the future. (Education)


Update on SA Carb CS Education/Forum 2 minutes


A. Approval of CS topics

B. Discussion of whether we continue with one new and one revision statement. This year the majority of the suggestions from

the SA membership were for revision of past statements. To complete this is a timely manner, should there be more than 1

revision statement for the next few years? Does JVIM open access give us more room for more statements ( still keeping the

word count to 10,000)? Or is cost prohibitive for an increase in the number of statements per year?

C. A brief review and update to the Board of the timeline of events and conclusion of the Carb CS. The Carb CS has been a

difficult statement to complete since it was first created. There has been a suggestion that members of industry should not be

part of CS as the potential for conflict of interest or at least a perception of conflict of interest may occur. Do we need a policy

on this?


It was surprising how many suggestions came in from the SA membership for revision and updates of prior CS. To complete

this task in a timely manner we would need to have multiple prior statements updated over the next 5 years. We need to look

at cost of this endeavor as well as a ranking of the most frequently requested statements. So far they have been 1.

Hypertension, 2. Proteinuria, 3. Lyme

Page 24

LA: The antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in animals CS was published in the March/April edition of the Journal.

The EIPH CS is completed and waiting for publication,; I expect it will be in the May/June edition. Three revised CS

(Strangles, EPM, and IAD) are currently in progress and will be presented at this year’s forum.

5. DETAILED REPORT

This has been a busy year for CS.

The Role of Dietary Carbohydrate in Feline Obesity and Diabetes Mellitus- Drew Forrester (Chair) (ACVIM)

The draft version of the 2013 SAIM consensus statement was posted on the ACVIM Website for all SA ACVIM Diplomates to view in

August 2014 for comments. Comments were sent back to the Chair. A completed manuscript was submitted to the editors of JVIM in

October. A minority group of the panel voiced concern to MA Labato that the Views being represented in the statement were not

clearly representing the minority opinions. Publication was delayed until opinions from all members of the committee could be

obtained after the Chair felt that the committee had reached an impasse. Past BOR member at large Dr Rance Sellon is presently

serving as a mediator to see if this CS can be published with all committee members in agreement with the final product.

Management of Uroliths in Dogs and Cats- Joseph Bartges (Chair) (ACVIM)

The draft version of the 2014 SAIM CS has yet to be posted on the ACVIM website for review and comments. The committee thought

that the outline that was submitted was sufficient for posting. It was explained that the draft required version needed to be a fully

prepared manuscript for submission to JVIM. Presently, Drs Lulich and Berent are working on the manuscript. They are anticipating

completion by June 2015.

Antimicrobial Use in Animals and AMR- Scott Weese (Chair) (ACVIM)

Consensus statement has been published in JVIM

Exercise-induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPA) in Horses- Ken Hinchcliff (Chair) (ACVIM)

Completed and awaiting publication in the May/June edition of JVIM

LA are revising 3 older CS for 2015. They are:

Equine Protozoal Myelitis (EPM)- Stephen Reed (Chair) (ACVIM)

Equine Inflammatory Airway Disease (IAD)- Lauren Couetil (Chair) (ACVIM)

Streptococcus equi spp.equi- Ashley Boyle (Chair) (ACVIM)

According to Chairs all three are progressing satisfactory. Scheduled for 20-25 minute presentation at the 2015 Forum

SA IM had a late start, but has caught up and have one new and one revision Consensus statement in place

Management of Seizure Disorders- Michael Podell (Chair) (ACVIM)

Recommendations for Transfusion Medicine- Jane Wardrop (Chair) (ACVIM)

Both statements coming along and nearing completion

Expected 20-25 minute presentation at the 2015 Forum

Numerous suggestions were obtained from the SA membership for the CS for 2016. These are being presented for a vote of approval

by the BOR at the June meeting. There will be one new and one revision this year. If the BOR would like, we could easily add a

second revision statement this year.

New CS proposed: Evidence –based use of antacids in dogs and cats – Stanley Marks suggested as Chair

This might be a SA and LA combined statement

Revised Statement proposed- Management of Chronic Valvular Disease in Dogs

At the time of this report, LA is considering CS topics, both new and revised. Will expect to have the topics to the board for approval at

the time of the forum BOR meeting. The out-going and incoming LA At-Large member will work together with the appropriate board

member for ECEIM in coming up with draft guideline for combined CS between ECEIM and ACVIM-LA this summer.

Page 25

College-Wide IOCART Author(s) Wallace B. Morrison

1. COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW The College-Wide IOCART (Improved Oversight of Credentials and Residency Training) Committee has continued to develop a new document that would govern residency training and credentials and that would ultimately replace the current General Information Guide (GIG). The idea of replacing the current GIG with an entirely new document grew out of ideas expressed at a joint residency training (RTC) and credentials committee (CC) retreat held in June of 2014 that involved all ACVIM Specialties because instructions in the current GIG suffered from years of pasted in revisions and as a result, were often confusing, contradictory, redundant, and not precise enough. During the last nine months our College-Wide IOCART has been through numerous drafts of a proposed new document that has the tentative title of “Certification Manual for Residents, Mentors and Training Programs.” This document is arranged in similar fashion to the present GIG with Part 1 providing general information, common definitions, and responsibilities common to all Specialties plus a Part 2 that provides Specialty-specific information under various headings. The College-wide IOCART focused on Part 1. The latest draft has now been turned over to each Specialty’s IOCARTs and/or RTC’s and CC’s for review and comments regarding Part 1. In addition, each specialty’s IOCART is tasked with completion of the Specialty-specific text (Part 2) that will govern their specialty’s training programs. Their work continues, but should be finalized during the 2015 Forum. Each of these committees has been invited to attend a day long retreat June 2, 2015 just prior to the start of the 2015 Forum to complete drafts of the sections they have written or rewritten for their Specialties. Every attempt has been made to keep the general membership appraised of the process and progress through discussions at Specialty Business Meetings, announcements in the Specialists Quarterly, and on April 9, 2015 a letter that was distributed to as much of the ACVIM membership as possible via ACVIM 360.

2. SUMMARY OF POINTS NEEDING BOARD DISCUSSION &/OR ACTION Topic Mission Div./Cat. Priority/Time Topic #1 Training Mission High – up to 30 min. Provide an opportunity for Specialty Presidents to express concerns about the process of improving residency oversight as it has been implemented so far and to report feedback from the specialties regarding Specialty constituents. 3. BACKGROUND FOR DISCUSSION POINTS Topic #1. The BOR is well aware of the tensions that exist between of some of the Specialties within ACVIM. The goal of the College-Wide IOCART has always been to improve residency training and oversight. It has never been to impose standards, tasks, or goals on a specialty that does not want them.

Topic #2 4. HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES Planned retreat for participating Specialty IOCART’s, CC’s, and RTC’s June 2, 2015 to try and complete drafts of Specialty-Specific text. 5. DETAILED REPORT The College-Wide IOCART has been through 7 drafts of the new “Certification Manual for Residents, Mentors and Training Programs” and has now referred that last draft on to Specialty ICART’s, RTC’s, and CC’s for review of Part 1 and completion of Specialty –specific sections in Part 2. Once the comments and recommendations from each Specialty have been submitted, the Specialty President and/or President-Elect will integrate those recommendations into the next draft(s) of the College-wide document. When a final draft that is satisfactory to all Specialty members on this committee has been completed, it will be posted for a period of review and comment by the general membership. Final revisions will be made based on input from all members. The expectation is that Part 1 of the final document will be reviewed, and then voted on for approval by the entire ACVIM membership. Part 2 will be voted on in sections. Each section that is specific to a Specialty will be reviewed, and then voted on for approval by only that individual Specialty. Assuming approval by the general membership of Part 1 and approval by each Specialty of their respective portion of Part 2, the complete document would then be submitted to the Board of Regents for final adoption.

Page 26

Award’s committees Author(s): Leah A. Cohn


The Kirk Award committee, and the DSA award committee, reviewed a number of extremely well-qualified nominees for each award.

The award winners were chosen, and the names provided in time to prepare presentation videos to be shown during the membership

luncheon at the Forum.

During selection of the Kirk Award, the committee recognized several issues with the manner in which the winner is chosen and the

criteria for choosing the winner. They developed suggestions to improve the award selection, and these suggestions will be presented

to the ACVIM BOR at the June meeting. Ideally, the new criteria will be in place by 2016.

Currently, only 2 awards are given annually to ACVIM diplomats. It may be time for the specialties themselves to consider adding

individual awards to their diplomats.



Kirk award other medium – 15 min


A. The Kirk Award selection committee, comprised mostly of past winners, recognized deficiencies and ambiguities in the

currently used score sheets and awards criteria. They spent time developing what they believe will be improvements both in

the mechanism of selecting the winners, and in the criteria used in award selection.


Award recipients were chosen from among several outstanding nominees.

Although there were few initial nominations, personal solicitations as well as multiple reminder solicitations to the membership

drew several qualified nominations for the Kirk Award, with fewer (but still well qualified) nominations for the DSA award. We

suggest that the process of nomination be reviewed and clarified. If possible, it should also be simplified.

The committee strongly support implementation of the suggestions outlined in the detailed report, below.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Proposal for the ACVIM BOR regarding the Kirk Award Selection criteria:

The members of the 2015 Kirk Award Selection committee would like to suggest some modifications to the selection criteria

used for determining the winner of the Kirk Award. As currently designed, the criteria are

1. Having an outstanding career in veterinary medicine with national and international recognition for one’s contributions. Selection is based on the life career of the nominee rather than on a single activity or incident. (30%)

2. Sustained (15 or more years) service as a veterinarian in such activities as clinical medical practice, instruction, research and/or public service. (35%)

3. Production of major published works and/or development of significant diagnostic, therapeutic or control techniques and/or procedures. (30%)

4. Contributions to veterinary organizations (5%) A score sheet is provided to each of the award selection committee members.

Page 27

There are several issues of concern. The first is simply a mechanical change. We propose changing the scoring sheets to use a point system, an example of which is provided below (assuming our other suggestions are implemented). This change would simply award points in each category. Currently, the score sheet calls for scores out of 100 points for each weighted category, requiring that someone later on calculate the points due for each category. Instead, we can simply assign a number of points following a weighting system. For example, currently item #4, contributions to veterinary organizations, is worth 5% of the score. Each reviewer will give a certain number of points, such as 80 points, to that category. Someone then has to multiply 80 x 0.05 to come up with the weighted score. Instead, we’d like to simply be able to give 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 points for the item worth 5% of the total score. Another suggested change is related to the 2nd criteria, sustained service. Currently, this is worth the most points (35% of the total score) but it is difficult to discriminate between candidates. The criteria merely calls for 15 or more years of service. Should someone with 15 years be scored differently than someone with 20 years or 30 years? If the point of this criteria is to emphasize that this is an award for life-time achievement and the recipient should be near the pinnacle of their career, perhaps a smaller number of points with a definitive system of division is in order. We suggest that to even be considered for eligible to receive the Kirk award a person must have had “A record of sustained service as a veterinarian in such activities as clinical medical practice, instruction, research and/or public service for at least 15 years”. After that, a small number of points (ie, up to 5 points) could be awarded for longevity of service, as follows: 15 – 20 years = 1 point

21- 25 years = 2 points

26 - 30 years = 3 points

31 - 35 years = 4 points

>35 years = 5 points

Another area of concern to the committee is that there is no place to recognize service to the ACVIM, as opposed to

contributions to other veterinary organizations. Some of the nominees have served the profession extremely well, but never

through the ACVIM and instead through other organizations (eg, dual diplomats serving in other, non-ACVIM specialty

colleges). We would propose the inclusion of a category to recognize contributions to/through the ACVIM, to be worth 5 or

100 total points. Points would still be awarded for service to other veterinary organizations, but there would be additional

points for ACVIM service.

An obvious gap in the stated selection criteria relates to mentorship. We believe the Kirk award winner should have

provided mentorship to others. We propose 25 points be awarded for demonstrated mentorship to interns, residents,

graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, or even junior faculty or beginning specialists.

Finally, we propose providing an example letter of nomination to help make the process a bit smoother, and to provide more

uniform information to the scorers.

Please see our proposed scoring system below:

Criteria Maximum score

Given score

Notes

Having an outstanding career in veterinary

30 points

Page 28

medicine with national and international recognition for one’s contributions. Selection is based on the life career of the nominee rather than on a single activity or incident

Production of major published works and/or development of significant diagnostic, therapeutic or control techniques and/or procedures

30 points

A record of sustained service as a veterinarian in such activities as clinical medical practice, instruction, research and/or public service 15 – 20 years = 1 point 21- 25 years – 2 points 26 - 30 years = 3 points 31 - 35 years = 4 points >35 years = 5 points

5 points

Demonstrated mentorship to interns, residents, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, or even junior faculty or beginning specialists

25 points

Contributions to veterinary organizations

5 points

Contributions to the ACVIM

5 points

Thank you for considering this proposal. Best regards,

Leah A. Cohn

Jean Hall

Mike Lappin

Dick Nelson

Ginny Reef

Page 29

International Relations Committee Author(s): Ben Sykes


The committee has been relatively quiet this year and focused on modifying the wording and formatting of the documentation surrounding the associate status framework. The IRC has approach the BOR in late 2014 for further guidance on its role in liaising with international specialties and is waiting for feedback.



Associate state framework Training 1 International relations with other colleges Training 1 (15 min total)


A. The associate status framework has been updated and clarified. B. The IRC has approached the BOR in late 2014 for guidance on its role in discussions with international colleagues. This

needs to be clarified.


The committee has been relatively quiet this year and focused on modifying the wording and formatting of the documentation surrounding the associate status framework. The IRC has approach the BOR in late 2014 for further guidance on its role in liaising with international specialties and is waiting for feedback.

5. DETAILED REPORT

The committee is waiting for feedback from the BOR on its expected involvement in dealing with other colleges. The committee believes that the most effective method of collaboration is specialty to specialty through the IRC. The discontent that arose as a result of the poor communication surrounding the JVIM open access issues highlighted the need for effective lines of communication. The following exert from an email communication throughout the year outlines the committee’s position on how this might best be achieved. “Linked to, but not dependent, on that is the concept that the IRC would engage in activities beyond the associate status. Using the LAIM/ECEIM example; specific liaison committees have been formed within each organization to facilitate the sharing of information. This has required boots on the ground to attend each other’s congresses and has required a financial commitment from the ACVIM but the results have been significant for both organizations. We now have information sharing on credentialing and examination processes, a speaker exchange program within the specialty day and a system for communicating issues like the JVIM open access and dealing with the problems that arise with such change. We would argue that the IRC in collaboration with the respective specialty president, is better placed to liaise with their respective international organizations than the ACVIM president. That is not intended as a slight on any future or past ACVIM president, but the reality of the situation is that the president is already overloaded with tasks and it would make sense to have cow people talk to cow people, brain people talk to brain people etc. To effectively achieve this, the ACVIM would need to set aside funds to allow the president and/or IRC representative to attend international congresses with the specific purpose of cultivating such relationships (and of course the individuals involved would need to commit the time).”

Page 30

Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine Author(s) Ken Hinchcliff, Steve DiBartola and Ivy Leventhal


The JVIM continues as the scientific publication of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. In response to directions from the Chief Executive Officer, the report is much abbreviated compared to those submitted before 2014. The Journal continues to see a strong submission rate (362 manuscripts in 2014) and a stable acceptance rate of approximately 50%. A focus of the activities of the Co-Editors-in-Chief in 2014 was implementation of plans to move the Journal to being solely on-line and open access. Submission rates and manuscript handling times are being monitored closely. Current submission rate indicates a forecast of 390 submissions for 2015 and does not provide indications of a decline in submission rates.



Consensus statements - length and format for updates Journal Moderate/15 min

Should consensus statements be limited in length?

What should be the length and format of updated consensus statements?


A. The Journal publishes consensus statements approved by the BOR of the ACVIM, the ECEIM or the ECVIM-CA. There are

well developed processes for developing consensus statements. The Journal’s role is to copy edit the approved statement.

There are typically 1-2 ACVIM consensus statements and 1-2 statements from the European Colleges each year.

B. The BOR has approved a process for updating consensus statements and a number of earlier statements are currently being

updated. This will increase the total number of consensus statements plus updates published each year.

C. The change in publishing format of the Journal to on-line only has removed previous concerns about managing a page budget

and the effect of additional or long consensus statements potentially displacing peer-reviewed material.

D. Early consensus statements were limited to 5,000 words, this was then increased to 7,500 and is now at 10,000 words

(inclusive of references, tables and figure legends but not supplementary material).

E. The length of consensus statements was limited because of the need to meet page budgets and for readability. The editors

were of the opinion that longer consensus statements were not as accessible to readers.

F. The editors have been approached with a request to allow publication of a 15,000 word consensus statement.

G. The editors request advice from the BOR on length of consensus statements noting that we recommend a word limit of 10,000

as currently exists.


Highlights of Volume 28 (2014) compared to Volume 27 (2013)

The JVIM was #10 among 129 veterinary journals in impact factor (2.224) in 2013 as monitored by the Institute for Scientific Information – up 3 places in rank from #13 (2.064) in 2012.

A 12% decrease in manuscripts submitted for publication through September 30, 2014 (9 months) compared to the same period in 2013 (275 vs. 313).

Manuscripts received from 32 countries in 2014, of which 46% (166/362) came from the United States.

A projected acceptance rate of 53% for manuscripts submitted and under consideration for 2014, as compared to 54% in 2013.

A 14% decrease in time until first decision in 2014 (mean, 37 days) as compared to 2013 (mean, 43 days).

63% (146/235) of manuscripts published in Volume 28 were accepted for publication during 2014, as compared to 76% for Volume 27 in 2013.

Personnel: The editors are very appreciative of the ongoing excellent work of Ivy Leventhal, the Journal’s Denver-based publications

manager. Her effective “Weekly Journal Report” allows editors to see the status of outstanding manuscripts each week. Continuing Associate Editors are Dr. Helio de Morais (cardiology and small animal internal medicine), Dr. Tim Fan (oncology),

Page 31

Dr. Kate Hill (internal medicine and endocrinology), Drs. George Moore and Peter Constable (consulting editors for experimental design and statistics), Dr. Andrea Tipold (neurology), Dr. Simon Swift (cardiology and ECVIM representative), Dr. Geof Smith (large animal internal medicine), and Dr. Mike Willard (small animal internal medicine).

Dr. Ray Geor (large animal internal medicine and equine medicine), Dr. Amy Grooters (small animal internal medicine and infectious disease), and Dr. Stephanie Smith of the University of Illinois (hematology, coagulation, and experimental design) completed their terms by June, 2015.

Dr. Julia Felippe replaced Dr. Geor and will begin July 1, Dr. Jane Sykes replaced Dr. Grooters and will begin June 1, 2015, and a replacement for Dr. Smith is yet to be decided.

We currently have 4 European editors (Drs. Schwarzwald, Durham , Swift, and Tipold).Dr. Stephanie Smith completing AE term June 2.

5. DETAILED REPORT

The Journal continues to see a strong rate of submission of manuscripts (362 in 2014 compared to 394 in 2013). The Journal

published 235 articles in 2014. Processing times for manuscripts are monitored closely. The time from acceptance or submission to

publication in print is no longer relevant and will not be reported in the future.

The Journal continues to rank highly amongst veterinary journals with increasing pressure from on-line and open access journals

(Table 1).

Journal Impact factor

2013

(2013(2013)

Impact factor

(2012)

Impact factor

2011

(2011)

Impact factor

(2010)

Impact factor

(2009)

Vet Immunol Immunopath 1.748 (#22) 1.877 (#17) 2.076 (#10) 2.176 (#13) 1.963 (#14)

J Vet Emerg Crit Care 1.220 (#42) 1.528 (#33) 2.038 (#12) 0.852 (#66) 0.693 (#75)

J of Vet Int Med 2.224 (#10) 2.064 (#13) 1.992 (#15) 2.277 (#11) 2.168 (#8)

Vet Pathol 2.038 (#15) 1.929 (#16) 1.945 (#17) 1.333 (#38) 1.367 (#39)

Vet Dermatol 1.993 (#16) 2.020 (#14) 1.943 (#18) 1.647 (#23) 1.543 (#29)

JAVMA 1.672 (#25) 1.715 (#26) 1.791 (#23) 1.860 (#19) 1.714 (#21)

Res Vet Sci 1.511 (#29) 1.774 (#22) 1.649 (#27) 1.330 (#39) 1.345 (#40)

J Comp Pathol 1.100 (#52) 1.376 (#41) 1.647 (#28) 1.529 (#30) 1.725 (#20)

Eq Vet J 2.369 (#7) 2.286 (#8) 1.456 (#34) 1.799 (#20) 1.837 (#18)

J Fel Med Surg 1.219 (#43) 1.080 (#61) 1.380 (#35) 1.681 (#21) 1.291 (#42)

Am J Vet Res 1.214 (#45) 1.348 (#44) 1.269 (#40) 1.413 (#35) 1.528 (#30)

Vet Surg 0.989 (#60) 1.242 (#51) 1.265 (#41) 1.437 (#33) 1.572 (#27)

Vet Rec 1.633 (#26) 1.803 (#21) 1.248 (#43) 1.482 (#31) 1.504 (#32)

J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1.323 (#35) 1.349 (#43) 1.181 (#46) 1.675 (#22) 1.408 (#36)

Can Vet J 0.474 (93) 0.767 (#76) 1.063 (#53) 0.984 (#60) 0.882 (#62)

J Sm Anim Pract 0.907 (65) 1.177 (#54) 1.000 (#56) 1.173 (#48) 0.965 (#56)

JAAHA 0.783 (#76) 0.758 (#77) 0.964 (#57) 0.711 (#74) 0.755 (#69)

Five-year impact factors for selected veterinary journals (2013)

Summary Statistics for time from submission to publication (months)

Submission to publication on-line

Submission to acceptance

Accepted to publication Online

Submission to Publication in Print

Accepted to Publication in Print

Mean 7.6 5.7 1.8 9.1 3.4

Median 7.0 5.2 1.6 8.8 3.6

Std Dev 2.9 2.7 1.0 2.8 0.7

Min 2.6 0.9 1.0 4.0 1.9

Max 19.9 17.6 13.5 20.7 5.4

Page 32

JOURNAL 5-year Impact Factor (2013)

Vet Microbiology 3.213 (#3)

Veterinary Parasitology 2.719 (#4)

Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 2.378 (#9)

Veterinary Dermatology 2.292 (#12)

Equine Veterinary Journal 2.267 (#13)

Theriogenology 2.146 (#16)

Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 1.986 (#19)

Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 1.978 (#21)

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 1.906 (#25)

Veterinary Pathology 1.893 (#26)

Research in Veterinary Science 1.597 (#31)

Veterinary Record 1.579 (#33)

Veterinary Surgery 1.532 (#35)

Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1.502 (#36)

Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 1.484 (#37)

American Journal of Veterinary Research 1.468 (#38)

Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 1.431 (#41)

Veterinary Clinical Pathology 1.395 (#44)

Journal of Comparative Pathology 1.394 (#45)

Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 1.266 (#52)

Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound 1.214 (#54)

Veterinary Ophthalmology 1.185 (#57)

Journal of Small Animal Practice 1.094 (#64)

Canadian Veterinary Journal 0.982 (#69)

Australian Veterinary Journal 1.067 (#66)

Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 0.865 (#77)

As requested by the Board, we also report the number of manuscripts received and rejected at the editorial level, along with the reason

for the rejection.

2014 Manuscripts Rejected at Editorial Level (Rejection Range: January 1, 2014 - April 23, 2015)

Reason Quantity Percentage

Insufficiently novel case report or paper 24 38% Normal animal study 11 17% Not to JVIM guidelines or outside our area 18 28% Limited interest to readership 3 5% Low priority 0 0%

Evaluation of laboratory assay 0 0% Clinical relevance 2 3% Language assistance 2 3% Experiment or study design 4 6%

Fragmented publication (combination recommended) 0 0%

Not a recognized expert in subject area 0 0%

Does not meet minimum scientific standards 0 0%

Scientific misconduct 0 0% Total 64 100%

Page 33

Specialty Reports

Page 34

Specialty of Cardiology Author(s): John Rush


The Cardiology Specialty had a number of issues that arose this year. Several members were dissatisfied with the communication

and/or decisions made regarding the JVIM, and the associated fees, and the considerations offered to our colleagues in ECVIM-CA.

