• About SVS
• Bylaws
• Committees
• Association of Chairs in Vascular Surgery
• Presentations from VAM 2007
• SVS Promoting Independence
• CME Mission
• SVS Policies
• SVS Newsletters
• History of Vascular Surgery
• Awards and Scholarships
• Contact Us

SVS Promoting Independence

Promoting the independence of vascular surgery - First report from VSAC

From the President

The Vascular Specialty Action Committee (VSAC) was appointed in the summer of 2007 to make recommendations to the SVS Board of Directors on optimal methods to promote the independence of vascular surgery. 

The VSAC made its first report in October.  Click here to view the full report.  We thank the chair, Dr. Jack Cronenwett and members of the committee who are listed below.

In summary:

• Independence of a specialty is determined by (1) control of certification and training which is a function of Board and RRC status and (2) by ownership of identity which is a function of specialty size and society advocacy through branding, interactions with primary care etc., rather than Board or RRC status. 
• The committee has explored, and is continuing to explore, two pathways toward independence: (1) by acquiring control of certification and training within the current Board-RRC system and (2) by creating an independent Board. Each pathway has advantages and disadvantages.
• The VSAC unanimously recommended that the most direct and expeditious route to obtain control of certification and training was through modification in the current ABS-VSB and RRC models through the following steps.

--Codify in writing the relationship between Vascular Surgery Board (VSB) and American Board of Surgery so that the VSB has control over all vascular certification issues.

--Establish an independent group to control vascular training and program accreditation, either a separate RRC or a formalized Vascular Review Group within the current Surgery RRC.

--Work with the ABS to remove vascular surgery as an essential component of general surgery training and to state that future trainees in general surgery who wish to practice vascular surgery should complete a vascular fellowship.

Next steps include the following:

The VSAC will continue to investigate alternate pathways to obtain control of certification and training, including how to overcome the potential disadvantages of an independent Board.

• The SVS will expeditiously initiate discussions with the ABS (in collaboration with the VSB) about strengthening the autonomy of the VSB, removing vascular surgery as an essential component of general surgery training, and stating that general surgery trainees who wish to practice vascular surgery should  complete a vascular fellowship.
• The SVS, in collaboration with the APDVS, will initiate discussions with the ACGME about revisiting the possibility of an independent RRC because of our separate primary certificate or establishing a Vascular Review Group within the Surgery RRC.
• The SVS, in collaboration with the APDVS, will continue its activities to encourage development of the 0-5 residency programs.
• The SVS will continue its activities to promote the visibility and identity of vascular surgery.

In suggesting that the above strategy was the most feasible, note that other options for change and key issues are being evaluated by VSAC and the SVS and will be considered if they prove to be advantageous.

If you would like to communicate with me about this issue, please use the following email vascular@vascularsociety.org.

K. Wayne Johnston MD
President, SVS

VSAC Committee members:  Jack Cronenwett, MD (Chair), O. William Brown, MD, Elliot Chaikof, MD, G. Patrick Clagett, MD, Clement Darling, MD, Julie Freischlag, MD, Peter Lawrence, MD, Michel Makaroun, MD, Linda Reilly, MD, John Ricotta, MD, Greg Sicard, MD