Veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand are assessed for accreditation purposes every six years by the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee (VSAAC), which is a standing committee of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC).1 Prior to undertaking an assessment, VSAAC requests a Self Evaluation Report from the school and subsequently spends a week on site to collect additional information. The committee also takes into consideration other quality assurance procedures within the university and aims for a process that complements other evaluation activities. Internal evaluation procedures within VSAAC are designed to reflect the process and outcomes of each visit and lead to annual revisions of the publication Policies, Procedures and Guidelines publication. The committee has close links with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), and there is a routine exchange of observers on all visits in the United Kingdom and Australasia. In recent years VSAAC has become increasingly interested in looking at ways to place greater emphasis on the outcomes of veterinary education and, eventually, to reduce our reliance on input measures. There has been good progress in identifying desirable attributes for veterinary graduates, but further work is needed to establish the reliability of assessment procedures. The Australasian accreditation system is very supportive of recent moves to achieve greater compatibility of veterinary accreditation systems in different parts of the world because we believe it has the potential to assist globalization of animal disease control and veterinary education.

Background Veterinary registration processes, including disclosure of disability or misconduct, vary across jurisdictions in Australasia, and there is currently no clear mechanism for the communication of registration requirements to prospective or current students. Procedures for registration of graduating students are evolving but are not necessarily responsive to conflicting imperatives for confidentiality, protection of stakeholder interests and graduate support. Objective To obtain opinions from members of the veterinary profession in Australasia on issues relating to graduate registration, including communication between veterinary schools and registration bodies. Method This was an online survey. Results Responses were received from 245 members of the profession, including employers, educators, current students, recent graduates and board members. Respondents agreed on the importance of the survey topic to all stakeholder groups, and responses reflected the complex, contestable and nuanced nature of inherent concepts. Responses were strongly polarised between individuals with an appetite for reform, improved discourse around disability and remediation of unprofessional conduct and those with concerns and experiences suggesting boards and educators could not responsibly manage processes that included increased disclosure of disability or prior conduct. Conclusion Issues related to disability and misconduct should be addressed separately in any change to registration processes. A harmonisation of registration processes across jurisdictions is desirable, but the legal implications of any potential changes require careful consideration. There is a need for improved support of disability, remediation of misconduct and a desire to promote diversity within the profession. The survey evoked strong emotions, and future discussion requires sensitivity, empathy and insight.