This pushed the specialty to vote to develop language indicating support for the Journal of Veterinary Cardiology. Overall the

communication between the BOR and the Cardiology Specialty regarding these decisions was viewed, by many members of the

specialty, as inadequate. A concern was also raised by several members about the decisions made to revise the GIG, and many in the

cardiology specialty expressed their strong desire that our specialty not be forced to make any changes to our training and

credentialing procedures. These concerned were passed along to the BOR and to those individuals involved in drafting the revision of

the GIG. Another issue attracting discussion of the membership with the Indiana HR 102, with cardiology wanting to develop language

from our specialty, unless the BOR developed a statement for the ACVIM that satisfied the Cardiology specialty – the end result was

that the ACVIM statement on diversity was judged to be a positive step. Finally, there was a specific effort to make some changes to

the cardiology specialty examination, and all individuals working on the exam and the Exam Bank committee should be thanked for

their considerable efforts.



General Cardiology Specialty issues and BOR All 5 min

Soliciting Cardiology Committee Members Training and Education 5 min

Cardiology Bylaws revision – sequence Training 2 min


A. The Cardiology specialty has specific interests that should be discussed further at the BOR meeting to insure that ACVIM-

Cardiology and the BOR are working on issues of common purpose.

B. The new method resulted in very few cardiology volunteers; this approach should be re-evaluated.

C. Cardiology bylaws are in need of revision – best sequence with GIG revisions?


5. DETAILED REPORT

Cardiology Job Task Analysis Committee Update

Committee members- Peggy Sayer- Chair, John MacGregor, Jerry Woodfield, Andrea Landis, Kevin Christiansen, Lori Drourr,

Katie Meir, Nicole Piscitelli, Mike O’Grady, Josh Stern

• The Job Task analysis survey was released in December 2014.

• By the end of March 2015 76 people had responded which was a participation rate of 30% and the AMP group felt this was

reasonable.

• The survey is now closed; AMP and the ACVIM office are reviewing the data. The presumed plan is for the committee to have

another conference call with AMP when the data is compiled.

• Constructive criticism of the process - The Task Analysis approach is valid but unusual, and several members of the

cardiology specialty had difficulty understanding the process and the need – more education in advance of survey release

might have been helpful. Several cardiologists inquired why the survey doesn’t include the things that are actually done during

the day, such as teaching, consulting with clients and referring veterinarians, and diagnosing specific heart disease. In

retrospect, more education about the process could have helped (e.g., More information at the business meeting? Emails

directly from AMP to explain the process?) The committee also suggests that the survey be sent to the participants in a way

Page 35

that is easy to access; eventually a member of VIN forwarded an easier link to everyone and that is probably what should

have provided in the first place.

Cardiology Specialty Research Committee Report

Committee members: Rob Sanders – Chair, Crystal Hariu, Will Rausch, Kristine Yee, SeungWoo Jung, Henry Green, Sophy

Jesty, Heidi Kellihan, John Rush (ex officio)

• Call for proposals distributed 08/30/14 with a deadline of 11/01/14. Five applications were received and three were funded.

Yearly updates will be requested as needed.

• We are considering a call for additional grant cycle to be released on May 1, 2015 with funds to be disbursed prior to the new

financial year.

• Outstanding annual reports from research previously funded will be requested as needed.

ACVIM Forum Committee – Cardiology Subcommittee

Joao Orvalho (Chair), Margaret Sleeper (Asst. Chair), Caryn Reynolds, Robert Sanders

• The subcommittee met several times after the 2014 ACVIM meeting in Nashville.

• The subcommittee completed the Cardiology Pre-Forum and Forum Programs, including the Pre-Forum and main

program SOTA speakers and the clinical workshop.

• The chair and assistant chair made an effort to have more engaging session formats for the pre-Forum day, such as

panel discussions, contrast and compare sessions, round tables.

• The chair has proposed/planned a new session format for the pre-Forum SOTA: a remote presentation from the

Seattle Science Foundation.

• The chair has also worked with the main Forum Committee to try to establish a digital poster session and digital

poster access (using a Quick Response Code/QR code).

• The subcommittee also helped in the organization of the cardiology interactive session of “Breakfast with the

experts”.

• The subcommittee selected the research reports and late breaking research reports by December 19th and March

20th respectively. The cardiology program was finalized at that time.

• The moderators for all the cardiology sessions including the research reports and late breaking research reports were

appointed. Expert moderators have also been invited to participate in specific sessions, in which they have a

particular expertise.

• The subcommittee will be organizing remote planning meetings for specific round table/panel discussion sessions in

April and May.

ACVIM Cardiology Credentials Committee 2014-2015 Spring Update

Members: Sara Bordelon (Chair), Kate Scollan (Asst. Chair), Dan Hall, Jeremy Orr, Aaron Wey, Mike Hickey, Kacie Schmidt, Brian

Maran, John Rush (ex officio)

18 candidates submitted credentials packets for 2015. Five candidates had not achieved their educational hours at the time of

submission. Of these five candidates 4 were deficient in both cardiology focused and journal club hours and one candidate

was deficient in only cardiology focused hours. All candidates had met the catheterization and echo requirements. Deficient

candidates were asked to submit a plan for how they expected to achieve the needed hours by the end of their program and

they were asked to resubmit logs in April to ensure that they were progressing with the determined plan.

All credentials packets were submitted on a single USB device to the ACVIM central office. Candidate packets were labeled

using their ACVIM ID # and uploaded to a Dropbox account setup by the ACVIM central office (Finn Ruehrdanz). The chair

was unblinded and reviewed the reference letters and all logs.

Scores ranged from 4.1/5 – 2.8/5 with an average score of 3.59/5.

After reviewing the packets and scores, and in light of the new IOCART process, the committee is considering an adjustment

to the scoring of credentials and/or the application of points from credentials to the cardiology specialty exam.

Given that the credentials committee reviews logs only in year three, I propose that we ask the chair of the RTC to send a

short summary to the chair of the credentials committee updating them on candidates that are currently deficient and what

Page 36

actions have been taken for those candidates (i.e. letters were sent to mentors, candidates, etc) after review of second year

logs. That helps to maintain consistency amongst the committees that deal with logs. I also think that after credentials have

been submitted and candidates have been notified of deficiencies the chair of the credentials committee should send a note to

the chair of the RTC to update on plans.

Several of the candidates that were deficient in journal club hours this year seemed to be deficient because they were strictly

counting only journal clubs. However, the cardiology RTC has traditionally considered these hours as general education

hours, and has accepted seminars, structured morbidity and mortality rounds and topic rounds in other specialties. I think that

there might need to be some clarification on this. My thoughts were that we could just write a little bit more description in the

cardio section of the GIG, which addresses these hours, to make it more consistent and clear for the candidates. It might be

best if the RTC and the credentials committee worked together on the wording here to be sure that we are on the same page.

Cardiac Health committee reports for the Board of Regents: 4/15

Members: Anna Gelzer (chair), Kathleen Brown, Carrie Ginieczki, Deb Fine, TJ Morrison, J. Rush (ex officio)

• Multiple versions of the Advanced Cardiac Database (ACD) -a form to record inherited heart disease screening examinations

(to be submitted by cardiology diplomats only), have been revised by the committee in collaboration with the OFA.

• Plan is that OFA will run the data base and enter the submitted cases into a running log. Only submissions from cardio

diplomats will be entered. Data will be shared between OFA and ACVIM

• A new Holter form was created to provide screening of dog breeds predisposed to arrhythmias.

• At this time the current (old) form – designed for auscultation clinics only - is being altered to not include echocardiography

(form can be submitted by practitioners).

• Pilot study:

A group of 7 cardiologists was asked to use the draft version of the new ACD form for their health clinics and give feedback to

the committee before presenting it to the college at ACVIM in June 2015.

Plan for 2015/2016: Present the new forms to the cardiology group at ACVIM 2015

• Roll-out of the new form after ACVIM after collecting feedback from the college by the committee

• Update /design the cardiology section of ACVIM and OFA webpage to represent cardiac health screening

o Outline objectives of heart testing

o Easy to use for both vets and pet owners/ breeders

• Re-activate liaison of committee members to the breed club health committees

Cardiology Maintenance of Credentials Committee

Members: John MacGregor, chair, Sunshine Lahmers, Lori Dourr, Merrilee Small, Bari Olivier

The Cardiology Maintenance of Credentials committee has solicited feedback from the members of the Cardiology

subspecialty about the Maintenance of Credentials template. The feedback was primarily positive and based on college wide

feedback about the template, it was modified with the intent of making it maintenance of credentials somewhat more

achievable for those in private practice. The next steps will include education of the Cardiology subspecialty about the

requirements and generation of a Cardiology specific template for allowed meetings (outside of the template specified

meetings) and their credentials maintenance value.

Cardiology Ratings Committee Report

Members: Rebecca Gompf (chair) with 21 total members of the Ratings Committee.

Committee members were solicited through an Email asking for volunteers in the fall of 2014. One member was on the exam

committee and had to recuse himself from doing the ratings. Of the 20 people rating the exam, 17 completed the multiple

choice section and 3 started but did not finish. It was requested that all individuals try to complete the multiple choice. Of

the 17 people who did the multiple choice, 10 were able to be on the conference call to discuss the questions. Two others

were going to be contacted by phone by Chris Traynor to go over a few questions. The Conference phone call went well.

Page 37

In order to reduce burden on raters, and reduce exposure of too many section of the exam, the decision was made that only 3

people would rate each of the non-multiple choice sections. Everyone who was asked to rate an individual section (Essay,

Video, Case Studies, Physiologic Recordings, Anatomy and Pathology) completed their ratings and their comments were sent

to the Exam Committee the week after ratings were concluded (March 23). I had gone through all of the additional sections to

review the references given for some of the questions (there were no references given for some of the questions, IE cases,

which was understandable). The Ratings were extended one week from the original date so that two individuals could

complete their individual sections.

Problems this year were few and the process went smoothly. During the conference call there were two questions that the

raters on the phone call agreed were weak/poor questions, and that information was forwarded to the Exam Chairpersons.

The Exam Committee had 103 questions to be rated so that 3 questions could be deleted if needed after the Rating. Some

raters noted that references used to document some of the questions were very old (before 1999) and some of the books are

no longer available. This puts some residents, especially those in private practice, at a disadvantage as they may not have

access to libraries who have these volumes available. Also, some of the references were human journal articles that were not

on the reading list, so the reading list may need to be updated to include all references used on the exam (i.e., genetics, etc.).

Residency Training Committee

Chris Paige (chair), Jonathan Goodwin (co-chair), Ashley Saunders, Karen Sanderson, Sarah Achen, Brandon

Pogue and Carl Sammarco

Activities since September 2014 Board Meeting/Short-term Activity Plan

-The committee formulated and updated directions to residents re: filling out log forms e.g. which forms to fill out, how much

detail to include, when to submit forms, etc. The current ACVIM instructions for program applications, training agreements,

and case logs were reviewed. The forms were revised, and the committee created an instruction form for completing renewal

applications for both Program Directors and cardiology.

-One new program application submitted for approval and approved by the RTC.

-The RTC received several requests from residency program to change Program Director.

-Due to a supervising diplomate leaving in January 2015, one program had only one supervising diplomate remaining for

training 3 cardiology residents. Due to not being in compliance with the G.I.G, the program was placed on under probation

until completion of the 3rd resident (July 2015) or if a new supervising diplomate was hired.

-The RTC chair was contacted by Credential Committee Chair regarding 3rd year residents that were low in cases and

education hours.

- Review of RTRP updates for 38 programs submitted for review; 2 programs not renewing. Program Applications, Residency

Training Agreements, Education Logs, Echocardiography Logs, and Catheterization Logs and the Log Summary were

submitted and reviewed by the committee. A conference call was held in late March / early April and reviews were discussed.

Notations were sent to 19 programs re: minor issues with how logs were completed by the residents, missing signatures,

program applications incomplete, discrepancy in number of cases, etc. Many residents did not submit consistent format for

Log Summary Forms, education logs, and case/catheterization logs. This will be addressed in the activity log for next year.

Five programs received a tentative approval due to low number of education hours, and were granted approval once a plan or

tentative schedule was provided to the RTC.

-At the time of this update, all 38 programs have been approved. One program remains on probation until July 2015.

-There is currently a discussion regarding changing the review period to after ACVIM rather than early February to make case

and education log better correlate with year of program.

-The RTC is actively communicating with CC chair and providing this chair with the RTC program review to have CC better

monitor incoming 3 year resident’s cases and education hours prior to submitting for credentialing review.

Page 38

Specialty of Neurology Author(s): Charles Vite


We are evaluating responses from the membership from a questionnaire sent to members of the specialty to assess their perception

on ACVIM‟s meeting stated mission goals.

We are also evaluating:

1. whether the needs of neurologists not engaged in residency training and neurosurgeons are being met.

2. the requirements needed to be met for residency training



Responses to questionnaire Overall mission 1/ 10 min


A. Questionaire available at http://www.acvim.org/cvweb/cgi-bin/msastestdll.dll/DisplayQ?TESTCD=NEURO_SATISFACTION

Neurology Residency Training Committee Stephanie Thomovsky (ACVIM Neurology)

COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW

Residency Training Committee – We are responsible for reviewing and approving all of the ACVIM (Neurology) residencies

in the United States. The committee consists of 3 individuals.

1. Previously program directors had to tediously re-enter information regarding their programs each year instead of being able to edit the information already in the system. With Kathy Klaus‟ amazing help, this change was a reality for directors this 2015 season.

Web-based form for Part 1 of the RTP form: The web-based form now self-populates the information regarding individual RTPs. The Program Directors for existing programs did not have to enter information, from scratch. The Program Director was able to override and change any information on the web-based form. We are also created web-based form for new programs wanting to register. The Program Directors for these programs had to manually complete these forms. For Part Two of the form: The Program Directors had to enter the information manually in a word document, save it as a PDF and upload the forms to the website, as was done in the past. The information in Part Two is not captured in the database so it had to be captured manually. Authorized agent form will be required as it has been in the past

2. Another thing that was confusing for both program directors, and also members of our committee who review programs, was knowing what training agreement forms were required to be completed. Some directors would give us 1 form, some 2, some all four. Now we have made it clear we need 4 from each program for each resident.

Training Agreement forms – completed and saved as PDFs and uploaded as has been done in the past. Program Directors must complete a separate form for all four areas of training, whether the RTP is at a single site or at multiple sites (1) radiology; (2) clinical pathology; (3) neuropathology; (4) neurosurgery

3. We added an instructional document for the Program Directors, basically a “user‟s guide” for the website that will explain the above requirements/process.

Page 39

http://www.acvim.org/cvweb/cgi-bin/msastestdll.dll/DisplayQ?TESTCD=NEURO_SATISFACTION

SUMMARY OF POINTS NEEDING BOARD DISCUSSION &/OR ACTION


1. Electrophysiology residency training Training Mission ---

BACKGROUND FOR DISCUSSION POINTS

B. Electrophysiology Training

a. One thing that has come up as we reviewed programs this year and what we consider acceptable in a RTP is electrophysiology training. Should a residency training program be accepted and accredited if the program is unable to provide hands on electrophysiology training? A boarded neurologist put in an application to our committee for approval. On her form she indicated that the she has no electrophysiology equipment and that her resident will be taught this subject didactically. Is this okay? Is it okay for EEG (the electrophysiology equipment most lacking in the approved RTPs is EEG).

b. The vast majority of program directors farm residents out for neuropathology, for example, so the residents can get hands on experience. Conceivably this is done because we require training in neuropathology. Should we also do this for electrophysiology? i.e. should we have 5 training agreement forms and add electrophysiology? As a whole, our committee feels like electrophysiology is a very important aspect of a neurology resident‟s training and also a key component of being a good, well-rounded neurologist. If our residents never get to hold an EMG needle in their hands and only learn the techniques books, I think it is unlikely that they will use it in practice or even know when to use it.

HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES

1. We made some changes to how RTPs apply/reinstate their programs each year.

a. Some changes were successful, others could still be improved.

2. Discussion of what is the minimally acceptable for hands-on electrophysiology training

74 current residents 50 approved RTPs, including one new program 3 programs elected not to renew Traditional programs: 43 Non-traditional: 7 Academia: 27 Private Practice: 23

REPORT

NA

Neurology Nominating Committee Author: Mary O. Smith


The Neurology Nominating Committee for 2014 consisted of Drs. Mary Smith (chairman), Alistair McVey and Rebecca Packer. Dr.

McVey will take over the chairmanship for 2015-16; Dr. Smith will have completed her term on the committee as of June 2015. The

tasks for the committee this year were the awarding of the Holliday Resident Research Award, the Charles Knecht Awards, and the

nomination of a new At Large Member of the Neurology Specialty Board. The Holliday Resident Research Award was won by Dr.

Zwueste at University of California, Davis, for her proposal „The Pharmacokinetics of Cytarabine Ocfosfate in Dogs‟. Applications for

the Charles Knecht Resident Awards are due on May 4 2015; up to three awards will be announced on May 18 2015. Three nominees

for the Member At Large position on the Neurology Specialty Board have been submitted by the committee; ballots will be sent out to

the Neurology Diplomates from the ACVIM office shortly.

Page 40



Contact personnel at ACVIM office


There seems to have been some confusion at the ACVIM office as to which staff member was the point of contact for the nominating

committee as a whole, and for specific tasks that the committee had to undertake (i.e., resident awards, new board nominations). This

resulted in some misunderstandings and delays. I suggest that either there is a single contact person for the nominating committee at

the ACVIM office, or the committee receive at the beginning of the year a list of ACVIM personnel and their functions, with indications

as to which individual should be contacted about each of the committee‟s tasks.


DETAILED REPORT

All details are in the report above (#1).

Neurology Rating Committee Jonathan M Levine


Examination rating is a relatively new process for ACVIM, which was begun about 5 years ago. In 2013, the committee chair and

neurology specialty leadership developed a definition for “the minimally qualified neurologist” using a previously developed detailed

content outline of competencies. In 2014, this definition was provided to examination raters for the first time and I believe this

greatly enhanced our committee‟s process. In 2015, the rating process was carried in the same manner as it was in 2014.

Committee members were appointed in late 2014, the exam was made ready for review in late January 2015, rating was

completed in March 2015, and a meeting with AMP was held in April 2015 to review outlier scores for each section.



AMP’s role in rating Training/Spec. Exam Medium


For the past 3 years I have been working with Chris Traynor from AMP to organize the rating process. Finn has been acted as a

liaison between the committee, AMP, and myself – he has been wonderful. My perception in working with AMP is that they have many

clients and I am not sure how high a priority our group is for them. In particular, communication between Chris and our group has not

always been optimal. Exam roll out this year went more smoothly than in 2014, but the post-rating meeting was not handled ideally.

Limited information was provided until 24 hours before and attendance was poor because of this (in my view).

This year, there appeared to be fewer individuals who did not complete rating as opposed to in the past – I believe Finn was quite

helpful with respect to issuing reminders.


I have no new information to report.

Page 41

DETAILED REPORT

As I stated in the year in review, in general I believe the committee is running smoothly and our process is now well-outlined. We do

not have data from the exam rating for 2015 to report as of yet.

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT 2014-15

Committee Members: Jason Evans (chair), Gregg Kortz (Past-Chair), Jim Lavely

SUMMARY

Twenty-one (21) candidates submitted credentials in October 2014. One (1) application was approved outright, one (1) application was rejected and nineteen (19) received conditional approval pending completion of the remaining requirements. As of May 2015, six (6) additional candidate applications have been approved as documentation of completion of all requirements was provided; thirteen (13) applications remain conditionally-approved as documentation of completion of all requirements has not been provided.

The most common incomplete requirement at the time of application submission (October 2014) was Journal Club hours (12 candidates; range: 2 – 56 hours remaining; median: 15 hours). Eight (8) candidates had not completed 75 weeks of neurology training (range: 1 – 18 weeks remaining; median: 5 weeks). Twelve (12) candidates had not completed the neuropathology requirements (range: 2 – 50 hours remaining; median: 29 hours). Eight (8) candidates had not completed the radiology requirements (range: 6 – 41 hours remaining; median: 32 hours). Six (6) candidates had not completed the clinical pathology requirements (range: 1.5 – 50 hours remaining; median: 10 hours). Aside from Journal Club and Neurology training, seven (7) candidates had incomplete hours in one core requirement, seven (7) were incomplete in two areas and two (2) candidates had incomplete hours in all three core requirements. **Two (2) candidates were missing week/hour requirements in all areas (Neurology, NP, CP, Rad, JC).

All candidates had completed the neurosurgery requirements.

This year‟s credentials review utilized forms documenting completion of the residency requirements. These forms include a revised weekly schedule with separate recording of direct and indirect supervision, and a document that is sent to all candidates after credentials are reviewed confirming which requirements have been fulfilled and which are still outstanding. In addition, the committee requested copies of all neurosurgical logs from applicants. Documentation of completion of all requirements is required before ACVIM certification can be awarded.

The committee recommends the following items to be addressed by the future Credentials Committee:

1. A neurology journal club log is completed and signed-off by advisor. 2. Radiology, neuropathology, and clinical pathology requirements should be completed prior to submission of the credentials

application. (A large portion of these other requirements are found on the proposed third-year schedules in the last months of the program and perhaps being claimed in ways that may not be consistent with the RTC approved program. See Number 3 below.)

3. Development of a more standardized RTC and CC application so that it allows the CC to better assess that the candidates are actually completing the program that was approved by the RTC. (See Number 2 above.)

4. Applicants must provide more specific information on their research projects, to include title, hypothesis, current results,

publications, expected completion date, and source of funding. 5. It is recommended that a standardized 6 month candidate review form be created and submitted to ACVIM as part of the annual

RTC updates and also to the CC as part of the application. 6. The Reference Letter for the candidates submitted by their supervisors should be less vague. Or, it should simply be written: “Do

you recommend this candidate be approved to sit for the certifying exam: Yes or No.” And by saying “yes” you are saying that this candidate is ready to be a neurologist, with all of its responsibilities, regardless of whether they pass the exam or not. Note: It is not the duty, function or responsibility of the exam to make that decision.

Page 42

Specialty of Oncology Author(s): Jeffrey Bryan, President




Exam Progressive exam improvements Training/Specialty Exam 1/10 Min


Exam Improvements

For the past several years, the clinical portion of the Oncology Certifying Examination remains a significant challenge since the exam

became exclusively multiple-choice. This past examination, the Basic Science section caused candidates more difficulties. Oncology

has responded to the BOR’s instruction to make the examination completely multiple-choice. Oncology has taken several steps to

improve the examination, including altering the Exam Committee’s practices, including the Exam Rating Committee more directly in the

process of exam editing, and establishing a committee to overhaul the question bank. The job task analysis (JTA) committee will

develop the means of identifying activities most critical to the performance of an oncologist’s job. Oncology would like to continue the

discussion of a College-wide creation of a practical, clinical vignette exam capability. Successful creation of this format of examination

for the Oncology Specialty would assist the other specialties in complying with the Board request for an all multiple-choice examination

format following completion of JTA activities.


Residency Training and Credentials Committee (RTCC)

Following review of the training programs, the RTCC has had further discussions about the requirements of a training program. They are working to identify and clarify specific weaknesses in the current descriptions and loopholes that result in suboptimal training of residents. Any specific recommendations of this process will be put to the specialty as a whole for a vote. Oncology Examination Committee The Examination Committee changed protocol to improve the efficiency of exam preparation, interact with the Rating Committee to optimize the exam as-written, and to improve the accuracy of the exam through improved proof-reading. Based on the poorer performance of examinees on the basic science section on the 2014 exam, close attention to the psychometric analysis of this section and modifications were made accordingly. Job Task Analysis Task Force This task force has been impaneled, but experienced a delay this year as leadership of the committee was transferred. Dr. Nicole Northrup, Georgia, is the Chair and Cheryl Balkman, Cornell; Nick Dervisis, Virginia Tech; Marie-Eve Nadeau, University of Montreal; Jessica Lawrence, Royal College (European view); Seth Glasser, private practice; Christine Swanson, private practice, Blue Pearl; M.J. Hamilton, private practice; and Mike Lucroy, industry, were included on the task force. Dr. Philibert stepped down from the committee. This gives a broad range of job task origin including academic/scholarly input, private practice/corporate practice input, and industry input.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Oncology Forum Program Committee

Chair: Paul Woods (Co-chair)

Kim Johnson (Second year on committee)

Wendi Velando Rankin (First year on committee)

The committee received 19 submissions for lectures and solicited 12 lectures for the Pre-Forum and Forum program. Unfortunately, it took longer than anticipated to get the lecture schedule completed. Seven Research Abstracts were received and accepted. Three Late Breaking Research Reports (LBRR) were received and accepted.

Page 43

There are several topic tracts which showcase top researchers in our field, including: lymphoma, urinary tract neoplasia and emerging

therapeutics. Dr. Philip Low, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Purdue Center for Drug Discovery will be joining

us as keynote speaker on Wednesday, June 3, Pre-Forum Day. The Pre-Forum Day lectures will close with a resident review in

immunotherapy by Dr. Nicola Mason. In an effort to encourage oncology candidate participation in ACVIM, the one day registration for

Pre-Forum day will be subsidized cost, as in previous years. In addition, the Oncology Gala Dinner will take place the evening after

Pre-Forum lectures.. Dinner and transportation is sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Daniel Petrylak, Professor of Medicine and of Urology;

Professor; Co-Director, Signal Transduction Research Program at Yale Cancer Center will be our SOTA.

The Forum program looks very strong; however, a new recent concern occurred with the threat of political action (i.e. boycott) against

the site of the Forum.

Residency Training and Credentials Committee (RTCC)

Chair: Sandra (Barnard) Nguyen (6/1/2012 – 5/31/2015)

Kelly Hume (6/1/2012 – 5/31/2015)

Brian Husbands (6/1/2013 – 5/31/2016)

Mary Lynn Higginbotham (Assistant chair) (6/1/2013 – 5/31/2016)

Joanne Intile (6/1/2014-5/31/2017)

Antony Moore (ex officio) (6/1/2014-5/31/2016)

CURRENT ONCOLOGY RESIDENT DATA

82 current residents (total active candidates)

38 approved RTP’s

3 programs are on probation. One due to only one ACVIM (onc) currently present, and 2 due to radiation oncologist leaving July 1

2015 (same institution for both of these programs).

3 programs elected not to renew.

The mission of the RTCC is to preserve and strengthen the quality of training in veterinary oncology residency programs and to ensure

the competency of Diplomates in the ACVIM Specialty of Oncology trained in these programs.

As a result of the review of the training programs, further discussions are taking place to expand upon the minimum requirements of a

training program. Any outcomes will be put to the specialty as a whole for a vote.

Annual / Ongoing Tasks of RTCC

Annual review of residency training programs

Annual review of resident credential package

Ad hoc evaluation of residency transfers

Ad hoc evaluation regarding GIG rules interpretation

Ad hoc evaluation for special exemptions to GIG rules

Oncology IOCART is composed of the prior RTCC Task Forces and members of the RTCC

Standards of Excellence in Residency Education Task Force

Chair – Craig Clifford and Sandra Bechtel

This Task Force is proposed an “open draft” document that summarized elements of excellence for RTPs. These standards of

excellence have been drafted and will be used during modifications to the former GIG, now Certification Manual for Residents,

Mentors, and Training Programs.

Page 44

Residency Education Benchmarks and Oversight Task Force

Chairs – Mona Rosenberg and Nicole Northrup

It is reasonable that improvements and increased consistency in training programs will occur through increased transparency and

reporting of “benchmarks” for each RTP (residents trained, board exam passes, publications, other certification requirements

completed) within the Oncology community. This Task Force was charged to propose the specific RTP “benchmarks”. These

benchmarks will be used during modifications to the CMRMTP.

Comments and edits are being collected from the assembled group.

Oncology Examination Committee

Committee Members:

Chair: Timothy Stein

Francisco Alvarez-Berger (term ends 2015)

Kimberly Cronin (term ends 2016)

Nikolaos Dervisis (term ends 2016)

John Farrelly (term ends 2017)

Kelvin Kow (term ends 2017)

The 2014 Oncology Certifying Examination was administered Sunday June 1 and Monday June 2, 2014 in Nashville, TN and was

proctored by Drs Lawrence and Stein. The composition of the 2014 exam was similar to the exam administered in 2013. The applied

clinical section consists of 2 parts and scores are combined prior to determining a pass point. The pass rate for the applied clinical

section was 72%. One candidate in part 1 did not complete the scan sheet despite multiple warnings throughout the 4-hour

examination period; all others completed the exam on time. The pass rate for the basic science section was 64%. Overall pass rate

for the exam was 63%. Following the examination in June, Drs. Jessica Lawrence (Committee Chair) and Pamela Jones rotated off of

the committee. Dr. Tim Stein assumed the role of Chair of the 2015 Oncology Examination Committee.

In early September members were charged with reviewing the 2014 exam in order to remove and/or improve poorly performing

questions based on the psychometric analysis. This method has worked well previously, as it allows for a number of questions to be

revised prior to the meeting and may simply be reviewed during the 3-day meeting. In addition, the committee members were asked to

ensure the references for questions were up to date and update if necessary. Based on the poorer performance of examinees on the

basic science section on the 2014 exam, close attention to the psychometric analysis of this section and modifications made

accordingly.

The Oncology Examination Committee met November 15-17 2014 at The Magnolia Hotel in Denver, Colorado with all members being

present. The pre-meeting work the individuals performed enabled the committee to work more efficiently during the 3 days in which

they were together. The committee was well supported by the additions of Drs John Farrelly and Kelvin Kow. The goal of having a

final draft version available by the end of the meeting was just missed. However, as previously noted, due to the psychometric analysis

of the 2014 exam there were more revisions necessary than in past years, particularly of the Applied Clinical and Clinical Decision

Making (CDM) sections.

This year there was more interaction between the Certifying Examination Committee and the Examination Rating Committee, which we

believe has improved the quality of this year’s examination. This year the Examination Committee had the Chair and all other members

review edits within assigned sections that had been made by Nicole Finn and/or Finn Ruehrdanz, prior to the examination being

officially rated. Again, we believe this has further reduced the number of grammatical errors, mis-keys, and spelling errors on the exam.

The 2015 Oncology Candidate Preparation document was updated to reflect updates in any of the textbook publications and made

available to candidates in early 2015.

The composition of the 2015 exam is similar to that of 2014’s and will be administered over 1.5 days for all but one of the candidates.

One candidate applied for, and received approval for, special testing accommodations in accordance with the ADA. This candidate will

have double the amount of time for each section and will have the questions read aloud. Arrangements have been made to have an

Page 45

extra proctor that speaks English as a first language and has no accent. For all candidates the exam will consist of two applied clinical

sections and one basic science section. The applied clinical sections consist of one section of 150 multiple choice questions and one

section of 120 clinical decision making (CDM) questions, for a total of 270 multiple choice questions on the applied clinical sections.

The number of CDM questions remains the same as last year and this number would seem appropriate given the majority of

candidates took most of the allotted time to complete this section. The applied clinical section of the exam will be administered over 8

hours, each section given over 4 hours, on day 1 of the exam for all but one of the candidates. The candidate taking the exam with

special accommodations will have the clinical sections administered over 16 hours, spanning two days (two 8-hour testing days). The

basic science section will consist of 150 multiple choice questions. This section of the exam will be administered over 4 hours on the

second day of testing for all but one candidate. The candidate taking the exam with special accommodations will have the basic

science section administered over 8 hours during the third day of testing. In summary, all but one candidate will have the examination

administered over the course of 1.5 days; with one candidate having the examination administered over the course of 3 days. The

examination will be administered to all qualified candidates in Indianapolis, IN on May 31st and June 1st, with one candidate also having

the examination administered on June 2nd. The examination will be proctored by three members of the oncology examination

committee: Drs. Kim Cronin, Nikolaos Dervisis, and Tim Stein.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Francisco Alvarez-Berger will rotate off the committee after examination in June of 2015. Their replacements will be

determined shortly. Dr. Nikolaos Dervisis will take over as chair of the 2016 Oncology Examination Committee. As out-going chair, Dr.

Stein has agreed to serve as a fresh set of eyes for a “final review” of the 2016 Oncology Certifying Exam prior to final rating.

Question Writing Committee

A new committee of (currently Cheryl London, Chand Khanna, Sue Lana, Jessica Lawrence, and Christine Swanson) met this May in

Columbus, OH, and has reviewed the entire question bank, eliminated or updated questions as appropriate, prepared multiple-choice

question concepts (to be developed into final questions by the exam committee), and graded the quality of evidence for each question

with current references for the Clinical Decision Making Section (CDM).

Examination Rating Committee

Chair: Laura Garrett

Bonnie B Boudreaux

Kristine E Burgess

Craig A Clifford

Meighan K Daly

Christine E Fahey

Janean Fidel

Pamela D Jones

Chand Khanna

Shawna L Klahn

Erin K Malone

Anne E Peaston

Brenda S Phillips

Jeffrey C Phillips

Rachel A Reiman

Corey F Saba

Olya A Smrkovski

Jennifer L Willcox

As efforts are being put into the exam process being evaluated and revised, I belatedly accepted the role of Chair of this committee in

October of 2014. The number of committee members is currently in the range suggested by the statistician. However, as not all

members successfully complete their rating duties, we need to maintain a buffer of extra members. When queried about the number

needed, this was the response:

Page 46

We recommend anywhere from 8-12 raters. This number can result in reliable data with minimal error. Research has shown that adding

more raters doesn’t really offer more benefit (we call it the law of diminishing returns). In your case, since it is relatively easy for you to

find willing raters, I would say that an ideal number is 15. If you have 30 willing raters, I would suggest to focus on the selection of a

quality 15 member panel. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999) say “…individuals who establish cutscores

must be qualified to make judgments required of them. In addition, any single panel of participants should be sufficiently representative

to assure that a similar cutscore would be obtained if the study were replicated. Planning requires that the organization (ACVIM)

carefully establish the qualifications of participants.”

Aside from assuring that you compose a representative panel in respect to background, experience, and geographic region, other

things to consider would be whether the diplomate is considered a subject matter expert and well regarded in their field, their

understanding of the examinee population, ability to estimate item difficulty, and hold an appreciation of the consequences of

standards.

As some members rotate off, several new members have volunteered to be on the committee next year; their names have been sent to

the ACVIM Oncology President and Finn Ruehrdanz. Dr. Rachel Reiman agreed to serve as Chair of the Rating Committee for the

upcoming year. I will be once again stepping down from this committee.

Clarification of the exam review process was completed in December, with changes made to the Exam Rating Committee SOP to

update and describe in detail the process that has been in place for the past few years. Briefly, exam questions are divided up

amongst the committee members for detailed review. These reviews are forwarded through the ACVIM office to the Exam Committee,

who then considers the comments and makes changes as seems appropriate. Responses to the Rating Committee’s comments are

also provided and forwarded to that committee. Once the exam is final, ALL members of the Rating Committee rate the entire exam.

There is space available for comments if a rater has concerns about a question; these comments will be reviewed by the Exam

Committee but the questions will not be changed at that point on that exam (although can be changed in the bank).

In general, the review and rating processes went smoothly for the Oncology Exam to be administered in June 2015. There were

occasional difficulties with accessing the exam for some individuals. As in past years, not all members rated the exam, although most

did a timely and thorough job.

Maintenance of Credentials Committee

Kerry Rissetto, Onc MOCC Chair

Members: Kerry Rissetto (chair), Jennifer Coyle, Sue Lana, Linda Fineman, Steve Crow, and Enrico Spugnini.

The members of this committee have continued to work to create a MOC template for the specialty of oncology that will incorporate

requirements for continued education and “re-credentialing,” expected of all Oncology Diplomates starting June 2016. The original

goal was to create specialty specific templates but in the past year, that goal has shifted towards a “global template” applicable to all

ACVIM specialties. This global template will be accompanied by a specialty specific addendum consisting of a list of meetings and

conferences that are considered to be pre-approved within each specialty. Individuals will also have the opportunity to request MOCC

approval of activities not listed.

On December 17, 2014, the global template was sent to all Diplomates with the goal of obtaining feedback and suggestions for

improvement. The survey closed January 15, 2015 and the MOCC Chairs reviewed the comments and shared them with their

respective committees. The Board is currently in the process of updating the template to ensure that all concerns have been

addressed. The new template will be available for review Spring 2015.

General Examination Committee

Dr. Sandra Axiak-Bechtel is our representative on the General Exam Committee.

Nominating Committee

Members: Erika Krick (chair, 6/1/2012), Kim Reeds (10/1/2013)

Page 47

Purpose:

To identify and to select candidates for the President-Elect Oncology Position

• The term for president-elect is 3 years

• The term for president is 3 years

• The next election for president-elect will be prior to the 2015 ACVIM Forum; Dr. Antony Moore is President-Elect and takes

over as President for Dr. Jeff Bryan in 2016

Term

Three-year term

Current chair Erika Krick became chair in June 2014; Kim Reeds rotated onto the Committee Oct 2013

Past ACVIM Oncology Presidents

Richard Weller

Ralph Richardson

Bruce Madewell

Jeffrey Klausner

Dennis Macy

Glenna Mauldin

Carolyn Henry

Chand Khanna

Current President: Jeffrey Bryan

President-Elect: Antony Moore VCS Past Presidents William Hardy RS Brodey E. Gregory MacEwen Edward L. Gillette Steve Withrow Ralph Richardson Steve Crow Rod Page Wally Morrison Barb Kitchell Neal Mauldin MK Klein Phil Bergman Carolyn Henry Ruthanne Chun

Laura Garrett

Current President: David Vail

President Elect: Kim Selting

The committee has begun the search for nominees for Oncology president. One willing candidate has been confirmed so far. The next election for Oncology Specialty president will take place in early 2016. Dr. Tony Moore will become president in 2016, and the person elected will become president-elect. In addition to identifying suitable candidates for the election, the committee plans to finalize the Question and Answer Forum SOP as part of the election process.

Page 48

Large Animal Internal Medicine Author(s): Laurent Couetil


Ad hoc Committee on Case Report Alternatives (Chair: Rose Nolen-Walston)

The ad hoc Committee on Case Reports Alternatives (CRA) has performed an assessment of the LAIM GIG‟s expectations for case

reports and generated several alternative methods for achieving these goals using consultation with the National Board of Medical

Examiners (NBME), the National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (NBVME), a private psychometrics firm (Applied

Measurement Professionals Inc.) and representatives from several other specialty colleges. We have identified several alternatives to

the traditional case reports and present them with pros and cons for each.

ECBHM Liaison Committee (Chair: John Middleton)

This committee serves the purpose of fostering relationships with our colleagues in ECBHM and members continued to engage with

our European colleagues (see below).

Job Task Analysis Committee (Chair: Richard Hepburn)

The committee worked hard to create the job task analysis survey, which went live in March 2015. The main challenge was balancing

the breadth of tasks our specialty routinely performs, with a survey that was not too onerous to complete. The target completion rate is

>30% (180 diplomates), which we are currently some way off achieving. A process of reminding the specialty and reinforcing the

importance of JTA to the future of specialty training is underway.

LAIM IOCART committee (Chair: Chris Luby)

The LAIM IOCART committee has been involved in rewriting the LAIM section of the Certification Manual. Specific attention has been

paid to candidate evaluation and program oversight. The major proposed changes are the introduction of a standardized resident

evaluation and milestones to be passed in order for candidates to continue within a program. These milestones are not intended to

replace evaluations carried out within an institution. The responsibilities of the program director and residency advisor have also been

clarified. We have also proposed that formal training in ultrasonography be included in the residency program. We are currently

working to develop a means of determining whether a program may be underperforming and therefore merits additional oversight.

Major proposed changes will be voted on by LAIM diplomates.

LAIM Ombudsman (Michelle Barton)

As Ombudsman, I serve the residents and College as a “to go” person that helps answer questions or address any concerns that are

raised by residents (as well as mentors). Ultimately, our goal is to help bridge any potential gaps between the individual and the

ACVIM or the individual‟s training program and their affiliation with the ACVIM. For the second year, a “Resident Chat Session” was

held at the ACVIM Forum 2014. This is a small room open format breakfast session where LAIM residents are invited to come and

chat with the Ombudsman. We had 14 residents in attendance and they provided varied and valuable input. I believe that it is

particularly useful for residents to hear of positive and effective training and program strategies from residents at other institutions.

Likewise, we also were able to identify some areas of weakness, namely inconsistent or absent feedback from mentors. This was not a

universal problem, but one voiced by more than half of those in attendance. In response to this concern, several items for action were

presented to the LAIM President and were addressed through joint efforts between the Credentials Committee and RTC (see below).

Through ACVIM 360, a resident listserv was created, of which the Ombudsman and LAIM President are members. As the

Ombudsman, I addressed multiple individual questions or concerns raised by candidates who mostly initially contacted me via email.

Some of these individuals were also provided input verbally via telephone conversations. A 34 question survey of immediate past

residents (with in the last 3 years) and residents currently in training programs was conducted and the results will be presented at the

2015 ACVIM Forum. Through the assistance of a resident and the Ombudsman, the case report task force was provided with a

summary of input from residents on case reports. Lastly, a simple template of deadlines and credentials for mentors and residents

was to be drafted by the Credentials Committee by the Forum.

Page 49

LAIM Specialty Examination (Chair: Munashe Chigerwe)

A total of 47 candidates registered to sit the January 2015 examination in Las Vegas, NV.

• New Candidates: 24 – 18 PASSED & 5 FAILED

• Retake Candidates: 23 – 17 PASSED & 3 FAILED

• Withdraws: 4 (3 retake candidates)

• No Shows: 0

Marketing Committee (Chair: Sarah Reuss)

It has been a productive year for the LAIMMC with some tangible outcomes. Budget requests and marketing initiatives were approved

to create a print ad campaign to run in “The Horse” magazine. Associated with that ad, a landing site (acvim.org/horse) was made on

the ACVIM website for horse owners to access. The ad has run 3 times so far (out of a budgeted 6 times), and the landing site has

been operational for 4 months. Budget approval was also obtained to produce brochures and posters to market LAIM specialists, but

they have not yet been created. We have been waiting on redesign of the logo as well as further input from SE2 to be sure that all

marketing initiatives are cohesive. A marketing initiative was also approved for launch of an online apparel catalog through Land‟s End

with the ACVIM logo once the redesign is complete. The LAIMMC has been working jointly with the college-wide Marketing and

Communications committee on the Animal Owner Awareness campaign (the joint effort between ACVIM and ACVS to promote

specialty medicine). Thus far, a marketing firm was hired and the initial website is ready to launch at ACVIM Forum in Indianapolis.

Residency Training Committee (Chair: Casey Gonda)

As a result of the need for improved oversight of residency training programs (RTPs) within all ACVIM specialties, a day long

“brainstorming” retreat was incorporated during the 2014 Forum in Nashville to promote communication among the specialties, to

identify weaknesses in individual programs and develop solutions. Members of both the LAIM RTC and credentials committee (CC)

attended and over the last year have worked together to develop improved oversight. The current RTC Chair (Casey Gonda) and

incoming Chair (John Middleton) currently sit on the IOCART-LAIM committee and will be providing input and suggested changes over

the next year to revise and restructure the LAIM section of the GIG. Since these changes will likely not be presented to the

membership for a vote until late 2015-2016, the RTC voted to enact a mechanism to improve oversight in the short term. Beginning

with the 2015 RTP renewal cycle, Program Directors are now required to submit an Annual Candidate Progress Report verifying the

resident‟s clinical and scholarly activities over the previous year. Signatures and/or initials are required from all parties (program

directors, resident advisors, supervising diplomats and resident) ensuring accuracy and promoting a cohesive relationship between

candidate and members of the training program.

Tail alteration task force (Chair: Becky McConnico)

The committee has formulated a draft of a position statement and is submitting it for approval to the BOR. Additional action items

include submission of a lay article, a scientific article, and a teaching module on this ethics issue (once a position statement has been

approved). In addition, the committee is communicating with both AAEP and AVMA welfare/ethics committees regarding possible

additional action items.



1. Alternative to Case Reports Training / Credentials-Exams High / 10 min

2. Maintenance of Credentials Training / Credentials High / 10 min

3. JTA Training / Credentials-Exams High / 5 min

4. LAIM Ombudsman Training / Credentials Medium / 5 min

5. Tail alteration task force Education / Promotion of specialists Medium / 5 min

Page 50


1. Alternative to Case Reports

Case reports have been a contentious part of the LAIM credentialing process for many years now. A vote held this year by our members agreed to retain case reports (CR) until a valid alternative was found. It was the charge of this committee to identify possible replacements for this credential. If the BOR so agrees, one, some, or all of these alternatives will be offered to the members for a vote on replacement of CRs for future GIGs. Background: The GIG states that purposes of case reports are two-fold:

Objective #1: "To demonstrate the candidate's ability to use medical principles in the diagnosis and treatment of animal disease,.." Objective #2: "... and to communicate medical observations and data to his/her colleagues in a clear and organized manner."

The traditional CRs were successful in some aspects in their ability to meet these objectives, but they failed in several

important aspects which we were determined not to re-create in any proposed alternative plans. These problems, as

described by candidates both past and current usually fell into the following camps: the grading was inconsistent and

sometimes even felt capricious; the word limit restricted the candidate‟s ability to fully describe the salient details of the case

yet they were penalized for being incomplete; the cases were often largely managed by their senior clinicians yet they were

graded on the medical decisions therein; it was often hard to identify appropriate cases that were neither too simple nor too

complex; and the requirements for discussion were unrealistic and forced excessive focus on problems or abnormalities that

were not clinically relevant.

2. MOC

a. The template proposed for MOC provides little opportunities for Diplomates in private practice to acquire points.

3. JTA

Currently (May 2015) uptake of survey is well below what is required by AMP, with 51 respondents. Approximately 8 people

have started the survey but not completed it. A program of serial reminders has started, along with an incentive of a free

Forum registration (2015/2016). The next step is to reiterate the ideal survey completion date of the 2015 Forum. This

reminder/cajoling process was successful in other specialties, and it is hoped it will be in LAIM. If not then adjustment of the

survey may be required and re-application. Significant shortening of the survey whilst maintaining a valid list of tasks and

following the AMP format will be challenging. How short does it need to be for Diplomates to engage and appreciate the

importance of the JTA task?

4. LAIM Ombudsman

- Topic 1: As Ombudsman, I hear frequent complaints raised by residents that the description provided in the VIRMP did

not provide accurate details of the program they entered (case numbers, fees, graduate studies requirement, mentors or

those currently enrolled in programs). Because resident candidates cannot afford to visit all sites, they heavily rely on the

information provided in the VIRMP. There is no current template or standard for the information provided by training

programs. Does the board approve the concept that we should provide a template of minimal information for program

directors to provide to the VIRMP? Ideally, a template should be provided to program directors by September 1st to

enable incorporation in the 2016 candidate pool.

- Topic 2: A second concern expressed by residents is that they knew little about the success of individual training

programs with respect to their candidates attaining board certification. Should the ACVIM be collecting data on training

programs and make it available to potential candidates? This could be as simple as the number of candidates over a set

number of years and those that have achieved board certification to information from exit interviews from residents after

they have finished a program.

5. Tail alteration task force

The committee has formulated the following draft of a position statement and is submitting it for approval to the BOR:

“The American College of Internal Medicine (ACVIM) specialty of Large Animal Internal Medicine (LAIM) is opposed to any procedure

that alters the normal function, natural carriage or appearance of an equine (pony, horse, mule, and donkey) tail for the sole purpose of

Page 51

satisfying a perceived breed aesthetic or to gain a competitive edge in the show ring. Such procedures include, but are not limited to;

partial tail amputation “docking” commonly practiced in draft breeds; cutting or “nicking” the muscles to encourage a specific position of

the tail in show horses and ponies of various disciplines; and tail “blocking” practiced primarily in performance horses, whereby a

foreign substance such as alcohol is injected blindly near the base of the horse‟s tail to cause temporary or permanent damage and/or

paralysis of the nerves which activate the tail muscles. These procedures not only compromise the well-being of the animal by causing

pain, anxiety and an inability to perform natural behaviors, but in some cases may lead to secondary infection, localized tissue

destruction, permanent scarring, urogenital system paralysis, pelvic limb paresis/paralysis, and death.”


Ad hoc Committee on Case Report Alternative

Following rejection of a motion to eliminate case reports from the credentialing process, an ad hoc committee has been appointed to

identify possible alternatives to case reports. The committee‟s recommendations are detailed below. We have felt that this has been a

productive exercise that provides the college with several high quality options to replace CRs: standardized case-based essays,

retention of CRs as a training tool only, replacement with higher-order thinking MCQs,

Credentials Committee

In August 2014, LAIM Diplomates rejected an up or down motion to remove case reports from the credentialing process. As of July 1,

2014, 23 LAIM candidates submitted their credentials packets for approval. Of these, 17 were approved and an additional 6 were

conditionally approved. In October of 2014, a total of 64 case reports were received and overall pass rate was 55%. In April of 2015, a

total of 39 case reports were received and overall pass rate was 38%.

ECBHM Liaison Committee

This committee serves the purpose of fostering relationships with our colleagues in ECBHM. The committee is made up of Drs.

Middleton, Roussel and Smith. Through Dr. Roussel‟s engagement early on in ECBHM and with the continued engagement of the

members of this committee there has been a great deal of cross-pollination between training programs including the speaker

exchange, discussions on the challenges of residency training, access of ACVIM residents to ECBHM residency training webinars, and

the possibility of trans-Atlantic resident training exchanges. For example, the University of Missouri recently hosted Sophie

Mahendran, an ECBHM resident from the Royal Veterinary College in the UK, for two weeks where she participated in activities in the

Food Animal in-house clinic at MU. In addition, North Carolina State University will host Johann Burgstaller, an ECBHM resident from

the University of Vienna for a 1-month externship later this fall and Anne Relun from ONIRIS in Nantes, France will be hosted by Texas

A&M University this summer.

Job Task Analysis Task Force

As of April 26, only about 30 people have completed the online job task analysis survey, as there are about 500 LAIM dips and we

need at least a 30% completion rate, we are a bit of a way off getting what we need to fulfil the AVMA and ABVS requirement. Another

email was sent to the membership on 4/27 to encourage participation including incentive to complete the survey by offering either a

refunded 2015 Forum registration or a complimentary 2016 Forum registration to one random respondent.

LAIM IOCART Committee

The members of this committee have worked exceptionally hard and have been well supported by Kathy Klaus. The committee has

proposed changes to the Certification Manual regarding the RTP description, resident evaluation, responsibilities of supervisors and

residency oversight. These are described in detail below.

LAIM Ombudsman

The results of the resident survey will be presented at the 2015 ACVIM Forum. After the Forum the results of the survey will be posted

on the LAIM site of the ACVIM website. There will also be an open forum resident chat session breakfast with the Ombudsman at the

2015 ACVIM Forum.

Page 52

LAIM Specialty Examination

The overall pass rate (81 %) was towards the high-end of the range for the previous 12 years (2 years achieved higher pass rate: 93 %

in 2005 and 85 % in 2004). Overall pass rates were 78 % for new candidates and 85 % for retake candidates.

Marketing Committee

The ad in “The Horse” has run 3 times so far, with 3 more still to run. The associated landing page has also been active since January.

The most recent Google metrics (through March 31), indicate 175 page views, 115 unique page views, and an average time on the

page of 2:27.

A membership survey was performed to determine how many Diplomates belong to other organized veterinary medicine groups (e.g.

AVMA, AAEP, etc.). This information has been compiled and will be available to use when trying to strategize partnerships with those

organizations.

The LAIMMC will work with the college wide MCC and SE2 to design brochures and/or posters for specialists to distribute. We will also

work with logo redesign to launch the apparel website. Finally, the LAIMMC will continue to provide input for the large animal

perspective for the Animal Owner Awareness campaign.


The RTC intended to present the Board with a list of additions and revisions to the GIG for consideration and specialty vote, if required.

However, since the IOCART task force subcommittee is currently working on the GIG revision, the RTC list of proposed changes will be

incorporated into a document for presentation in the future.

Tail alteration task force

Task Force formation – January 29, 2015

Position statement draft approved by the committee – April 29, 2015

5. DETAILED REPORT

Ad hoc Committee on Case Report Alternative

Proposed Replacements for Case Reports as part of the LAIM Credential Requirements

1. Standardized case –based essays

This alternative would be modeled after the clinical chemistry case essays employed by ACVP clinical pathology board

examinations. Candidates would write a case report based on a standard case given during an examination (either the

General or the Specialty exam). During the exam period, candidates are given a standardized case including signalment,

history, MDB bloodwork, PE findings, etc. They are then asked to write an essay coving very specific topics: problem list

(rank-ordered), differential diagnoses (rank-ordered), diagnostic plan, treatment recommendations, etc. There would be a

strict rubric that is specific to each case, and each exam would be graded by 2 independent graders.

Pros

o Many of the same skills tested by the current CRs, with synthesis and integration of analytical thinking,

medical knowledge, and clinical decision-making skills while avoiding a large proportion of the

disadvantages of the current system.

o Allows evaluation of candidates‟ ability to communicate clearly and write in an organized fashion

o Probably more reliable and less grading time than current CRs

o ACVP uses a similar instrument for their examinations and has been pleased with it, so the basic

concept has applicable real-life validation.

Cons

o Reliability will be reduced by case-specific knowledge: if a candidate happens to be tested on a

particular type of case with which they are familiar, they will score highly and vice versa.

o The exam is already very long – we would need to shorten it to allow time for a substantial essay. Page 53

o The cases and rubrics will be time consuming to create and validate, and grading retains a degree of

subjectivity (though markedly less than with the original CRs).

2. Retention of case reports as a training tool

Many of the main objections to the traditional CRs are focused not on the actual writing exercise but on deficits in the

grading and assessment of these essays. In fact, many candidates who offered opinions on them reported that writing CRs

was a very valuable learning exercise which benefitted their clinical education. Due to the positive training value of case

reports, a potential solution would be to continue having candidates write case reports as a component of their training

program, uncoupled to credentials requirements. Challenges for this option would include: 1) Whether this would be a

mandatory or optional exercise; 2) How would oversight be performed (ACVIM office involved or not); and 3) whether there

would be internal or external review.

At a minimum, case reports could be continued as an optional exercise with oversight (internal review) within each training

institution. This feedback would not be scored and the case reports would not be issued pass/fail grades, it would consist

only of constructive comments to enhance candidate‟s training. Alternately, institutions could submit the case reports to

ACVIM for external review, but the remarks and feedback would be advisory only and used as a teaching tool and quality

control measure by the training programs without affecting the candidate‟s credentialing progress.

Pros

o Many candidates and supervising Diplomates describe the act of writing the case reports as being

educationally very constructive; this retains the baby while throwing out the bathwater.

o The training programs could use this as a tool for internal review, assessment and training to improve

the communication and data integrative aspects of their programs and offer real-time feedback on

candidates‟ skills.

Cons

o This option may be too close to the traditional case reports to alleviate some of the significant problems.

o There is limited external review of the candidates, and acceptable standards may vary greatly between

programs leading to heterogeneity of quality in candidate performance.

3. Replacement with MCQs that show higher-order thinking skills

Utilize multiple choice questions (MCQ) that assess integration and application of knowledge. Since these questions are

not testing material novel to the current exam, but rather integration of knowledge, we recommend these items would

replace a certain percentage of the currently used MCQs. The current psychometricians engaged by the ACVIM may not

be experienced in developing these types of questions but would allow the establishment of new relationships with groups

such as the National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (NBVME) and the National Board of Medical Examiners

(NBME).

Pros

o Similar questions have been successfully used by other health professions and are the cornerstone of

the NAVLE, and representatives of the NMBE and NBVME have already proffered their assistance in

creating these items.

o Based on the experience of other groups with this approach this evaluation method would be objective,

reliable, stable, consistent and valid.

Cons

o Only objective #1 is tested; assessment of communication skills is absent from this approach.

o However good an MCQ is, it cannot evaluate the complexity of sequential thinking that is shown in an

extended case-management style question, and while the higher-order skills of analysis and integration

can be assessed, synthesis is not.

o These questions would have to replace part of the existing examination rather than being added to

avoid making the examinations longer.

Page 54

4. Computer-based Case Simulations (CCS) +/- short writing section

CCSs are branching-tree questions that allow candidates to work through simulated cases using similar clinical decision-

making skills as they would in practice. They have been used successfully in the past in LAIM exams but were phased out

for technical reasons in times preceding the personal computer. CCSs are now used and have been extensively validated

in the human board examinations, as can be seen using this link: http://download.usmle.org/2014/Step3Download.zip.

Additionally, after the case has been completed, a short essay either styled as a communication to a referring veterinarian

regarding the case, or asking for some specific analysis could be included. This would add a more easily gradable

component to the examination so both criteria from the GIG would be satisfied.

Pros

o The CCS test may evaluate some of the same integrative skills that we looked for with the traditional

case reports but using a method where grading is computer-based, immediate and consistent.

o It has been trialed and validated by the NBME for assessing skills very similar to those that we wish to

evaluate in out candidates and is hard to assess using more limited tools such as the MCQ.

o The NBME has offered to collaborate with us on creating and validating CCS questions.

Cons

o Like standardized case essays, the performance on each CCS is determined largely by case-specific

knowledge, thus reducing their validity unless either many cases are completed or the candidates get to

pick from a selection of cases.

o They will be time-consuming to construct, and will probably need assistance from the NMBE to

complete, although this assistance is available upon our further request.

o Due to time constraints, these questions would have to replace part of the existing examination rather

than being added.

Ideas considered but not pursued:

5. Case reports using standard journal peer-review techniques: pros are that they give better quality feedback (how to fix it, not

simply “you got this wrong”) and allow candidates more than one chance to pass. Cons – labor intensive, and may be too

close to case reports as they are now to stand.

6. Allowing the required publication to count for this portion: too hard to establish whether the resident did the writing, or the

senior clinician; does not assess clinical reasoning.

7. Oral assessment (an oral exam, or a graded lecture or abstract presentation): this seems fraught with issues; most of the

colleges that had an oral exam have now abandoned it. Tests only oral communication skills.

Credentials Committee

From June-July of 2014, a specialty-wide discussion of the usefulness and necessity of the LAIM case reports in the credentialing

process was initiated. Informal polling of recent (<5 years) LAIM ACVIM diplomats identified 61.2% voting to discontinue case

reports whereas polling of the Credential Committee members identified 56% voting to retain the case reports. Comments from

both polls suggested that an alternative to the LAIM case report be identified. In July of 2014, a motion was made to remove the

case report requirement from the ACVIM LAIM Credentials package but the motion failed (62.5% vote to reject the motion). At the

2006 business meeting of the LAIM specialty, a motion was passed stating that "Case reports shall be eliminated from credentials

requirements when they can be replaced by a suitable alternative that evaluates clinical skills, including problem solving”.

Therefore an ad hoc committee (Drs. Rose Nolen-Walston, Jennifer Gold, Jeanne Lofstedt, Fernando Marques and Hal Schott)

was created to identify alternatives to Case Reports for LAIM (see report below).

As of July 1, 2014, 23 LAIM candidates submitted their credentials packets for approval. Of these, 17 were approved and an

additional 6 were conditionally approved. In October of 2014, a total of 64 case reports (50 new reports and 14 resubmissions)

were received. The overall pass rate was 55% (pass rate of 52% for new case reports and 64% for resubmitted reports). In April of

Page 55

http://download.usmle.org/2014/Step3Download.zip

2015, a total of 39 case reports (33 new reports and 6 resubmissions) were received. The overall pass rate was 38% (pass rate of

33% for new case reports and 67% for resubmitted reports).

One issue identified during review of credentials packets is that the program director is signing off on the 40 hours of radiology and

40 hours of clinical or anatomic pathology instead of a specialist in this field. We are now requiring that a boarded radiologist and

clinical or anatomic pathologist provide a signature certifying that the resident has trained with them for the time listed.

In an effort to improve upon the consistency of case report grading, a webinar was created in September of 2014 to provide

guidelines to LAIM Credentials Committee members for reviewing and grading case reports. The LAIM CC SOP is currently being

revised in order to facilitate the transition between chairs from year to year. The CC also recommends to institute a 2-year term for

CC chair: There is a steep learning curve when transitioning from co-chair to chair on the CC committee and a 2-year term is put

forward to increase the consistency of oversight within this committee.

The Credentials and Case Report Session for Candidates and their Mentors has been re-instituted at the ACVIM Forum in June of

2015 and we have requested that the session be video-recorded for future viewing by candidates.

Case reports data, October 2014:

Subcommittee # new

reports # New pass

# New Fail

# Suitable Resubmit

#Resubmitted reports

# resubmit pass # resubmit fail

1 4 2 2 1 0 0 0

2 5 0 5 3 1 1 0

3 4 3 1 1 1 1 0

4 5 4 1 1 0 0 0

5 5 4 1 1 0 0 0

6 4 4 0 0 2 2 0

7 4 1 3 3 2 1 1

8 4 2 2 1 2 1 1

9 4 1 3 1 1 0 1

10 3 1 2 2 2 1 1

11 4 3 1 1 1 1 0

12 4 1 3 0 2 1 1

TOTALS 50 26 24 15 14 9 5

Total % new reports passing 52

Total % of resubmitted reports passing 64.28571429

Total % of new reports failing 48

Total % of resubmitted reports failing 35.71428571

Total % of new failed reports OK for resubmission 63

Total % of reports passing 55

Total % of reports failing 45

# New pass # New Fail # Suitable for Resubit #Resubmitted reports # resubmit pass # resubmit fail

Page 56

Case reports data, March 2015:

Subcommittee # new

reports # New pass

# New Fail

# Suitable resubmit

#Resubmitted reports

# resubmit pass

# resubmit fail

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0

3 3 1 2 1 1 1 0

4 2 0 2 1 1 1 0

5 4 2 2 2 0 0 0

6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0

7 2 0 2 1 2 2 0

8 3 0 3 2 0 0 0

9 2 1 1 1 0 0 0

10 3 1 2 2 1 0 1

11 4 1 3 2 0 0 0

12 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 33 11 22 13 6 4 2

Total % new reports passing 33 Total % of resubmitted reports

passing 66.66666667

Total % of new reports failing 67

Total % of resubmitted reports failing 33.33333333

Total % of new failed reports OK for resubmission 59

Total % of reports passing 38

Total % of reports failing 62

ECBHM Liaison Committee

John Middleton representing ACVIM attended the ECBHM Congress in Oviedo, Spain held in conjunction with the XIX ANEMBE

Congress on June 25-27, 2014. Dr. Middleton was an invited speaker by both ECBHM and ANEMBE and represented ACVIM as part

of the speaker exchange between ECBHM and ACVIM. Dr. Middleton‟s expenses were covered by ECBHM and ANEMBE. He gave

two 45 minute presentations on Friday June 27th entitled 1) Update on contagious mastitis: S. aureus and Strep. agalactiae and 2)

Molecular diagnostics and bovine mastitis. Dr. Middleton attended the ECBHM board meeting on June 25th and the ECBHM Annual

General Meeting (AGM) on June 26th. During the Board meeting held on June 25th Dr. Middleton discussed some of the shared

aspects and challenges associated with residency training and certification and also participated in a discussion between the ECBHM

Board and a small group of ECBHM residents about issues they perceive in their training programs. It was also discussed that Peter

Constable (UI) and John Middleton (MU) hold Associate membership in ECBHM and Geof Smith (NCSU) had applied for Associate Page 57

membership. Dr. Geof Smith has since been approved as an Associate member of ECBHM. At the 2015 Congress in Maribor,

Slovenia (June 10-13) Amelia Woolums will be the ACVIM exchange speaker and Dr. Geof Smith will represent the ACVIM liaison

committee. The ECBHM exchange speaker at the 2015 ACVIM Forum will be Raphael Guatteo (France) presenting two 1-hour talks in

the FAIM Comprehensive Reviews on Q-Fever and antimicrobial drug use in Europe. In addition, Mireille Meylan (current ECBHM

President) will present 1-hour on the economic impact of Schmallenberg virus in Swiss dairy herds.

Job Task Analysis Committee

Committee comprises: Richard Hepburn, chair, Fairfield Bain, Alexandra Burton, Martin Furr, Jenifer Gold, Gayle Hallowell, John

Middleton, Janice Sojka Kritchevsky

Excel spreadsheet submitted to AMP contained approx. 800 line items, split into topics and subheadings

Reported survey completion times range from 30mins to 2h

LAIM IOCART Committee

The LAIM IOCART committee has met three times by teleconference during the past three months. The rewrite of the LAIM section of

the certification manual has progressed well. We have proposed changes in the following areas and intend to put the major changes to

a vote of LAIM diplomates:

1. Description of the RTP:

a. We have clarified regarding the number of diplomates required to supervise a program

b. The language in the manual has been changed to emphasize the responsibility of the training program to provide

adequate personnel and facilities to fulfil residency training requirements.

c. We have proposed a change in the radiology requirement to 80 hours with a board-certified radiologist, with at least

40 hours being directly trained in ultrasonography.

2. Resident evaluation:

a. We have proposed requiring two comprehensive written and oral reviews each year. These must be provided on the

RTP renewal form part 4.

b. We have developed a standardized residency evaluation and milestones for progress in each year of a RTP. We are

currently determining how to incorporate these into the RTP renewal form part 4 to minimize the extra burden on

supervisors and candidates.

3. Responsibilities of supervisors:

a. We have proposed a requirement that each PD and RA attend and pass a training session annually to continue in the

role. This will ensure that PDs and RAs understand the requirements of the certification manual.

b. We have proposed a change such that if the PD (whether the program is in good standing or on probation) does not

respond to an RTC‟s request for documentation regarding their residency within fourteen days and does not provide

the required documentation within thirty days of the request, that program will be terminated. This aims to speed up

communications between PDs and the RTC.

c. We have proposed a requirement that each RA should not be responsible for more than three residents at any one

time

4. Oversight of RTPs: Significant discussion took place on how to determine whether a RTP was underperforming. The

committee came to the consensus that pass rate alone is not an ideal measure since programs vary greatly in number of

residents enrolled and that pass rate is related to the ability and work ethic of the resident as well as the RTP. As a result, we

are currently exploring a means by which residents can evaluate their supervision and mentorship such that problems can be

identified and acted on.

Page 58

The members of this committee (Carrie Finno, Casey Gonda, Steve Grubbs and John Middleton) have worked exceptionally hard

through this process and have been of great help. I also have appreciated the guidance from Laurent Couetil and the help of Kathy

Klaus in this work.

LAIM Ombudsman

The role that the Ombudsman serves is to provide counsel on general governing rules of the ACVIM (such as the General Information

Guide), provide suggestions on potential paths of action or solutions, or to provide and facilitate contact with individuals that might be

better suited to assist. It is not uncommon for a candidate to be unsure of what components of a training program the ACVIM would

have “jurisdiction” over and what parts would be under the jurisdiction of the policies of the sponsoring program. It is important for

Diplomates to appreciate that all attempts are made to facilitate while attempting to enable the candidate to maintain anonymity with

respect to their training facility or direct mentors. To date, no individual supervising Diplomates have been revealed, either by a

candidate or by the Ombudsman. Two additional resources that have been provided at the ACVIM Forum for candidates have been

open group “resident chat sessions” with the ombudsman (2013 and 2014) and a mentorship workshop for LAIM candidates facilitated

by Drs. Julie Carey and Nicki Wise at the 2014 Forum. All of these resources have provided valuable feedback from candidates. This

feedback has not only highlighted common concerns among candidates, it has opened the door of communication on how some of the

most pressing concerns could be addressed. To engage a larger population of residents and candidates, in the fall of 2014, the

ACVIM helped organize an online survey including 32 multiple-choice questions using a likert scale and two open-ended questions. All

residents actively enrolled in a registered ACVIM LAIM program and candidates or Diplomates that completed their program within the

last three years were solicited via email to participate. Candidates and residents were also solicited to participate via the ACVIM360

candidate listserv and Diplomate business listserv. Supervising Diplomates were also solicited via the ACVIM360 business listserv to

encourage their residents to complete the survey. As incentive for participation, all that completed the survey were enrolled in a

drawing for free registration at the 2015 ACVIM Forum. The questions were provided via Survey Monkey, which was monitored by an

ACVIM staff member. Anonymity was maintained, unless a candidate elected to reveal the location of their program.

Participation in the survey was excellent! Of approximately 180 candidates or recent Diplomates, 119 (66%) completed the survey.

Fifty-four of the responses were from individuals that finished their program in the last three years (52% board certified) and 65 were

from candidates still within a residency program (34% year one, 28% year 2, and 38% year three). From all respondents, 44% were

equine emphasis, 16% food animal and 40% mixed large animal. Anticipating that there may be considerable variation in the

responses to some of questions on mentorship, candidates were asked to anonymously rate individual mentors in their program. For

those questions, the mentors were simply listed as A, B, C, D, etc.

The message I am hearing is that residents want their mentors to care, to be engaged in all aspects of their training, to provide

constructive feedback, and to help them know how to navigate through the process of becoming a specialist. From the survey

responses, we need to provide clear expectations of candidates in training, both mentors and mentees need to be abreast of the

credentialing requirements, case rounds and journal club should be attended by mentors, candidates need help in preparing case

reports and examinations, and we need to provide methods by which candidates within individual programs can have access to trained

professionals if help is needed with conflict resolution or stress.

Some of these areas are already being addressed. The Residency Training and Credentials Committees have extensively revised the

requirements for annual program renewal, including information on caseload, evaluations, and how much time the candidate has been

under supervision in the clinic. These committees will also be providing simple annual credential checklists for candidates and mentors

alike. Input was collected from candidates on ACVIM360 on case reports concerns. I would like to charge the specialty to provide an

outline of the details that should be included in VIRMP descriptions of programs and to encourage all seeking residencies to contact

current or former candidates in programs to gain insight in the ranking process. Through annual exit surveys, perhaps similar to the

one included here, we can follow our progress on these areas and other areas of weakness. We should consider making an outcome

assessment database by program that would be accessible to the RTC and perhaps to candidates seeking programs. Although this

concept might make us uneasy, performance of academic mentors frequently includes student teaching or service evaluations. Why

would we not look at similar assessments for accreditation for training programs for residents?

The results of the survey will be posted on the LAIM site of the ACVIM after the Forum and copies will be provided to the LAIM

President and the chairs of the RTC and Credentials Committee.

LAIM Specialty Examination

Page 59

A detailed report is available in the February minutes of the BOR. Below is a summary of those minutes related to the LAIM Specialty Exam. A total of 47 candidates registered to sit the 2015 examination in Las Vegas, NV.

• New Candidates: 24 • Retake Candidates: 23 • Withdraws: 4 (3 retake candidates) • No Shows: 0

The distribution of candidates who sat each section is as follows:

Exam Section Total New Candidates Retake Candidates

Multiple Choice,

Part 1

36 23 13

Multiple Choice,

Part 2

28 23 5

Patient

Management

38 23 15

Specific items identified as problematic by raters, candidates, &/or the statistical reports after the 2014 examination were reviewed by the committee during the examination preparation meeting in August 2014. Those questions were either retained on the examination, deleted, or modified. This exam was made ready for rating by October 1, 2014. The comments from raters were reviewed, and Tamara Gull and I made additional changes in December of 2014. It was the committee‟s aim to have approximately 45% equine, 45% food animal, 5% camelid and 5% non-species specific questions

on the 2015 exam. The overall new question rate was 28% for the 2014 LAIM Specialty Exam, with major revisions to 42% of the exam

questions. The 2015 exam consists of 3 sections.

Multiple Choice (MC1) consisted of mechanistic/basic knowledge from current texts and journal articles. It consisted of 100 A-type (single-best-answer) multiple-choice questions. Candidates were allowed 4 hours to take the examination. The pass point for each multiple choice exam was determined by rating performed by Diplomates of the College who serve on the rating committee for the LAIM specialty exam. Out of the 28 Diplomate members on the rating committee, a total of 25 independently rated the exam via computer with a secured AMP site.

• Prior to final scoring of MC1, 3 items were re-keyed. • Responses from 25 raters were converted to an Angoff Mean (AM) and a pass score at the 99L Items Confidence Interval was

picked to determine the actual pass point of 59 pts. - Pass Rates within the 99L Items (# candidates (%)) – MC1

Total New Candidates Retake Candidates

31/36 (86%) 19/23 (83%) 12/13 (92%)

Multiple Choice (MC2) – Although there is some overlap between the types of questions in MC1 and MC2, MC2 questions are more clinically orientated. It consisted of 100 A-type (single-best-answer) multiple-choice questions. Candidates were allowed 4 hours to take the examination. See MC1 for methods of scoring.

• Prior to final scoring of MC2, 3 items were re-keyed • Responses from 25 raters were converted to an Angoff Mean (AM) and a pass score at the 99L Items Confidence Interval was

picked to determine the actual pass point of 56 pts. - Pass Rates within the 99L Items (# candidates (%)) – MC2


27/28 (96%) 22/23 (96%) 5/5 (100%)

Patient Management (PM) - is clinically based and utilizes diagnostic testing data and pictures for testing material. It consisted of 100 A-type (single-best-answer) multiple-choice questions. Candidates were allowed 4 hours to take the examination. See MC1 for methods of scoring.

• Prior to final scoring of PM, 0 items were re-keyed • Responses from 25 raters were converted to an Angoff Mean (AM) and a pass score at the 99L Items Confidence Interval was picked to determine the actual pass point of 58 pts.

Page 60

Pass Rates within the 99L Items (# candidates (%)) – PM


31/38 (82%) 18/23 (78%) 13/15 (87%)

Overall exam pass rate information:


35/43 (81%) 18/23(78%) 17/20 (85%)

Information on Candidates who failed: • 1 candidates failed all 3 sections • 3 candidates failed 2 sections & passed 1 section • 1 candidates failed 1 section & passed 2 sections • 2 candidates failed 1 section (of the 2 sections retaken) • 1 candidate failed 1 section (of the 1 section retaken)

Marketing Committee

1. Print ads- Budgeting ($10,644) and approval was obtained to run 6 – 1/3 page ads in “The Horse.” This is a monthly periodical sent

to horse owners that subscribe to Equus as well as all AAEP members. The ad is running in the following 2015 editions (February,

March, May, July, October, and November). The text is consistent in each ad, with a rotation of pictures (see attached). The goal of the

picture selection as well as the text is to convey the message that specialists should be part of the horse‟s health care team, including

the general practitioner.

2. Landing site- A horse-owner directed landing page was created (acvim.org/horse). This web page has been included in the print ad.

The landing page provides an opportunity for us to provide more information to owners than could be reasonably portrayed in a 1/3

page print ad. The following topics are included: What is an LAIM Specialist?, What do LAIM specialists do?, How do I know if my

horse needs a specialist?, How do I find a specialist?, Animal Survivor stories, Additional information. Google metrics can also be used

to monitor traffic to this site to provide some measure of the efficacy of our campaign. Ultimately when the Animal Owner Awareness

site (vetspecialists.com) is available, these two sites will be linked.

3. Membership survey- A survey was sent to all LAIM diplomates, with a response rate of 79 out of 578. The primary goal of this survey

was to ascertain what other groups LAIM diplomates belong to (AAEP, AABP, AASRP, AVMA) and if not, why. This information can be

used to leverage relationships with those organizations in the future. We also polled respondents as to their thoughts on our proposed

marketing initiatives. 82% of respondents would be interested in purchasing ACVIM logo wear. The top priorities (ranked from highest

to lowest) in their minds for marketing materials were a webpage/landing site geared to owners, use of social media, print ad targeted

towards owners, poster targeted towards owners, brochure targeted towards owners, and e-card targeted towards general

practitioners. (see attached survey summary).

4. A Marketing Initiative was submitted and accepted last year by the LAIMMC to create a portal on Landsend.com for Diplomates to

order apparel (polos, fleece, vests, hats) with the ACVIM logo on them. This has been on hold while awaiting redesign of the ACVIM

logo. As soon as the logo is redesigned, we would like to launch this site and advertise it to all ACVIM diplomates and candidates.

5. We wish to thank the BOR for approving funding for brochures ($1935) and posters ($1400) for 2014-15. We have not used that

money as we have been awaiting logo redesign and the second phase of the SE2 campaign. As the SE2 efforts will likely include these

materials for all specialties, we will await further action at this time to insure cohesiveness of the overall marketing campaign. We do

however wish to thank the BOR for their original budget approval and assure them that ultimately these materials will be made

available.

6. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their hard work.

Co-Chair and MCC Representative- Phoebe Smith

Marybeth Feutz- term concluding

Jaci Boggs- term concluding

Amy Polkes- term concluding

Ashley Alward

Ashley Boyle

Joan Norton

Page 61

Lucas Pantaleon

Bruce Sommerville

A special thank you to Stephanie Peters (ACVIM Director of Marketing) and Zack Wright (MCC Chair) for their help and support.

Maintenance of Credentials

Page 62


- The RTC approved the following new RTPs in 2014-15

01/2014 University of Melbourne EQ

11/2014 North Carolina State FA

11/2014 University of Missouri EQ

01/2015 University of Zurich FA

- Program(s) not renewed

Iowa State Mixed

Primary issues addressed by the RTC since the 2014 Forum

1. Improving program oversight in the short term

In response to candidate complaints of poor mentoring and a drop in completion rates among a number of approved training programs,

the RTC voted to develop a mechanism of oversight that could be implemented in time for the 2015-16 RTP renewal cycle. The current

RTC SOP and LAIM specialty section of the GIG (F.1.h.4) requires that program directors provide verification of resident activities at

the time of program renewal. This provision has not been enforced in the past and may be somewhat responsible for the “disconnect”

between some program directors, program performance and residents. Additionally, feedback from the LAIM Ombudsman-Michelle

Barton, via Dr. Couetil, indicated a significant number of resident complaints regarding a lack of mentoring by supervising diplomates

and little or no feedback in the form of personal performance evaluations.

A sub-committee composed of Casey Gonda and Carrie Finno, CC Chair, was charged with the task of developing an online form to

verify that comprehensive evaluations are being provided to candidates. In addition, to address oversight issues, the RTC voted to

develop a new form (Part 4-Annual Candidate Progress Report) that Program Directors would be required to complete for each

candidate during the RTP renewal cycle each spring. In the name of efficiency, and with the approval of Dr. Couetil and RTC Assistant

Chair John Middleton, the decision was made to meld the progress report form and the evaluation form together into one document.

The part 4 RTP renewal form serves to verify clinical and scholarly activities, and the provision for comprehensive evaluations.

Signatures/initials are required from all parties (program directors, resident advisors, supervising diplomats and resident) ensuring

accuracy and promoting a cohesive relationship between candidate and members of the training program.

2. Requiring approved programs provide a minimum of 2 comprehensive performance evaluations

As of the 2015-16 RTP renewal cycle, all fifty (50) RTPs answered “yes” to the question asking if they provide residents with

performance evaluations. However, nine (9) of the fifty (50) approved training programs provide only one evaluation per year. After

discussion, it was decided that programs would be given until the 2016-17 renewal cycle to “catch up” and provide residents the

minimum requirement of 2 comprehensive personal evaluations per year. Beginning with the next renewal cycle (2016-17), programs

that do not comply, risk being placed on probation or terminated. A description of these restrictions will be included with the proposed

RTC-SOP and GIG changes currently in development by the IOCART-LAIM sub-committee.

3. Improve communication between RTC and CC

Chairs Casey Gonda and Carrie Finno (CC) worked together to develop the Annual Candidate Progress Report which is available to

both committees for review at any time throughout the year. This form not only allows the RTC to verify that approved training

programs are in compliance, but also provides the CC a running tally of completed credentials for each candidate throughout the

training period, and improves the efficiency of the credentialing process at the time candidates apply for board certification.

Tail alteration task force

A task force of 9 ACVIM (LA) members was established on 1/29/2015 to formulate a position statement on the welfare topic of tail

alterations in equids after a post on ACVIM 360 regarding complications from a tail block generated a strong call for action to prevent

this practice. Members of the committee include: Cynthia Faux, Casey Gonda, Kelsey Hart, Kate Hepworth-Warren, Jamie Higgins,

Becky McConnico(Chair), Stacy Tinkler, Modest Vengust, and Pam Wilkins. The committee has formulated a draft of a position

statement and is submitting it for approval to the College Board of Regents. Additional action items include submission of a lay article,

a scientific article, and a teaching module on this ethics issue (once a position statement has been approved). In addition, the

committee is communicating with both AAEP and AVMA welfare/ethics committees regarding possible additional action items.

Page 63

Docking is amputation of the distal part of the boney part of the tail. Docking typically leaves a tail approximately 15 cm (6 inches) long.

In most cases, tails of foals are docked using a constricting band. In some cases „docking‟ is used interchangeably with trimming to

refer only to shortening of tail hair. Nicking is cutting tail tendons to cause an elevated carriage of the tail. Blocking is numbing the tail

to cause it to hang limply, usually achieved by injecting alcohol into the tail close to major nerves. The Animal Welfare Council of

Belgium conducted a review and concluded that tail docking was not necessary for draft horses; consequently it supported a national

ban.

Nicking is sometimes performed on breeds (e.g., saddlebreds) for which show standards reward the tail being carried erect rather than

lying flat. Nicking involves an incision and, in rare cases, serious or fatal complications have been reported due to infections resulting in

peritonitis.

Blocking is performed to prevent agitated tail movements during performances, which leads to the deduction of points. It is performed

on horses in Western (and some English) riding disciplines and is uncommon outside the United States.

It is encouraging that the welfare of the horse appears to be becoming more and more important in our society (world-wide), however,

winning is still as (or more) important and there has just not been an effective way to address the situation. It is our goal as a committee

to enter this discussion and to work together with the AAEP and the AVMA and others to put an end to this practice to improve the

welfare of the horse. Both the AAEP and AVMA have already released position statements in support of banning tail alteration for

cosmetic reasons.

Page 64

SAIM Specialty President’s Report Author(s): Jane E. Sykes


This year, the Specialty of Small Animal Internal Medicine has focused on improved oversight of residency training (under direction of Dr. Adam Birkenheuer), job task analysis (under direction of Dr. Leah Cohn), and defining the process for maintenance of credentials (under direction of Dr. Jane Armstrong). Attendance of the SAIM Specialty Day has been opened to ECVIM Diplomates and specialists of other veterinary colleges. Three surveys of the membership were conducted in regards to oversight of residency training (2 surveys) and job task analysis. Business listserv discussions were focused on the impacts of the journal converting to open access format, ACVIM‟s actions in regards to inclusiveness in light of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and voting mechanisms for the Specialty. Dr. Morrison assumes the Specialty President‟s position after this Forum and a search for a new President Elect for the Specialty must be conducted.



#1. SAIM IOCART Taskforce Report Training/Residency Training 20 minutes


A. The SAIM IOCART Taskforce has been working hard to address issues of residency training program oversight. These are

extremely complex and require major dedication and effort. In addition, the activity of the cross-specialty IOCART has sometimes been perceived as duplicating their efforts. I would like to discuss with the BOR the activities of this taskforce and how to proceed in the most efficient way possible.


The activities of the SAIM IOCART taskforce have been considerable and I would like to thank all members for their efforts. Now that input has been obtained from the membership through surveys, the taskforce plans to begin more detailed planning and implementation of improved RTP oversight. The Credentials Committee and Residency Training Committee are also reviewing the draft Certification Manual for input. A meeting has been organized at the Forum to work on this document. The incoming Credentials Committee chair has also organized an informational meeting for Program Directors to explain Maintenance of Credentials requirements begin January 2016 and the SAIM MOCC committee has made significant progress with the template for scoring points towards MOC. The job taskforce analysis taskforce experienced significant challenges with limiting the number of tasks for SAIM, given the diversity of an internal medicine specialist‟s job. A survey of the membership was conducted, but the response was disappointing, which may in part reflect the length and complexity of the survey. There was much discussion on the business listserv relating to the conversion of JVIM to open access format and the article publication charges; ACVIM‟s stance on the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and use of the listserv for voting.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Specialty President’s Report This is my final board report as President of the Specialty. I would like to thank all the committee members within the Specialty for their efforts both on SAIM-specific committees and college-wide committees. The activities of the SAIM IOCART taskforce and the Job Task Analysis taskforce in particular have been considerable (see detailed reports below). Now that input has been obtained from the membership through surveys, the SAIM IOCART taskforce plans to begin more detailed planning and implementation of improved RTP oversight. Dr. Morrison has spent countless hours working on a series of drafts of the new Certification Manual, a major undertaking. Maintenance of Credentials requirements begin January 2016 and the SAIM MOCC committee has made significant progress with the template for scoring points towards MOC. Dr. Armstrong plans to present the activities of the committee at the Forum business meeting.

Page 65

The job taskforce analysis taskforce experienced considerable challenges determining a manageable number of tasks for SAIM (see below), given the diversity of an internal medicine specialist‟s job. A survey of the membership was conducted, but the response was disappointing, which may in part reflect the (necessary) length and complexity of the survey. There was much discussion on the business listserv relating to the conversion of JVIM to open access format and the article publication charges; ACVIMs stance on the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and use of the listserv for voting. Members expressed concern regarding the level of communication from ACVIM regarding the conversion of the journal to open access format and ACVIMs initial apparent lack of reaction to the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Listserv discussions continue to have the potential to gather momentum quickly and I would like to recommend that the Board considers defining listserv etiquette and what members should expect regarding response times from ACVIM officers. Concerns Regarding Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Dr. Duval motioned on the SAIM Discussion listserv on 27 Mar 2015: "I hereby make motion for the ACVIM to have an online vote to support (or not to support) a motion that would make such a declaration denouncing the shameful actions of the Indiana Governor on the part of his constituents.” Dr. Patterson seconded this motion on 27 Mar 2015. Dr. Fenner noted that the motion was not valid because it had been made on the discussion listserv, as opposed to the business listserv. Dr. Byers then made another motion on the business listserv: “The ACVIM should have an official online vote to gauge the support of its membership regarding whether or not the college should release an official and public statement supporting its LGBTQIA members and denouncing Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could be used to discriminate against some of our members who practice in Indiana and/or during visits to Indiana for continuing education events.” This was seconded by Dr. Peter Chapman. After discussion between Dr. Fenner and Dr. Byers in regards to the wording of the motion, the motion was withdrawn and the following motion submitted: MOTION #1: The ACVIM has a comprehensive non-discrimination and inclusiveness policy: ACVIM Statement of Inclusiveness ACVIM is dedicated to maintaining a community of inclusiveness that respects the diverse backgrounds and values of its members, candidates, staff and partners in all of its activities. We are committed to fostering a welcoming and supportive environment for all individuals in our meetings and educational activities. Further, ACVIM strives to use vendors which similarly support ACVIM‟s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity. ACVIM Non-discrimination Policy The American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, military status or any other protected status in compliance with the applicable law, in any of its activities or operations. These activities include, but are not limited to hiring and firing of staff or any term, condition or privilege of employment, selection of volunteers and vendors, acceptance of candidates into residency training programs, certification of new diplomates, and provision of services, including continuing education. In this context, we are committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members of our staff, volunteers, subcontractors, vendors, and clients. Moreover, the ACVIM is an equal opportunity employer. To that end, we will not discriminate and will take affirmative action measures to ensure against discrimination towards any employee or job applicant, who is a member of an underrepresented group,in their employment, recruitment, in advertisements for employment, compensation, termination, upgrading, promotions, and other conditions of employment. In addition to the policy language above, the ACVIM / ACVIMF Employee Guidelines will also include the following: Employees with questions or concerns about discrimination in the workplace are encouraged to bring these issues to the attention of their supervisor or human resources representative. Employees can raise concerns and make reports without fear of reprisal using the reporting procedure described in Section 4.3 “Harassment” below. Anyone found to be engaging in unlawful discrimination or retaliating against individuals reporting discrimination or participating in an investigation or other action will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination of employment. The ACVIM should make these policies visible and accessible to its members and the general public. MOTION #2: The ACVIM will work to ensure any event sponsored, supported and/or sanctioned by the college is conducted in an environment in which members and guests are free of discrimination and harassment in accordance with its comprehensive non-discrimination policy. A friendly amendment was made to motion 2 as follows:

Page 66

MOTION #2: The ACVIM will work to ensure any event sponsored, supported and/or sanctioned by the college is conducted in an environment in which members and guests are free FROM discrimination and harassment in accordance with its comprehensive non-discrimination policy. Subsequently, I posted: “Dear Fellow Diplomates, Below are comments from the Board of Regents in regards to Dr. Byers' motions: Motion 1: The ACVIM should make these policies visible and accessible to its members and the general public. According to ACVIM's CEO, Roberta Herman, the ACVIM staff are already working to post the policy and statement on our website. This has not happened as quickly as anticipated because our staff's efforts were redirected a few weeks ago as they worked with our vendors in Indianapolis to make sure our members would not encounter any problems while visiting the city during the ACVIM Forum. The staff also assisted with monitoring list serves, responding to individual requests, and working with our attorney to draft the statement and policy. The staff now have the Forum, and five of our six examinations to finalize. Their work load is compounded because they are short-staffed by a couple of key people. So please be patient and understanding that these positive changes are soon to come. Motion 2: The ACVIM will work to ensure any event sponsored, supported and/or sanctioned by the college is conducted in an environment in which members and guests are free of discrimination and harassment in accordance with its comprehensive non-discrimination policy. The Board considered similar wording as they deliberated the statement of inclusion, but they were counseled by their attorney against phrasing our statement in a way that might prove challenging to uphold. The current statement of inclusion contains the message that we will “strive to use vendors which similarly support ACVIM‟s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity”. This is an achievable goal, so the Board supported this wording. It is also is in the spirit of the motion made by Dr. Byers. At the completion of the 10-day discussion period, Dr. Sykes contacted Dr. Byers to determine whether he wanted to vote on the motion given that ACVIM was moving forward with these actions regardless. Dr. Byers indicated that he still wanted to ask the membership to vote and a ballot is currently in preparation. Concerns Regarding Online Voting In response to subsequent questions and concerns regarding the use of the listserv for online voting, I sent the following email to the listserv: “Dear Fellow Diplomates, Below is a message that summarizes recent discussions by the Board of Regents in regards to the conduct of business on the list serve and electronic voting. Any voting that takes place does not occur on the listserv itself, but through the electronic balloting process identical to the one used for the last five years for election of officers. This is a secure and anonymous balloting process. The business listserv is used for the discussion that leads up to the vote so that members have the opportunity to share their perspectives on the issue with their fellow diplomates. This process was enacted by SAIM when they amended their by-laws in 2011, subsequent to the College amending its by-laws in 2010. Below is the section of the SAIM By-laws that address this issue: [Article VIII] Some Diplomates have expressed concern about the inability of the listserv method to reach all of our diplomates. At this time, 50 members from the specialty of SAIM have asked to be removed from the business listserv, and those requests have been honored. The BOR are examining whether there could be other ways that these Diplomates could be informed about matters when a vote is about to take place. They will add the topic of conducting business on Specialty list serves this to the upcoming Board meeting scheduled to take place in Indianapolis this June. I will also add it to the agenda for the SAIM business meeting at the ACVIM Forum.” [Additional Note: A policy on the use of the business listserv was developed back in 2010 to permit specialties to conduct business more than once a year. That policy can be summarized as follows:

Any active diplomate within a specialty may make a motion through the listserv ·The motion must then be seconded by another active diplomate within that specialty ·The second will be followed by a 14-day discussion period ·At the end of the 14-day period, a vote will be called using the business listserv ·The vote will be conducted using a platform that allows voter anonymity and restricts the voter to a single submission

Page 67

·A quorum for business conducted outside the annual business meeting shall consist of 25% of all active diplomats ·Results of all votes conducted electronically or by mail during the year shall be affirmed by a simple majority vote at the annual business meeting

Currently, a small number of diplomates in every specialty have requested to be removed from the business listserv. This problem can be rectified by making the membership on the business list serve a mandatory part of active diplomate status. Members who do not wish to receive all of the email that come across the list can then select the option of receiving a single daily summary of topics. This would be a simple remedy but should be decided by the Board or Regents as it impacts all members.] SAIM IOCART Taskforce Report Submitted by Adam Birkenheuer (Chair) and Jane Sykes IOCART Taskforce Members: Mark Acierno (added July 2014, finishes July 2016) Carrie Palm (term finishes mid-2016) Nolie Parnell Jeff Toll (stepped down December 8, 2014 but remaining on the listserv for comment) Mary Anna Labato (term finishes mid-2015) Wally Morrison (ex-officio) Jane Sykes (ex-officio) The SAIM IOCART taskforce have held one in-person meeting (2014 ACVIM forum). 8 conference calls and administered 2 surveys (one to recent trainees and one to diplomates) over the past year. Primary agenda items/issues discussed at the conference calls included:

1. Probation system and performance benchmarks for residency training programs including site visits 2. GIG 3. Omsbudsman 4. Publication Requirement 5. Definitions of Minimally Acceptable Diplomate and Mentor 6. Moratorium on new programs

Currently, the short-term and long-term goals of the IOCART taskforce are: Short-term: Work with the residency training committee to establish a minimum performance standard for residency training programs (including consequences if this is not met). Long-term: Work with Wally Morrison and the college-wide IOCART to re-write the GIG. This will include definitions of program directors, mentors, publication requirements, code of conduct, scholarly activity of mentors, data from the surveys, logs, etc. Specialty President’s Notes Due to a need to serve on the certifying examination committee Derek Burney stepped down as chair on June 20, 2014 but remained on the committee as a member. Adam Birkenheuer assumed role as chair at that time. At the 2014 Forum, a clicker survey was administered to those attending the business meeting. There were over 160 respondents present. The questions and results were published in the draft minutes of the 2014 Forum Business meeting. There was a vast majority of Diplomates concerned with the number/percentage of candidates failing to achieve Diplomate status (82%).

Approximately 70% of Diplomates felt that an individual serving as a program director should have qualifications beyond being a Diplomate such as 5 years as a specialist or ACVIM committee experience, and a resident advisor should have qualifications beyond being a Diplomate (such as 2-3 years as a specialist).

Nearly 75% of respondents felt that mentors need more support or direction from the specialty and the College to enhance their success.

Over 90% said they would favor creating the position of an ombudsman for residents to contact with concerns about their programs.

Approximately 64% of respondents were in favor of a system of site visits for RTP oversight

88% were in favor of site visits to programs that have consistent problems such as poor exam pass rates.

Nearly 90% of respondents favored exit interviews of residents finishing programs to help identify RTP‟s not in compliance with the GIG.

More than 70% of respondents indicated that a resident advisor should not oversee more than 2 residents.

Page 68

Over 85% of respondents were in support of a probationary program for programs with a poor record of successfully producing Diplomates.

Over 70% were in support of a moratorium on new programs until oversight is improved.

Nearly 60% of respondents felt it was acceptable to have multiple off-site rotations in order for a resident to be able to complete a residency.

A total of 98% of respondents felt that exposure to other ACVIM specialties was an important part of residency training for SAIM Diplomates.

The SAIM IOCART taskforce also met in person at the Forum. GIG revision (Certification Manual) Based on the outcome of the survey and the in-person meeting, Drs. Morrison and Sykes discussed with the Specialty Presidents a complete overhaul of the GIG. This received broad support. Dr. Fenner noted that an amendment to the ACVIM By-Laws would be needed to allow the appropriate revisions to be made. This led to the appointment of a college-wide IOCART taskforce chaired by Dr. Wally Morrison. The Specialty Presidents were made aware of the results of the SAIM business meeting clicker survey, and it was decided that each Specialty should conduct a similar survey, with SAIM also polling members that might not have been able to attend the business meeting via the listserv. The SAIM listserv poll was distributed on November 18, 2014. The results were distributed to the taskforce on Dec 11, 2014 in excel spreadsheet format. The results were similar to that from the business meeting, but we were able to obtain some more specific comments and ideas as to how RTP oversight could be improved. Dr. Sykes budgeted for a mid-year SAIM IOCART meeting but there was not strong support or availability by the members of the SAIM IOCART taskforce for such a meeting. Moratorium on New Residency Training Programs All members of the IOCART taskforce agreed that a motion should be made to the BOR to obtain a second legal opinion on whether a moratorium on new residency training programs could be implemented until amendments to the GIG could be made. Dr. Sykes made the motion on July 16, 2014. Subsequently, a position paper was presented to the board to provide a rationale for the moratorium. The following response from the lawyer was received in mid-November and was shared with the IOCART taskforce: “We were asked to provide a „second opinion‟ for ACVIM on the issue of whether there should be a moratorium on approval of new Residency Training Programs (RTPs) until a review of the current RTP program requirements can be conducted. In our view, it would not be advisable to put a moratorium in place, as discussed below. Please review our comments below to ensure that our understanding of the situation is adequate and correct and let us know if you have any questions or comments. ACVIM currently certifies veterinarians that specialize in internal medicine and awards them Diplomate status. In addition, ACVIM approves RTPs that meet certain criteria. There have been concerns raised by the small animal internal medicine (SAIM) segment of ACVIM that metrics have not been adequately established and implemented for ACVIM to ensure that RTPs are adequately performing their roles in guiding and mentoring residents who are candidates for Diplomate status, resulting in the failure of many candidates to achieve Diplomate status. There have also been reports of poor mentorship of residents and inadequate program supervision. The SAIM has recommended that no new RTPs be approved until adequate review of the RTP process is conducted. ACVIM also is soon to undertake a new Job/Task Analysis (JTA) for veterinary internists that will also be used to evaluate the requirements of successful RTPs. In other words, the JTA will lead to improved ability to establish any additional appropriate criteria for RTPs. In our view, it is clear that steps should be taken to ensure appropriate conduct by RTPs. To the extent that RTPs may not be performing adequately is a cause of concern. The failure of the RTPs to appropriately manage residents could give rise to liability to ACVIM. However, it seems the main problem may be with the existing RTPs, not necessarily the applicant programs. In addition, there may be other reasons why some candidates are not achieving Diplomate status separate from the RTPs. It would be advisable for ACVIM to undertake a review of the RTP program as expeditiously as practical, and also to review new program applicants carefully in light of the concerns raised. The new JTA can be used to help evaluate any new criteria for RTPs, in addition to independent concurrent review of any problem areas. However, we do not see the value in implementing a moratorium on approval of new programs. Such an action could lead to complaints or perhaps even legal action by potential RTPs or even by residents denied the opportunity to be accepted at an RTP as part of the process to obtain Diplomate status. Such legal action could include allegations of violation of the antitrust laws or perhaps

Page 69

claims of tortious interference with business connections. It also seems to us that implementing a moratorium could affect the perceived integrity of the ACVIM Diplomate program. If there are problems with the RTP program, those should be addressed as soon as possible, but it is not clear how a moratorium on new program approvals would be helpful.” Site Visits A draft standard operating procedure for site visits was developed by Jeff Toll. This was shared with the Specialty Presidents by Dr. Sykes on July 15, 2014. There was some concern that the idea of site visits may not be considered appropriate for other specialties. It became clear that if site visits were used for SAIM, they should be focused on programs not meeting performance standards. Candidate-New Diplomate Survey A survey of candidates completing programs was developed by Mary Anna Labato. This was subsequently refined by all members of the taskforce. The survey was sent out to all candidates and Diplomates that had completed programs in the last 5 years on October 3, 2014. The survey was sent out to 373 individuals with responses from 155 (42% response rate). Kathy Klaus distributed the responses to the taskforce in excel format on 10/29/14. The vast majority of respondents (91.6%) were satisfied with their RTPs. This reinforced the need to focus on the poor performing programs by setting performance standards. Journal club and research activities were problematic areas. A draft outline of a journal club log was developed by Adam Birkenheuer in order to improve oversight of journal club activities. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education In late September, the taskforce examined documents from the ACGME as a model for RTP oversight in SAIM. Specifically, the following documents were reviewed: http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs2013.pdf https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/2013-PR-FAQ-PIF/140_internal_medicine_07012013.pdf https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PDFs/ab_ACGMEbylaws.pdf The taskforce also received correspondence from the American Board of Internal Medicine: “The RC-IM use of 3 year rolling pass rates is its main assessment tool for medical knowledge and at present is its only outcome measure for residency programs. However, over the next several years it will begin to receive data from the ACGME/IM milestones data that will also inform the RC regarding a program‟s outcomes. As background regarding the requirement for an 80% program pass rate, at the time the RC moved to an 80% pass rate, the mean program pass rate had been above 91% since 2003. Prior to adding this requirement, the RC researched the number of programs that would fall below the 80% pass rate. It was determined that less than 5% of programs would not meet this threshold. Most recently the RC has identified a trend downward in first-time taker pass rates. Given this trend, the RC will be discussing this requirement at future RC meetings as it considers revising the Program Requirements. For your information, the ABIM rolling three year pass rates are published each year on its website. You may obtain program specific pass rate data from their site at http://www.abim.org/about/examInfo/data-pass-rates.aspx.” The ACGME uses a 3-year rolling first time pass rate as their bar, but most of their programs train multiple residents per year so they can have dramatic fluctuations each year. The SAIM IOCART taskforce agreed that evaluating every 3 years still probably makes the most sense with our substantially lower resident numbers. These are the possible outcomes from the ACGME: Initial Accreditation Initial Accreditation with Warning Continued Accreditation without Outcomes Continued Accreditation Continued Accreditation with Warning Probationary Accreditation Withdrawal of Accreditation Based on this, an outline was developed for SAIM programs as follows: Initial Approval

1. Evaluated annually 2. No effect on enrollment 3. Program director writes explanatory letter to RTC if candidates do not achieve certification during initial evaluation period 4. Approval Level will be re-assigned to Level I or Level II after 3 years

Continued Approval: Level I (>66% success rate)

Page 70

http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs2013.pdf

https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/2013-PR-FAQ-PIF/140_internal_medicine_07012013.pdf

https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PDFs/ab_ACGMEbylaws.pdf

http://www.abim.org/about/examInfo/data-pass-rates.aspx

1. Evaluated every 3 years 2. No effect on enrollment

Continued Approval: Level II (<66% success rate during one of the 3 most recent evaluation periods-can be changed at annually if previous candidates that were not successful subsequently achieve certification, new candidates fail to achieve certification or there is 100% success rate over 3 consecutive years)

1. Evaluated annually 2. No effect on enrollment 3. Director writes letter to RTC after initial assignment

Probationary Approval (Continued Approval: Level II with 1 or more failures during subsequent evaluation periods- can be changed annually if previous candidates that were not successful subsequently achieve certification, new candidates fail to achieve certification or there is 100% success rate over 3 consecutive years)

1. Evaluated annually 2. Cannot accept more than one new resident per year 3. Program considered for site visit 4. Program Self-study performed including program strengths and areas for improvement

Withdrawal of Approval (≤56% overall success rate over 9 years)

1. Cannot accept any new residents 2. Candidates enrolled in programs that have had their approval withdrawn will be able to complete their training programs in that

RTP without consequence Success would be defined as a candidate achieving diplomate status (SAIM). Failure would be defined as a candidate successfully completing the residency training program (i.e. getting residency certificate) but failing to achieve diplomate status (SAIM). Candidates that are dismissed from a program will not affect success rates. This means that ACVIM would have to actively track which candidates get certificates (ie not wait until they apply for diplomate status to request it). Appeals: Status of Probationary Approval or Withdrawal of Approval may be appealed. An appeals committee may need to be identified. Application for Approval After a Withdrawal. If a program or sponsoring institution reapplies for approval within two years of receiving a status decision of Approval Withheld, the accreditation history of the previous approval action shall be included as part of the file. The program or sponsoring institution shall include a statement addressing each previous concern with the new application. RTP Approval Level and Summary of Success rates (no more than past 9 years) will be posted on the ACVIM website. The SAIM IOCART taskforce plans to present the results of the two surveys and to discuss the outline of the probation system with the membership at the June 2015 Forum meeting. We hope to follow this with a series of votes that stipulate wording for the new Certification Manual through the listserv. We have also discussed creation of a standing committee for residency training program oversight within the specialty. Votes under consideration are as follows:

A. That SAIM identify an ombudsman with a 5-year renewable term (also could be ex-officio on SAIM IOCART) who can report problems to the IOCART committee.

B. That SAIM provide definitions of program director and resident advisor including minimum qualifications, and limit the advisor:resident ratio to 2.

C. That we implement a journal club log that must be reviewed by the credentials committee D. That we implement exit interviews of all candidates finishing programs through a surveymonkey survey (results reviewed by

IOCART standing committee) to help identify problem programs. Information gleaned from these surveys could be used to help with probationary program development/improvment.

E. That we specify the minimum % appointment for Supervising Diplomates. F. That a probationary program be implemented by the IOCART standing committee.

Page 71

The RTP and CC have historically only made minor changes to the residency training program and credentialing requirements, and have focused their efforts on approving programs and credentials according to the recipe provided by ACVIM. We suggest they continue to approve programs and credentials requirements, but provide suggestions for improvements/change to the IOCART committee (which we could rename the SAIM residency accreditation committee [RAC], following the footsteps of ACGME), as well as to make recommendations to the RAC in regards to probationary actions. The RAC would also receive input from the ombudsman and any site visit committee should one be developed. The RAC would then be in the position where they could regularly deliver motions for vote to the membership for updates or changes needed in the new Certification Manual. Report of the Job Task Analysis Taskforce Submitted by Leah Cohn, Chair SAIM JTA Committee members Tekla Lee-Fowler, Jennifer Garcia, Chris Byers, Karen Faunt, Hattie Syme, Sandy Willis, Melissa Riensche, Jason Eberhardt Job task analysis (JTA) has been mandated for each American Board of Veterinary Specialties recognized specialty as a way to inform both training programs and certification examinations. In the ACVIM, the specialty of neurology completed their JTA already, but the other 4 specialties began the effort for the first time in summer 2014. An ACVIM-wide task force was appointed as the initial step, with one representative from each of the 5 specialties. Each of these representatives would also chair a JTA committee within their own specialty. Leah Cohn was appointed to chair both the college-wide task force and the SAIM committee. The task force hired a professional psychometrics firm, Applied Metrics Professionals (APM), to help with the process. Additionally, a basic template and goals were established for the process to be used by each specialty committee. The members of the SAIM JTA committee were appointed in September 2014 and include representatives from private practice, academia, industry, and from a diverse geographic background (committee members are listed above). The group‟s first major task was to develop a survey of “tasks” necessary to function as a small animal internist. It is important to understand that these tasks should be actual tasks and not knowledge statements, and the tasks should apply to the tasks of an internist, not necessarily to the other tasks assumed by internists (eg, educator, research scientist, etc). These tasks would then be provided to the entire SAIM membership in survey format to rate as to importance (including both how often the task is performed and how crucial the task is for an internist). The committee was told that the ideal length of a task list was between 200 and 250 tasks. After considerable effort to craft and recraft the task list, we were able to reduce our list to approximately 1,000 tasks! For this reason, the entire list was divided into 4 survey portions each containing approximately 250 tasks. The surveys were provided to the diplomates in late February with the request that diplomates rate at least one of the four surveys, but the invitation to rate as many of the 4 surveys as they wished. In addition to the tasks themselves, each survey asked a limited number of demographic questions, and also asked diplomates to rank the importance of each of several “areas of knowledge” for practice as an internist (eg, how much emphasis should be given to ophthalmology in the training and examination of an internist?). The surveys were made available for approximately 6 weeks, with repeated pleas for participation on both the business and general discussion listserves. Participation was less than hoped. Survey portions 1, 2, 3, and 4 were rated by only 128, 102, 92, and 83 diplomates out of more than 1,200 total. Many diplomates who did participate rated more than one survey, so far fewer than half of all SAIM diplomates actually participated in survey rating. The next steps in the process are analysis of the collected data by APM. Result of this analysis will be provided to the committee in the very near future. This data will be used to provide guidance to both the examination committees, and to the residency training committees, for incorporation into training and certification requirements. Report from the SAIM Maintenance of Credentials Committee (ACVIM-MOCC) Committee Members: Drs. Clive Elwood, Mala Erickson, Marie Kerl, Matthew Krecic, Cathy Langston, Laura Smallwood and Jane Armstrong (Chair). Kathy Klaus is ACVIM staff liason and Dr. Bill Fenner, BOR liason, is ad hoc advisor. Maintenance of Credentials (MOC) will be a requirement for all ACVIM Diplomates certified on or after January 1, 2016, and voluntary participation will be encouraged for Diplomates certified prior to that date. Diplomates will have ten years over which to accrue sufficient points for maintaining their credentials. Since the Fall report, the SAIM-MOCC provided additional input on the draft template that outlines the professional activities that accrue points towards MOC. The template was distributed electronically to the entire ACVIM membership in December 2014. The

Page 72

SAIM-MOCC reviewed the author-redacted input received from all Specialties. The ACVIM-MOCC made multiple changes to the template based on the input received. The SAIM-MOCC has begun defining the list of meetings that will be automatically approved for CE credit and into which category (with differing point value, per the template) specific meetings will fall. This list will need to be finalized by Fall 2015. Individuals falling under mandatory MOC, and those voluntarily participating, will be responsible for tracking their own point accruals through their Diplomate Dashboard on the new ACVIM website. In the coming year, it will be the goal of the SAIM-MOCC to proactively communicate with SAIM Diplomates to ensure that they begin logging professional activities as of January 1, 2016. Also as of this date, the SAIM-MOCC members will need to be prepared to start reviewing, on an individual basis, continuing education meetings and other professional activities not pre-approved and submitted to the committee for evaluation. Respectfully submitted, Jane Armstrong, SAIM-MOCC Chair, 5/5/15 (President‟s Note: Clive Elwood will rotate off this committee as of the Forum, leaving 6 members. In 2016, 2 committee members will rotate off, including Mala Erickson, and be replaced. Then in 2017, another 2 will rotate off and be replaced. In 2018, the Chair and original committee member will rotate off and be replaced.) SMALL ANIMAL CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE PROGRESS REPORT 10/4/2014 - 5/1/2014 (supplements the November Board Report) Submitted by Carrie Palm, Committee Chair Committee Members (start date) Julie Byron (6/1/2011) Patty Lathan (6/1/2012) Jacqui Whittemore (6/1/2013) Joao Felipe Galvao (6/1/2013) Joseph M. Bruner (Assistant Chair) (6/1/2012) Carrie Palm (Chair) (6/1/2011) Summary of Committee Activities, including modes of communication used 1) The committee has communicated via email and via phone. Reasons for communications have been:

a) To discuss acceptance of manuscripts that were not initially straightforward. b) To discuss acceptance of new journals. c) To discuss candidate packet review. d) To discuss re-write of the GIG, especially as it relates to Credentials Committee (CC)-related issues.

a. The CC plans to have another conference call to discuss the GIG changes, in an effort to make the pre-forum meeting as effective as possible.

2) The term for service on the credentials committee has been increased to 4 years. For that reason, there were no new members on the committee last year. Mike Wood and Vanessa Von-Hendy Willson will be joining the committee this year as Dr. Palm and Dr. Byron rotate off of the committee.

3) We are continuing to work to better outline the candidate packet review process, to ensure that packet review is consistent

between members, to ensure that all requirements (as outlined in the GIG) are evaluated during the review process and to assist new CC members in the future. We have also worked to change details regarding instructions for candidates, and candidate packet forms, have also helped to achieve the above goal.

4) Joe Bruner is organizing an informational meeting at the 2015 ACVIM forum that will educate residents, resident advisors and

program directors regarding the credentialing process. Planning is still in progress, but will likely involve a short presentation followed by a question and answer session.

Candidate credential packets None during this time period.

Page 73

Number of packets reviewed and number of packets approved, reasons for rejection of credentials As above Publications

Number of publications submitted (since 10/2014): Number accepted: 37 Number rejected: 2 *Rejection justifications: *Manuscript not sufficiently relevant to internal medicine (1) *Manuscript not sufficiently relevant to internal medicine and manuscript does not include critical thinking expected in

a manuscript

Distribution of journals (Accepted manuscripts): *Canadian Veterinary Journal (2) ***NOTE: This journal has been removed from the “accepted” list,

appropriate submissions will be accepted for candidates for whom the journal was “accepted” during the start of their residency. *JAVMA (7)

*JVIM (6) *JAAHA (5) *JFMS (4) *JVECC (3) *AJVR (3) *CVJ (2) *J of Vet Pharmacology and Therapeutics (2) *International J of Env. Research and Public Health (1) *J of Vet Cardiology (1) *J of Vet Diagnostic Investigation (1) *Medical Mycology Case Reports (1) * Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology (1) Types of publication (Accepted manuscripts):

*prospective studies (19) *retrospective studies (8) *case reports (5) *review (4) *case report/review (1)

Distribution of journals (Rejected manuscripts): *JFMS *NAVC Clinician‟s Brief (Make Your Diagnosis) Type of publication (Rejected manuscripts): *Case report (2) REJECTED JOURNALS (0) NEWLY ACCEPTED JOURNALS: SINCE LAST PROGRESS REPORT *Medical Mycology Case Reports THIS YEAR *Clinical and Experimental Allergy *Journal of Medical Toxicology 2) Amended paperwork/procedures

Page 74

The committee plans on discussing changes to paperwork at the upcoming forum meeting. The committee also plans to further discuss recommendations for the GIG re-write at another conference call before the pre-forum meeting and at the pre-forum meeting.

Report of the Residency Training Committee Committee Members

• Mark Acierno, Chair • Ned Keuhn • Michelle Edwards • John Thomas • Kelly Monaghan • Lynn Guptill

Committee Meetings

• Forum 2014 Tuesday Evening • Phone Conference Calls

• March 2015 • April 2015

• Numerous emails Programs Reviewed for 2015

• 58 programs including new programs were submitted for review • 1 new program • 7 not renewing programs • 4 programs approved with first review • 56 programs approved after providing further clarification or making simple corrections to the application • 2 programs are still pending resubmission.

Primary Reasons for Second Review Although there were many omissions / errors made while filling out forms, The five most common problems were:

Failure to secure letters of support.

Questions 9&10 had the same individuals listed or had inappropriate people listed.

Question #20 – It was not clear how the Journal Club requirements are being met by several programs as they provided little or no description.

Question #23 – In programs in which a research project was not required, it is not clear how Section D.2.d.2 of the GIG (research requirement) was being met. We did ask a number of programs to explain how residents would fulfill the requirements.

Question #27 A minimum of sixteen (16) additional weeks must consist of clinical training under the direct supervision, either on-site or off-site, of one (1) or more Supervising Diplomates in the Specialty of Small Animal Internal Medicine (other than those referred to in I.1.b.2.a), …… This is tough one. So essentially, if a program didn‟t have 16 weeks of Cardiology, Neurology and Oncology then the only way to satisfy the question was to move one internist from question 9 and move it into question 10 and then move hours into “Internal medicine other.”

SAIM CERTIFYING EXAMINATION COMMITTEE BOARD SUMMARY REPORT Submitted by Amy DeClue, April 30, 2015 The following summarize the activities of the Small Animal Internal Medicine Certifying Examination Committee from July 2014 to present. 2014 SAIM SPECIALTY EXAMINATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS The SAIM Specialty Examination Committee consists of 8 committee members, each serving a term of 4 years. Efforts are made to recruit approximately half of the members from academia and half from private practice. Both third year committee members stepped down from the committee this year for personal reasons leaving 2 vacancies for 2014-15 and 2015-16. One of these positions was filled by Derek Burney, who rotated off the committee in 2013. He will assumed the role of Assistant Chair in 2014-15 and will be the committee Chair in 2015-16. The other vacancy in 2014-15 was filled by Stephanie Smith who rotated off the committee in 2014 and

Page 75

Dennis Spann will be staying on the committee for an additional year to fill the vacancy in 2015-6. The 2014-15 committee members are listed below:

Amy DeClue University of Missouri Chair/Year 4 Derek Burney Veterinary Specialists of North Texas Asst Chair/Year 3 Dennis Spann Sacramento Area Veterinary Internal Medicine Member year 4 Stephanie Smith University of Illinois Member year 3 Kelly Diehl Veterinary Referral Center of Colorado Member year 2 Julia Veir Colorado State University Member year 2 Jo Ann Morrison Iowa State University Member year 1 Helio de Morais Oregon State University Member year 1

PREPARATION OF THE 2015 CERTIFYING EXAMINATION Activities of the Committee related to candidate preparation for the 2014 examination: 1. The committee updated the candidate preparation document (including the suggested reading list) that was sent to candidates taking the 2015 certifying examination. This year the Veterinary Journal was added to the suggested reading list. 2. The previously posted sample question on the ACVIM website (under the Exam Preparation and Information heading) was reviewed and deemed still to be an appropriate example for the candidates. Fall Examination Preparation and Meeting (Saturday, Nov 8th – Tuesday, Nov 11th, 2014) 1. A question writing webinar was organized by ACVIM prior to the fall meeting, and was delivered by Applied Measurement Professionals. The Committee feels this training is useful and recommends that such continue to be made available to new committee members, however, we again strongly recommend that it be scheduled for mid-summer if possible. Because of the sequence of question-writing deadlines this committee has adopted, the seminar is much less valuable to question-writers in September than it would be in July or August. 2. A series of deadlines (met by the majority of members) were set for the committee members prior to the meeting in Denver: 1. Essay topic development – August 13th 2. PM questions due to chair – September 15th 3. KPS questions due to chair – October 8th 4. MC questions due to chair – October 29th 5. Essay questions due to chair – November 5th The deadlines were ordered such that the sections whose questions are more technically challenging to write were due earlier, so that any “leftovers” would be more likely to be Medical Literature questions, which are relatively straightforward to create. Receipt of the questions in advance also permitted the Chair and senior committee members to compile them into single documents for review at the meeting. 3. The committee met for four days in Denver, and meeting time was efficiently utilized. As we had done the year before, we had completed at least a draft of all multiple choice and essay questions prior to the beginning of the meeting, per the deadlines above. The Committee has evolved this deadline system over the last five years, and meeting efficiency has shown corresponding improvement. This year, the meeting workdays rarely exceeded 9 hours including 1.5-hour lunch breaks, and participants were more focused and effective. We were able to focus time in Denver on fine-tuning language, accuracy, and precision of the stems, as well as maximizing quality of the distractors per the statistical analyses provided. We left Denver with the exams almost entirely completed, then spent the following weeks proofreading and addressing minor edits. The Committee strongly recommends that this deadline system continue to be implemented in future years. 4. Typographical corrections, minor revisions, and clarifications were made pursuant to rater comments during the final editing process. Two questions were rewritten. Efforts were made to validate and address or dismiss all comments provided. 5. Following the construction of the 2014 exam, we received advisement from Bill Fenner to move away from the traditional exam “blueprint” to “Questions Topic Distribution,” wherein each subject area is assigned a percentage range rather than a fixed number of

Page 76

questions. This shift is intended to afford slightly more flexibility in exam creation and to render the exam less open to appeals. The 2015 specialty examination blueprint reflected these recommendations and is included below. The question topic distribution for the 2015 examination is as follows: SECTION 1: MEDICAL LITERATURE (SAIM 2015) System/Sphere of Knowledge Percentage of Questions Cardiovascular 5-7% Dermatology 1-3% Epidemiology/Statistics 0-2% Endocrine/Metabolic/Nutrition 10-12% Gastrointestinal 9-11% Hemolymphatic 10-12% Immunology 4-6% Infectious Disease 8-10% Oncology 5-7% Reproduction 0-2% Respiratory 5-7% Pharmacology/Toxicology 5-7% Fluid/electrolyte/Acid base 7-9% Neuromuscular/Musculoskeletal/Neurology 5-7% Urinary 7-9% Genetics/Molecular Biology 2-4% Ophthalmology 0-2% TOTAL 100 total questions SECTION 3 A and B: CASE MATERIALS /PATIENT MANAGEMENT/KNOWLEDGE AND PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS (SAIM 2015) System/Sphere of Knowledge Percentage of Questions Cardiovascular 3-5% Endocrine/Metabolic/Nutrition 16-18% Gastrointestinal 12-14% Hemolymphatic 6-8% Immunology 2-4% Infectious Disease 3-5% Oncology 2-4% Reproduction 1-3% Respiratory 12-14% Pharmacology/Toxicology 4-6% Fluid/electrolyte/Acid base 8-10% Neuromuscular/Musculoskeletal/Neurology 6-8% Urinary 8-10% Ophthalmology 2-4% Dermatology 1-3% TOTAL 150 total questions 6. This year we were advised to provide additional test questions to act as replacements in the event that one or more questions had to be omitted from the examination. To facilitate this, we developed a bank of viable replacement questions covering a variety of topics. These questions were organized into a document and submitted to the ACVIM office. To the best of our knowledge, these questions were not reviewed by the raters (or at least no feedback from the raters was received by the committee pertaining to these questions) nor were they added to the examination given to the candidates. The committee suggests that the purpose of these additional questions be clarified. If the purpose of this bank is to provide viable replacement questions for the exam in the post-rating, pre-examination period, the questions should be reviewed and rated by the rating committee. If the purpose is to provide replacement questions for the exam in the post examination, grading period (ie replacement if a question is omitted after the candidates have taken the exam), then the questions should be rated and they should be added to the examination taken by the candidates.

Page 77

Acknowledgments The committee would like to express its sincere thanks to Finn Ruehrdanz, Nicole Finn, and the rest of the ACVIM home-team for all of their efforts in Denver, after Denver, and perpetually behind-the-scenes. This committee relies heavily on their expertise, energy, and efficacy, and we fully recognize that in no way could we assemble this exam without them. Respectfully submitted, Amy DeClue, Chair Derek Burney, Assistant Chair Dennis Spann Stephanie Smith Kelly Diehl Julia Veir Jo Ann Morrison Helio de Morais ACVIM Small Animal Internal Medicine Rating Committee Report Submitted by Rob Goodman, Ratings Committee Chair May 1st, 2015 Committee composition: The rating committee is comprised of 30 members.

Name E-mail Term

Rob Goodman [email protected] 2011-2015 (Chair)

Jon Fletcher [email protected] 2012-2015

Kathy Scott [email protected] 2012-2015

Andrew Specht [email protected] 2012-2015

Ben Nolan [email protected] 2012-2015

Peter Bondy [email protected] 2012-2015

Julie Allen [email protected] 2012-2016

Kathy Lunn [email protected] 2013-2016

Coretta Patterson [email protected] 2013-2016

Vladamir Stojanovic [email protected] 2013-2016

Vanessa Von Hendy-Wilson [email protected] 2013-2016

Anne Corrigan [email protected] 2013-2016

Lisa Moore [email protected] 2013-2016

Jonathan Dear [email protected] 2013-2016

Dennis Bell [email protected] 2013-2016

Sarah Stewart [email protected] 2013-2016

Paige Langdon [email protected] 2014-2017

Jessie Markovich [email protected] 2014-2017

David Bruyette [email protected] 2014-2017

Jody Gookin [email protected] 2014-2017

Ed Monroe [email protected] 2014-2017

John Tyler [email protected] 2014-2017

Todd Archer [email protected] 2014-2017

Elizabeth Lennon [email protected] 2014-2017

Polina Vishkautsan [email protected] 2014-2017

Elizabeth Snead [email protected] 2014-2017

Jodi Nicklas [email protected] 2014-2017

Page 78

mailto:[email protected]









Bethany Sabatino [email protected] 2014-2017

Ann Della-Maggiore [email protected] 2014-2017

Mayenk Seth [email protected] 2014-2017

The examination was available for rating from January 21 through March 9, 2015. All 30 committee members submitted the confidentiality agreement required to allow access to the exam. Twenty-three of the 30 rated the entire exam. A conference call between committee members and Chris Traynor of Applied Measurement Professionals, our examination consultant, was conducted on Monday April 13, 2015. The focus of the conference call was to develop consensus and resolve any outlying ratings. Rating of the multiple choice sections was routine. There were a few technical difficulties with the webconference software and accessibility. In the future, a test call may be considered to resolve any connectivity issues prior to the rating. The essay remains difficult to rate and discuss because the short answer format is much more difficult to look at from a minimally qualified applicant point of view. The essay is also not Angoff scored in the same way as the multiple choice tests. The primary value in rating the essay portion is to provide feedback to the exam committee. The exam rating committee would like to continue to meet with the exam committee at the Forum to obtain feedback on how the exam committee responds to our input. Meeting between incoming and outgoing chairs will be coordinated at the Forum. Respectfully submitted, Rob Goodman DVM, MSpVM, DACVIM (Small Animal Internal Medicine) Small Animal Internal Medicine Program Committee Report, 28 April 23, 2015 Since the report dated 2 October 2014, the small animal program committee has finalized lectures for track 1 of the pre-forum day, reviewed research reports and late breaking research abstracts, and assigned moderators for the small animal sessions. All correspondences were done via e-mail or one on one conversations among committee members. Outgoing members of the SAIM Program Committee are Roger Hostutler (Chair, 3 years of service), Anthony Carr (3 years of service), and Ken Harkin (4 years of service). Jana Gordon (2015-2016 Chair), Cathy Langston (2015-2016 Assistant Chari), and Urs Giger will remain on the committee. Incoming members will include Tracy Hill, Rhonda Schulman, and Micah Bishop. We had a total of sixteen research reports submitted in the areas of endocrinology (2), gastroenterology (3), hematology (1), immunology (1), infectious disease (5), nephrology/urology (3), and other (1). Of those submissions, eight were selected for presentation in December 2014. A total of six late breaking research abstracts were submitted in the areas of immunology (1), infectious disease (1), nephrology/urology (1), nutrition/metabolism (2), and other (1). Of these selections, all six were selected for presentation in March 2015. Finally, the committee assigned moderators for the small animal internal medicine sessions at the forum. In January 2015, a call for volunteers to moderate was sent out to boarded diplomates, and 17 individuals offered to moderate a total of 82 SAIM sessions. In the end, all sessions were assigned after further recruitment. The most difficult task since the last report was with having an adequate pool of potential moderators with respect to the number of sessions that needed to be filled. This was further complicated by restrictions on desired topics on which volunteers could moderate, and change in volunteer‟s ability to moderate in a given time slot after assignment. In the end, the program came together nicely without major setbacks due to the hard work of the committee in concert with the efforts of the ACVIM staff at the central office. Roger A. Hostutler SAIM Program Committee Chair

Page 79


Consent Agenda

Reports

Page 80

ADVANCED CONTINUING EDUCATION (ACE) Author(s): Marilyn E. Stiff, DVM, MS, DACVIM (SAIM), Chair

Richard Hepburn, BVSc, MS (Hons), CertEM (IntMed), DACVIM(LAIM), MRCVS,Co-Chair

Kathy Klaus, Education Specialist


ACE courses have been offered since October 2010. Interest and participation is growing at a steady pace via word of mouth and e-mail marketing. We are seeing quite a few returning attendees and many have indicated that they prefer these courses over the Forum. Interest in potential sponsorships from various vendors has also increased. Attendance breakdown with our courses in 4 ½ years:

712 ACVIM Diplomates 244 ACVIM Candidates 32 European Diplomates and Candidates

The committee gathers topics for the upcoming year by each May, and courses are then selected by the committee each June. This year, five courses have occurred or are being planned:

1) SAIM Endocrinology (2nd course) – March 2015 2) Cardiology Boot Camp – (2nd course offered by Infiniti Medical) – May 2015 3) Advanced Techniques in Neurosurgery (8th course) – August 2015 4) SAIM Ultrasound – September 2015 5) Advanced Clinical Cardiology – October 2015

Next year’s courses that will be finalized in June include:

1) Equine Cardiology – January 2016 (2nd course) 2) Oncology – April 2016 (2nd course) 3) Advanced Techniques in Neurosurgery (9th course) – August 2016 4) SAIM Hepatology – September 2016 5) Neuromuscular Disease – December 2016

We will continue to collaborate with Infiniti Medical, LLC to offer courses to our members through “boot camps”. Infiniti Medical is considering offering courses in GI, pulmonary, and urinary in 2016. Their courses are also held at the Oquendo Center in Las Vegas.




Several members of the committee will be ending their terms in June: Marilyn Stiff (Chair) Amy LeBlanc (Oncology)

Christopher Byers (MCC) Ray Geor (ERC)

New members have been recruited to fill those vacancies:

Heather Kvitko-White (SAIM) William Tyrrell (Cardiology, MCC) Richard Hepburn will move to Chair and Audrey Cook will move to Co-Chair. From a strategic standpoint, ACE needs to look at online learning options. Videotaping and archiving presentations, live streaming and/or offering web conferences or webinars should be given consideration to reach a larger market. It will be important to make sure the modality is what our members want, and if and when provided, that it is of high quality which our members have come to expect from ACE. This will involve a survey to the membership.

Page 81

Research into these options will prove to be intensive, and a consultant may need to be hired to help the committee develop the right questions to ask our members. The uptake of courses is variable, and further exploration into the CE interests of Diplomates and Candidates is required to better design course topics and content. An incentivized survey tool may be needed. A budget request to move these two items forward with external consultancy/increased internal time allowance may become a reality sooner than later:

Fund a survey of what our Diplomates and Candidates want from CE and where they want it geographically Investigate the potential of online education.

5. DETAILED REPORT

The committee will also be focusing on these topics within the next few months:

Alternative modalities for CE other than the face-to-face courses Trends – with more repeat attendees, look into the possibility of repeating course structure over a 5 year window to allow

material to follow a ”cutting edge” update structure Explore potential for more structured collaboration with sponsors such as Infiniti Medical Is there a potential for course attendance to be encouraged as part of residency training Marketing - How can we market the courses more effectively? Are we reaching our members?

o A course was cancelled this year (LAIM Advanced Gastroenterology) due to low registration numbers. Were our registration prices too high; was the topic not interesting

Testimonials – how can we maximize the great feedback we get from attendees after a course? Look at the ACVIM CE webpages to see what needs to be expanded or tweaked to be more informative, inviting and user-

friendly.

Page 82

AIMVT Author(s): Linda Merrill, LVT, VTS (SAIM, C&F CP)




Include AIMVT in consensus statements when applicable Education/Forum 2/0

Marketing AIMVT when marketing ACVIM Education/Non-Forum CE 2/0

Increasing visibility of AIMVT at Forum Education/Forum 2/0

Relevance & attendance Education/Forum 2/0

Strategic Planning of AIMVT 2/0

Increase Large Animal VTS numbers Training/Subspecialty Certificates 2/0


Include AIMVT in consensus statements when applicable

AIMVT is unaware of the development of the consensus statements typically until it is presented. Minimally, could we be notified when

the subject matter for a consensus statement is determined? We hope to be able to contribute, when applicable, in the future.

Marketing AIMVT when marketing ACVIM

Continue to offer AIMVT brochures at the ACVIM booth. Explore other opportunities to jointly promote AIMVT and ACVIM.

Increasing visibility of AIMVT at Forum

Consider ways to equalize AIMVT with other affiliated organizations in the program grid. Some of the technician meetings might be

appropriate for the general practice veterinarian but because our schedule is segregated from the doctor schedule, most DVMs do not

even view it. This could easily be accomplished on the website, but understand that it may not be realistic for the printed program

guide.

Relevance & attendance

Include AIMVT in discussion of the Forum by inviting to Task Force to examine the goals and design of the Forum meeting. Include

AIMVT in exploring issues of relevance for in person CE vs. on-line opportunities as we have been negatively influenced by a

depressed economy and an increase in digital/distance education opportunities.

Mission support

We would like to explore joint opportunities for growth, financial independence and educational opportunities. How can we better

incorporate ACVIM in our plans and how can AIMVT be incorporated into ACVIM’s plans?

Large Animal Technicians

We would like to partner with the large animal diplomates of ACVIM to identify and mentor large animal veterinary technicians to

increase the number of large animal technicians applying to AIMVT.

Page 83


Received 23 applicants for applicant year 9/2013-10/2014. o Small Animal 12 o Large animal 0 o Cardiology 2 o Neurology 4 o Oncology 5

14 applicants approved & 3 repeat testers, will sit examinations in June 2014 the day before the Forum o Small Animal 7 o Cardiology 2 o Neurology 4 o Oncology 4 o Plus Nutrition 1

Continue our work to provide the technician sessions at the ACVIM Forum and moderators with only minimal support needed/required from the Program Chair (I think!).

Working with the Academy of Veterinary Nutrition Technicians (AVNT), established the ACVIM Forum as the preferred meeting for their academy. Administration of their examinations in the same meeting space as AIMVT. Exploring with transfusion technicians to do the same.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Not applicable

Page 84

Appeals Committee Author(s) William R. Fenner

1. COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW 2014-2015

There were two appeals filed this year; after posting of the examination results. One each from candidates in Cardiology, and Small Animal Internal Medicine. The Appeals Committee met and reviewed the appeals of the two appeals (Cardiology and SAIM). Each appeal was debated individually. Each appeal was denied by a unanimous vote of the committee.



Report on Actions Training None needed


A. Topic #1 Appeals Results


2 formal appeals were received, reviewed and denied.

Staff continues to work with ACVIM legal advisors to ensure that we are in compliance with ADA requests and requirements.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Each appeal was reviewed by the Committee. Prior to review the staff verified each candidate’s scores. The Committee met by

conference call to discuss the appeals. All appeals were denied. There was one additional appeal which was essentially a request to

verify accuracy of grading . The appeal was reviewed by the Committee, the staff verified the accuracy of the score.

Although ADA requirements are not formally part of the Appeals Committee’s work, I feel it appropriate to mention here that staff is

extremely diligent in maintaining ACVIM compliance with guidelines, so that we do not disadvantage a candidate and thus,

inadvertently create a basis for an appeal.

Page 85

ACVIM Foundation Update Author(s): Dr. Elizabeth Settles, JD, DVM, DACVIM

1. FOUNDATIONS’S YEAR IN REVIEW

To date, in the 2014-15 calendar year, the Foundation is set to distribute nearly $100,000 in grant funds in June and July; Reorganized the grant program for increased accessibility and to reflect best practices; Launched a new marketing campaign, “I Am the Foundation” aimed at increasing awareness of the impact of the Foundation; Distributed three fellowships in partnership with the College; Launched a monthly giving program, Constant Companions; Renewed sponsor partnerships with BlackwellKing, Blueprints Veterinary Marketing Group, and CareCredit; Renewed our education and grant partnerships with both Zoetis and VPRF; and welcomed VCA and MedVet as new sponsors.



None


None


A. Grants Administration

B. Education

C. Awareness

D. Development and Fiscal Responsibility

5. DETAILED REPORT

Grants Administration: The Foundation grants program has distributed over $1.5 million in scientific research funding in 12 years.

The program had reached a plateau in its lifecycle resulting in a need for improved tracking and accountability measures. The staff

researched other groups and their methods and looked to the leaders in Foundation methodology such as the Council on Foundations

to discover best practices and standards of grant making organizations. The assessment resulted in improved processes and

communications. Items included –

1. An enhanced grant procedures guide

2. A downloadable budget template

3. Comprehensive FAQs

4. A set grant schedule to communicate the spring and fall calls, due dates and decision points

5. A revised proposal checklist

6. A new „manage your grant‟ section on the website which includes reporting requirements and templates.

During the November board meeting, the board of directors approved to distribute nearly $100,000 from the restricted funds account.

Three areas of restricted funding were released – general oncology, feline chronic renal failure and small animal respiratory disease.

The grant call for these three categories was released in January. Fourteen proposals were received. The scientific review committee

met to discuss the proposals. Grant recipients were announced in early May.

The Foundation renewed its partnership with the Veterinary Pharmacology Research Foundation to serve as the administrators of two

$18,000 grants for the fall 2015 grant cycle. VPRF has agreed to pay a ten percent grants administration fee per grant to the

Foundation.

Education: In December, the Foundation partnered with the College to administer three, $25,000 ACVIM Fellowships. The inaugural

program was well received. The fellowship recipients were: Dr. Estrada, University of Florida; Dr. Lunn, NC State University; and Dr.

McCue, University of Minnesota. Page 86

Zoetis renewed its support for clinical training of ACVIM residents by funding the 2015-16 Zoetis Externship Program. Zoetis

provided $10,000 to the ACVIM Foundation last year which funded ten small animal internal medicine residents to experience an

external rotation from their residency program. These funds were used to cover travel, accommodations and living expenses while on

the externship. Zoetis has graciously agreed to renew this pledge in 2015 for ten new residents in any of the five ACVIM specialties.

Awareness: The Foundation launched an awareness program titled, “I Am the Foundation”. This new marketing campaign

highlights the impact of grants, education programs and the value of contributing time as a volunteer or donating to support the work of

the Foundation. To gather the unique stories, the staff conducted 19 interviews with annual donors, board members, grant recipients,

memorial program participants, and volunteers, Zoetis Externs, pet owners and corporate sponsors. The stories will be utilized to

demonstrate impact to specific audiences based on programmatic or development needs.

The Memorial Program serves as an awareness program for the Foundation in addition to serving as the group‟s largest revenue

source. Currently, the Foundation has over 100 practices participating in the program and is actively working to grow that number.

BluePrints Veterinary Marketing Group renewed its $5,000 support for exclusive sponsorship of the program. Last year the Memorial

Program raised $80,000. This year the budgeted revenue goal is $80,000, and to date have earned $37,440 in revenue through March

of this year.

The One by One program is undergoing a reorganization to better serve donors and clients. The primary goal of the program is to

create awareness and mutual investment between practices and their clients or companies offering clinic equipment and services and

practices. Practices and companies will have a variety of options to choose from in order to make the program as accessible as

possible.

Development & Fiscal Responsibility: The Foundation Challenge is the organization‟s annual fundraising campaign where both

restricted and unrestricted funds are raised to support program and operations expenses. While the majority of contributions to the

campaign come from Diplomates, we also secure sponsorship dollars and contributions from outside supporters and the pet-owning

public. This year, the Foundation saw a marked increase in new and renewed sponsorships from VCA, CareCredit and Medvet. The

matching gift amounts from these generous sponsors totals $16,500. Once again, the Foundation participated in the national giving

campaign, Giving Tuesday, to kick off the 2015 Foundation Challenge, raising $12,500 in a single day which included a matching

challenge from Blueprints Veterinary Marketing Group.

To diversify the methods for Diplomates and pet owners to donate to the Foundation, a monthly giving program was established. The

Constant Companion program offers an easy and secure method for regular donors to give. This is also a convenient method for

leadership donors to process their annual gift. The recurring gift method through the Foundation‟s new online platform reduces

administration costs, so more of the donor‟s gift goes directly to improving animal health. Monthly gifts provide a steady and reliable

revenue stream which can assist the organization in budgeting and allocating resources more effectively.

Financial Update: Overall, the Foundation is tracking very closely to its 2014-15 budget projections. The organization is keeping pace

with or exceeding budgeted income goals as well as operating at or under budgeted expenses. Overall outlook of Foundation

financials:

Income - $178,027.82, 44.6% of 2014-15 budget

Expenses - $167,171.56, 44.3% of 2014-15 budget

The dashboard below illustrates program income through March 31, 2015.

Fundraising Target Year-to-date

(3-31-15) 2013-14

Individual Gifts (Foundation Challenge only) $55,000 $33,724 $40,657

Memorial Program Tributes $75,000 $37,440 $86,602

One by One Donations $4,000 $2,427 $11,169

Page 87

Chief Executive Officer’s Report Author(s): Roberta G. Herman

1. YEAR IN REVIEW

See CEO’s message in Annual Report


Topic Mission Div./Cat. Priority/Time None


None


Completed projects since November 2014

Completion of fiscal year 2014 audits for College and Foundation Oversight & completion of Management Advisors’ follow-up organizational review Participation in Executive Committee retreat Recruitment of Director of Conferences, Partnerships and Publications following staff resignation Oversight of Bross Group’s Information Technology assessment

Projects in Process (see Detailed Report)

Expansion of Crisis Communication Plan

Update and expansion of BOR policies and procedures

Restructure of Board of Regents’ Orientation Program

Transition of legal counsel following Bill Walters’ retirement

5. DETAILED REPORT

Crisis Communication Plan Expansion: A basic set of recommendations on communicating in crisis situations was drafted a few years ago in conjunction with ACVIM’s business continuity plan. The key recommendations are as follows:

1. Have a plan in place before a crisis strikes. 2. Decide who will speak. 3. Select one person to be the "go-to" person for

information internally & externally. 4. A LITTLE information is better than NO information. 5. Honesty is key.

6. Be available. 7. Delegate tasks. 8. Be flexible. 9. Be creative in your approach. 10. Follow through.

These factors were followed (albeit loosely) during the weeks immediately following the Indiana state legislature’s passage of S.B. 101. After reflecting on our response in this situation, I recognized that we need a more comprehensive crisis communication plan. Stephanie & I will be developing an expanded plan in the next few months for board review and approval. Board Policies & Procedures: Following the development of ACVIM strategic objectives in late 2011, staff and select board members have continually worked towards improving board governance and education. Numerous policies and procedures have been developed or updated, including board (& committee) position descriptions, committee SOP’s and policies regarding:

Anti-trust

Code of Conduct

Conflict of Interests

Nondiscrimination

Reimbursement

Sexual Harrassment

Spokesperson

Whistleblower

Page 88

Executive committee members are currently reviewing these policies to make recommendations for updates. A ‘board manual’ design was initiated to accompany the policies. With the upcoming launch of a redesigned orientation program (detailed below), the board manual will also be updated and reformatted. All board resources will be housed on ACVIM360 for handy access. In addition, a new staff liaison program was launched in early 2015 to better support ACVIM volunteer leaders. Board Orientation Program Redesign: For the past three years, a very brief board orientation program has been presented for Regents and Foundation Board members each year just prior to Forum. The time allotted for the program has been extremely limited and board members have requested more comprehensive training to fully understand their responsibilities. Starting this summer, we will be piloting a ‘year-round’ curriculum of board orientation activities to provide specific information when it’s most relevant. For example, financial orientation will be provided in the summer before the BOR meets to approve the budget . The orientation programming will be delivered via webinar and in-person meetings. A complement of resources will be available on ACVIM.org and ACVIM360 to supplement the orientation activities. Here’s a tentative schedule:

June – August Financial statements, budget, board member / officer responsibilities, staff resources / duties

September – November Governance overview, board meeting & report design protocol, audit, investments

December – February Board manual & policies overview, basics on misc. procedures, recap duties / resources

March – May Committee appointments, board survey (with focused questions for exiting board members)

Transition of Legal Counsel

Earlier this year, ACVIM’s primary legal counsel, Bill Walters announced his intention to retire in June. Bill has practiced law for over 40 years, including serving as Colorado’s assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Section. His sage wisdom, wicked wit and infinite expertise in certification standards, governance, nonprofit management, and operations will be greatly missed. Bill’s associate, Cara Lawrence will assume his responsibilities in July. In addition to practicing general nonprofit law, Cara counsels tax-exempt organizations on formation, advocacy, unrelated business income tax, state property and local sales tax, grant-making, business contracts, mergers, acquisitions and the use of complex legal structures. In 2013, Cara worked with ACVIM to successfully abate an IRS penalty, resulting in a savings of over $8,000.

Central Office Staffing: Over the past six months, ACVIM staff has demonstrated great flexibility in shifting duties and assuming new responsibilities as changing business needs appear to be the ‘new normal.’ In addition, over half of our staff members have been dealing with personal challenges associated with family members’ illnesses and / or recent deaths.

We celebrated the birth of Nicole’s daughter in March and Finn & Kathy have done a stellar job covering Nicole’s duties. In addition, Gloria agreed to divide her time between her Forum duties and Certification tasks while Nicole is on maternity leave. Mya’s unexpected resignation came at a crucial time in Forum planning. Recognizing the need to fill that vacancy quickly, I immediately launched a recruitment and received submissions from several highly qualified candidates. Working with a small interview team, an offer was presented in less than four weeks, record time compared to normal recruitments. Early in 2015, I polled the specialty presidents and president-elects to identify their high priority needs for staff assistance. I began to develop a job description with the intention of adding a staff member to serve as a ‘governance assistant’ (aka guardian angel) to provide support. I was forced to shift my focus to replacing Mya’s position but will complete the recruitment for this new staff member following Forum. As you know, we welcomed Andrea Miller in late October as Foundation Director, and most recently, Gena Erwin joined ACVIM as our new Director of Conferences, Partnerships and Publications. The current organizational structure is depicted below:

Page 89

CERTIFICATON & EDUCATION Author(s): Finn Ruehrdanz – Certification Specialist and Kathy Klaus – Education Specialist





Student Chapters The management of the Student Chapters has been transferred to the Membership and Marketing department. Candidate Registrations From July 1, 2014 through the date of this report’s submission, the following numbers of Candidates have registered for each

specialty:

Cardiology: 16

LAIM: 25

Neurology: 21

Oncology: 29

SAIM: 59 The 2015/2016 registration fee will be $275.00. Credentials A total of 166 Candidates will be eligible to submit credentials online in 2015 for the 2016 Specialty Exams. The 2015/2016 credentials fee will be $505.00. LAIM Case Reports (March 2015 submission period) 33 Candidates submitted 39 cases

16 second year Candidates submitted 15 cases; 7 passed & 9 failed

17 third (and beyond) year Candidates submitted 23 cases; 8 passed & 15 failed Examinations A total of 432 Candidates have registered to sit an exam in 2015. The 2015/2016 exam fees will be $855.00 for the General Exam, new Candidate ($605.00 retake) and $1255.00 for the Specialty

Exam, new Candidate ($925.00 retake). There will be no change in late fees. Rating Rating continues to happen via training committees in conjunction with support by Applied Measurement Professionals (AMP), our

contracted psychometric services company. AMP has created an “externet” site to facilitate rating for all multiple choice, short answer and essay exams especially for ACVIM. AMP continues to be a great resource and partner in many ways included making the rating of all examinations as secure as possible.

A “Diplomate Exam Review Session” will be held on Thursday, June 5th from 8:00 am – 2:00 pm. While this has no bearing on the formal rating process, it gives Diplomates the opportunity to provide the exam committees comments & feedback on exam content.

Page 91

Residency Training Programs There were 234 programs submitted for renewal for the 2015-2016 year. Currently, 234 have been approved, and 6 are pending

approval. Those still pending have been asked by the Residency Training Committees for further information about their programs.

Specialty Not

Renewing Submitted

for Renewal New

Programs Total

Submitted Pending Approval

Total Approved

CARDIOLOGY 2 38 0 38 0 38

LAIM 1 49 1 50 0 50

NEUROLOGY 3 49 1 50 0 50

ONCOLOGY 3 37 1 38 2 36

SAIM 7 57 1 58 1 57

TOTAL 16 230 4 234 3 231

Two Cardiology programs have been approved that are on probation due to one Supervising Diplomate with three Cardiology residents (the limit is two residents to one Supervising Diplomate). This probationary period will expire either when another Supervising Diplomate joins the program or the third resident completes the program in July 2015.

Three Oncology programs have been approved that are on probation. One is due to only having only one Oncologist in the program (the requirement is to have two Oncologists in an RTP). While on probation, this program is not allowed to enroll another resident until there are two Board-certified Oncologists on staff. Two other programs have been placed on probationary status due to the Supervising Diplomate for radiation oncology leaving the program July 1. Full approval of these two programs will be granted once a radiation oncologist is employed or a letter of support is provided for off-site training.

Specialty Traditional Non-Traditional Academia Private Practice

CARDIOLOGY 33 5 26 12

LAIM 45 5 49 1

NEUROLOGY 43 7 27 23

ONCOLOGY 37 1 28 10

SAIM 55 3 37 21

TOTAL 213 21 167 67

A new online renewal process was implemented this year. Program Directors accessed the online form through their Diplomate Dashboards. The online form self-populated the institution’s information along with ACVIM Resident Advisors and Supervising Diplomates. Program Directors had the option of removing or adding names on the web form, which made the process more streamlined and efficient than in past years. Other renewal forms required for each specialty were also uploaded to the website. The Residency Training Committees reviewed the renewal forms through their own Diplomate Dashboards. The process went smoothly this year for both the Program Directors and the Residency Training Committees.

5. DETAILED REPORT

As discussed last year, piloting the Exam Soft method on the General Exam in 2015 will be taking place. Pending a successful pilot program with the 2015 General Exam the certification staff will likely recommend all 2016 exams be moved to the ExamSoft format.

Page 92

Constitution Committee Author(s) William R. Fenner

1. COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW – 2014-15

The Committee was inactive this year, other than a review of the constitution looking for areas of inconsistency that need to be

addressed in the future. It is expected that the reports of the IOCART Task Force and the Executive Committee’s retreat will each

result in recommendations which will have implications for the constitution and by-laws, not only of ACVIM but for each of the

specialties as well. The Committee is doing the background work now, so that they can move forward when the IOCART

recommendations are presented. The initial recommendations of the Executive Committee’s report have been reviewed and a plan for

working on those recommendations is being developed.



None



None

5. DETAILED REPORT

See Section One above – the committee was on hiatus this year.

Page 93

Education and Research Committee Author(s): Dr. Robert Goodman


The major achievements for the year included establishment, in collaboration with the ACVIM Foundation, of criteria and funding for post residency fellowships in research or advanced clinical techniques, revalidation of the ERC purpose and charter at the November BOR meeting, and assumption of the responsibility for assigning abstract reviewers. Routine activities including selection of topics and speakers for the One Medicine program at the Forum and evaluation of applications for funding from student chapters were also accomplished.



None


N/A


In collaboration with the ACVIM Foundation, 3 Clinical Research &/or Advanced Clinical Training (see

https://acvimfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ACVIM-Fellowships-Applications-2014.pdf)

The committee selected the following as the theme for the One Health program of the Forum:

One Health: What works, what doesn't and strategies for the future? Presented by the One Health Clinical Translational Science Award

(CTSA) Alliance

This is an alliance of the eight veterinary schools that have an NIH Clinical Translational Science Award. This alliance was created as a

network to synergize and capitalize on One Health opportunities that advance research in human health. A key goal of the Alliance is

to raise awareness of the three components of One Health among health care professionals: Spontaneous animal models of human

disease, human-animal interactions, and zoonotic/infectious diseases.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Major tasks for the ERC meeting at the Forum include establishing process for assigning abstract reviewers, developing topics for the

2016 One Health program at the Forum, and discussing promotion and selection of research fellowships.

Page 94

https://acvimfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ACVIM-Fellowships-Applications-2014.pdf

General Examination Committee Author(s): Jenifer R. Gold, Chair


We have an excellent team on the general exam committee this year. All the members worked very hard in preparing, reviewing,

editing, modifying and adding new questions. A huge thank you goes out to all the members and the support staff of ACVIM with

helping us prepare the examination. Raters comments were considered, all were considered minor expect one small animal question,

which was amended. Six members including myself worked very hard on the examination bank questions. Many questions have been

deleted. Others have been modified or new questions created to replace deleted questions.

The examination bank questions should be gone over yearly, to update references and delete poor or obsolete questions. We suggest

a few people on the examination committee or members just getting off the committee go over the question bank yearly so as not to

keep it updated.




The General Examination Committee met November 8-10th 2014. The examinations were reviewed and updated.

There are 14 members on the ACVIM General Examination Committee. The 2014-2015 year resulted in 3 new members for small

animal and 2 new members for large animal. Jen Gold and Helena Rylander have volunteered to stay on the committee an extra year.

There is 6 assigned proctors for the General Examination in June. They are Jenifer Gold, Tracy Hill, John MacGregor, Bonnie

Boudreaux, Sandra Bechtel and William Gilsenan. Jen Gold and Tracy Hill will arrive in Indianapolis on 31st May because there are 2

ADA candidates taking the General Examination this year that require two days to take the examination. Helena Rylander has offered

to assist in the afternoon portion of the General Examination if needed.

The General Examination is computerized this year using ExamSoft.

5. DETAILED REPORT

Changes made to the exam for 2015 included:

18 new questions and 19 modified questions =37 new/modified questions on the Gen Gen.

33 new questions and 5 modified questions =38 new/modified questions on the Gen SA.

28 new questions and 6 modified questions=34 new/modified questions on the Gen LA.

Committee members discussed changes for the reading list and updated all books to the latest editions; included editions in reading

lists of General, Small Animal and Large Animal Candidates. JVIM Review articles and Consensus Statements continue to be on the

reading list.

For small animal candidates, Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat by Green 4th edition or Canine and Feline infectious Diseases:

Sykes, 1st edition can be used.

Page 95

ACVIM Maintenance of Credentials (MOC) Committee Author(s): Jane Armstrong, ACVIM-MOCC Chair


Members: Drs. Joe Bertone (LAIM), John MacGregor (Cardiology), Karen Munana (Neurology), Kerry Rissetto (Oncology) and Jane

Armstrong (SAIM), Chair. Dr. Bill Fenner, BOR Liason, serves as an ad hoc advisor.

Background: All Diplomates certified on or after January 1, 2016 will fall under the requirement for Maintenance of Credentials (MOC);

current Diplomates will be encourage to participate voluntarily. By the end of each 10-year period, Diplomates must meet the criteria

established to demonstrate that they have maintained their credentials by accruing 75 points in any of 4 categories (Continuing

Education, Publications, Presentations and Other Professional Activity).





Template development: The draft template for point accrual that has been developed by the ACVIM-MOCC was submitted to the

ACVIM membership in December 2014 for review and input. The input received by Specialty was collated and reviewed by the

Committee. The most common comment received was that it will be harder for specialists in private practice than specialists in

academic positions to participate in activities that accrue points. A conference call was held on March 19th at which changes to the

template were discussed in response to the input received. After email review and development of a method for including credit for

training of a Specialty intern (in addition to residents), the template was revised (attached; „track changes‟ has been left activated in

order to more easily review changes). Prior to the Forum, this version of the template will be distributed once more to the MOCC‟s of

each Specialty, in preparation for discussion of MOCC implementation at business meetings of the Specialties at the ACVIM Forum.

The ACVIM-MOCC intends that this will be the version of the universal template that will be used by the MOCC of each Specialty for

MOCC implementation.

Communication: All candidates have been contacted to ensure that that are aware that they will receive a date-limited certificate if

certified on or after January 1,2016. All current program directors were also contacted with this information, and it has been included in

The Quarterly and in the GIG. The committee remains committed to ensuring that communication about MOC implementation is

frequent as it represents a big change within the ACVIM. The committee welcomes communication assistance of the BOR, ACVIM staff

and other Diplomates. Because diplomates certified in 2016 will have until 2026 to meet MOC requirements, the committee suggests

periodically (i.e., annually) reminding diplomates of the MOC requirement. Starting at 3 years after certification (2019), voluntary

reviews of MOC activities would be offered by the Specialty MOCCs to ensure adequate progress towards MOC.

Implementation Logistics: After January 1, 2016, it is anticipated that the primary role of the ACVIM-MOCC will be to ensure

consistency of MOC requirements across the College, such as considering adjustments to the universal template and ensuring MOC

activity “audit” procedures are conducted similarly among Specialties. The MOCC of each Specialty will monitor and review point

accrual, and each Diplomate will be responsible for documenting their professional activities. The new ACVIM website software will

provide support for diplomates to enter their professional activities on a personal MOC page; diplomates will be encouraged to do this

on at least an annual basis. The ACVIM-MOCC still needs to consider implementation guidelines that will apply to circumstances such

as maternity leave, active military duty, short-term disability, etc.

Page 96

Template for Maintenance of Credentials MOC requires a total of 75 points over a 10-year period

(in any of the 4 categories).

Category 1: Continuing Education* Activity Points 1. Attendance at a Specialist level meeting 1.5 pt per ½ day 2. Attendance at Generalist level meeting 1 pt per ½ day 3. On-line attendance of webinars falling into above categories (RACE accreditation required for veterinary meetings)

1 pt/4 hours of attendance

4. Attending human journal club or medical rounds in the corresponding Specialty

½ per hour session

*The MOCC of each Specialty will maintain a list of meetings that qualify as Specialist or Generalist meetings; these will be posted on the ACVIM website. Points for attendance at meetings not listed would require Specialty MOCC approval and the MOCC will determine what point value was assigned. Category 2: Publications Activity Points 1. Publication of a journal article in a peer-reviewed veterinary, scientific, or medical journal

10 pt any author

2. Publication of a case-report in a peer-reviewed veterinary or medical journal

5 pt any author

3. Authorship of a book chapter in the field of small or large animal internal medicine, oncology, cardiology or neurology/neurosurgery provided it has been subject to editorial review

10 pt any author

4. Authorship of an extensively-referenced, review article that is subject to editorial review

10 pt any author

5. Editing a veterinary textbook or book section 10 pt (book); 5 pt (section)

6. Serving as editor or section-editor for a veterinary peer-reviewed journal 5 pt/yr (max. 25 pt) 6. Manuscript review for peer-reviewed veterinary, scientific, or medical journal

1 pt/manuscript

7. Serving as abstract reviewer or judge for a Specialist level meeting (see category 1.1)

1 pt/year/meeting

Category 3: Presentations Activity Points 1. Presentation (45-60 minutes) to veterinarians at an ACVIM- or ECVIM/ECVN/ ECEIM/ECBM -sponsored meeting or congress or specialist-level meeting on a topic that has relevance to the individual’s Specialty

5 pt

2. Presentation (45-60 minutes) to veterinarians at an international or national meeting on a clinical or research topic that has relevance to the individual’s Specialty

3 pt (max. 30 pt)

Page 97

3. Continuing education presentation (45-60 minutes) to regional veterinarians or veterinary technicians/nurses on a clinical or research topic that has relevance to the individual’s Specialty. The continuing education must be open to external delegates; internal presentations within a veterinary practice are not allowable. Electronic presentations {webinars) are included in this category.

2 pt per unique presentation topic (max. 16 pt)

4. Presentation (45-60 minutes) to basic scientists, veterinary or other medical professionals at state, national or international level on a topic that has relevance to the individual’s Specialty. This topic may be clinical or related to basic science, management or allied para-clinical topics. Electronic presentations are included in this category.

2 pt (max. 16 pt)

5. Presentation of a scientific abstract at ACVIM (poster or oral presentation) or ECVIM/ECVN/ ECEIM/ECBHM (oral presentation only) on a topic that has relevance to the individual’s Specialty. Points are only awarded to the presenting (usually first) author.

2 pt each

Category 4: Other Professional Activity Activity Points 1. Submission of multiple choice exam question(s) for the ACVIM General or Specialty examinations. The question must be judged acceptable by the relevant examination committee.

1 point per question (max. 4 pt/year)

2. Supervision of a resident or Specialty intern* in the Specialty.

1 pt per 3 months of direct on-clinic supervision)

3. Serving on ACVIM rating, general or specialty examination committee. Credit for service on other committees or Task Forces would require Specialty MOCC approval.

5 pt per year (max. 15 pt)

4. Attendance at a specialist-level journal club (minimum 1 hour/week, minimum 40 sessions/year). To be eligible, a minimum of 3 diplomates (any ABVS Specialty) and/or residents must usually be in attendance although they may be from different specialties.

2 pt/year (max. 20 points)

5. Passing Specialty examination within the 2-year period before diploma expiration. Points are awarded for sections of the examination on which a passing score is achieved, as long as the entire examination is passed within 2 attempts.**

75 pt

* Specialty intern must spend 9 months per year on the Specialty service in order to qualify the supervisor(s) for MOC credit. Only a single ACVIM diplomate may receive credit for resident/Specialty intern supervision in a 3-month period **Diplomate must not have served on Specialty or General examination or rating committee within 3 years of taking the exam

Page 98

Notes: A diplomate may request pre- or post-activity approval from the MOCC of their Specialty for professional activities not included in the above template. Examples include:

Advanced degree work (pre-approval required) Professional activity, such as CE, in a non-ACVIM Specialty Supervision of a Specialty intern that is accepted into a residency in that

Specialty Serving on the Editorial Board of a peer-reviewed journal

A diplomate may also provide the MOCC for their Specialty with documentation justifying a request for a higher point value for activities such as presentation at a professional meeting or co-authorship of an abstract.

Page 99

Membership Services Report Author(s): Marketing & Membership Stephanie Peters Laurie Nelson


Membership functions were moved to the Marketing & Membership team in 2014. In addition to regular annual dues efforts, we developed a membership marketing plan focused on engagement and retention of members.


N/A



1. Staff developed a volunteer recruitment program to assist committees with finding volunteers to replace outgoing members.

Standardized volunteer job descriptions were created for all committee positions including the Board of Regents. Once approved, the descriptions were posted on the website under each committee.

New website pages were developed and posted for the volunteer area.

Membership created a volunteer interest form and posted it on the website. The form was developed in the membership database in order to track volunteer interests within individual member records.

Staff developed a new staff liaison SOP and held a training session for staff members.

Membership staff tracked responses to the new volunteer interest form and provided spreadsheets by committee to staff liaisons.

A committee survey is in development that will be distributed prior to the Forum to measure the success and satisfaction levels of the volunteer recruitment program.

The next step will be to assist committees with updating all SOP documents to be current.

2. Student chapter communication was improved this year.

Membership staff contacted all student chapters in January to obtain updates and encourage activities. As a result, many chapters updated their contact information and submitted updates.

Laurie Nelson attended the SAVMA Symposium in Minneapolis to improve the ACVIM’s visibility with veterinary students, promote student chapter involvement and encourage ACVIM Forum attendance.

Midwestern University started a new chapter.

3. Certificates of Clinical Excellence were distributed to more than 70 veterinary students.

4. DETAILED REPORT

Membership Marketing

As ACVIM maintains about a 97% retention rate from year to year, a membership marketing program has been developed to focus on

engagement and retention, especially as a younger generation of Diplomates comes through expecting more value for their

membership dues. The plan includes:

New member welcome kit that is in development

Ongoing identification and implementation of additional member benefits

Communication of both existing and new benefits of membership

Volunteer development and recognition

Job Board promotion through social media and email communications

Development of student chapters, including outreach communications and support

Page 100

2014-2015 Membership Dues Renewal Efforts

The comprehensive renewal campaign was successful with a continued high retention rate. The plan included a combination of

email, postal mail and ACVIM360 postings.

2,627 Active Diplomates are members.

Total renewals across all categories were up 12% from the previous year

Please see attached membership dashboard for full details of new member and renewal details, including a breakdown by specialty

and member type.

Job Board

In 2014 we expanded our promotion of the job board to both job seekers and employers through communication in social media,

email and on the ACVIM website.

All figures based on calendar year.

$174,918

$335,930

$194,531

$155,287 $149,704

23,594 44,466

30,379 23,370 31,309

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

2015 (to date) 2014 2013 2012 2011

Earnings Job & Resume Views

Page 101

Membership Dashboard 2014-2015 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG YTD

Total New & Renewal 4013% -46% 95% -33% -32% 6% 69% 200%

Cardiology 99 67 55 29 4 7 0 2 263

LAIM 164 140 107 106 23 10 17 3 570

Neurology 96 79 48 38 7 4 1 2 275

Oncology 116 71 39 84 21 13 1 1 346

SAIM 471 367 233 177 44 20 8 4 1,324

Total 946 724 482 434 99 54 27 12 2,778

Previous Year New and Renewal Member

Total23 1,335 247 648 146 51 16 4 3 2 52 41 2,399

New Members 33% -67% N/A 0% N/A -50% 17% 100%

Cardiology 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

LAIM 2 0 0 5 1 0 10 0 18

Neurology 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4

Oncology 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

SAIM 16 1 2 0 11 2 4 3 39

New Member Total 20 2 2 9 13 2 14 4 66

Previous Year New Members 15 6 0 9 0 4 12 2 2 2 52 41 30

Renewals 11475% -46% 94% -33% -41% 11% 225% 300% 12%

Cardiology 98 66 55 29 4 7 0 2 261

LAIM 162 140 107 101 22 10 7 3 552

Neurology 95 79 48 37 6 4 1 1 271

Oncology 116 71 39 81 21 13 1 1 343

SAIM 455 366 231 177 33 18 4 1 1,285

Renewals Total 926 722 480 425 86 52 13 8 0 0 0 0 2,712

Previous Year Total Renewals 8 1,329 247 639 146 47 4 2 1 0 0 0 2,423

Y2 Renewals 36.30% 41.94% 42.59% 67.74% 50.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 97.95%

Y2 Renewals 53 39 23 21 5 2 0 0 143

Y2 Renewal Candidates 146 93 54 31 10 3 3 3 146

Previous Year Y2 Renewals 2 93 10 29 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 134

2015 2014 2013 2012

Active 2627 2571 2477 2289

Honorary 12 13 12 11

Retired 90 78 72 70

Disabled 7 6 5 4

Inactive 129 105 81 79

5/20/2015Page 102

Nomination Committee Author(s): Leah Cohn


The following individuals served on the 2015 ACVIM Nominating Committee: Leah Cohn (chair), Michelle Barton, Jane Armstrong, Glenna Mauldin, Matt Miller and Natasha Olby. The committee’s charge was to find qualified individuals for the positions of vice-president and At Large LAIM representative. The committee considered many excellent candidates for both positions. Suzi White and Rebecca Gompf stood for election for vice president. Jenifer Gold and Dusty Nagy stood for election for At Large Member, LAIM. Drs. White and Nagy were elected by member vote in April.





5. DETAILED REPORT

The Executive Committee recently assigned a Task Force to further evaluate the suggestion for the need for some incentive or

compensation for the “executive” rotation. This committee will be chaired by Michelle Barton and composed of past voting board

members to include no less than two prior executive committee members. One member from each specialty will be chosen by the

Specialty President, and the LAIM and SAIM specialties will be tasked with specifically selecting past executive committee members.

The committee will be charged with the following tasks

1. Verifying the level of difficulty that is associated with identifying qualified candidates for board, and especially executive

committee positions. This could be done by surveying past nomination committee members to determine the level of difficulty

they experienced when trying to identify candidates

2. Evaluating the current SOP for identifying nominees to determine if our process contributes to the difficulty we’ve encountered

3. Determining what percentage of past board members that perceived their position as overwhelmingly time consuming, and

finding out what might have made it easier or more worthwhile for them. For example, would it have helped to have a staff

person assigned to directly assist them, or to provide a small amount of money each year so that they could have paid for

some “in-house” administrative assistance? This could also be done through a survey and/or direct communication

4. Determining what like associations provide for compensation

5. Asking people who have declined to run for office in the recent past to provide reasons for their decision. They could also be

asked what might have made the position more attractive for them

6. Survey the current board for suggestions regarding what might improve the job for them

7. Presenting the board with a report that summarizes their findings and provides options for the board to consider. These

“options” would not be limited to forms of compensations, but would include any suggestions relating to the nomination

process, as well as changes in the positions and/ or board management

Page 103

Professional Liaison Report Author(s): William R. Fenner

1. COMMITTEE’S YEAR IN REVIEW 2014-15

The professional liaison worked to advise committee chairs and specialty presidents throughout the year on matters regarding the GIG,

the constitution and by-laws, and issues regarding scheduling of meetings and committee structures. The Professional Liaison

responded to requests from both the IOCART task force and the Maintenance of Credentials Working Groups for additional information

regarding process and procedure of making changes.

The liaison worked closely with ACVIM’s attorney, staff, specialty examination committee members, and the Appeals Committee on

matters related to transfer of residency programs, examination scoring and appeals. The liaison coordinated the collection of all

materials for the Appeals Committee’s meeting, moderated the conference call and prepared all Appeals Committee correspondence.

The liaison responded to requests from BOR members and staff as needed. The liaison discussed matters regarding ADA

accommodations with ACVIM legal counsel at the request of staff and committees. The liaison represented ACVIM at the ABVS

meeting in Schaumberg, Il and, with the assistance of staff, submitted the ACVIM’s annual report and 5-year in depth report, which will

be reviewed by ABVS in February.

The liaison responded to several complaints from the general public regarding diplomates. As usual, most of these complaints

continue to revolve around failures of communication between the two parties.

The liaison worked with the rest of the staff to produce an outline of a typical year’s activity by the liaison to facilitate scheduling of

activities.



None this year


A. None this year


See year in review

5. DETAILED REPORT

See year in review

Page 104

board of regents meetings monday, june 1, 2015 tuesday ... pages/documents/2015 acvim … · bill...

Documents