Somewhere on your campus there is a spreadsheet named something like "CBVE map 2018." Columns are courses. Rows are competencies. Someone color-coded it once, then left. The question on the dean's desk is not whether AAVMC published a model. It is whose document this is, what has to be assessed over time, and who can open the current evidence without calling the person who built the map.
This guide is the operating protocol for DVM deans and curriculum leads: run AAVMC Competency-Based Veterinary Education (CBVE) 2.0 as a longitudinal assessment program, keep it separate from AVMA Council on Education Standard 11, and stop treating a one-time map as the work. The COE document set, calendar, and owners live in the companion Evidence article Managing AVMA COE Accreditation. The veterinary accreditation map for the same cycle is at Veterinary Education. A downloadable working list is linked at the end as a meeting handoff, not as the system of record.
Verified September 1, 2026 against AAVMC CBVE 2.0 and AVMA COE Standard 11. Sources at the end.
What is CBVE, and whose document is it?
CBVE is AAVMC's Competency-Based Veterinary Education model: an outcomes-based, learner-centered approach designed to prepare graduates by confirming their ability to meet the needs of animals and the expectations of society. It is a member-organization framework. It is not AVMA COE Standard text, and adopting it is not the same as complying with the Standards.
| Owner | Clock | Artifact | Failure if skipped |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curriculum lead | This academic year, then every year | CBVE 2.0 edition date on the current map | Tracking built on the 2018 booklet, never diffed |
| Assessment lead | Across the program, over time, not one rotation | Dated observation tied to a competency or EPA | A color-coded map treated as longitudinal assessment |
| Domain owners | Standing | Evidence for their CBVE domains, in a column separate from Standard 11 | The two nines treated as one list |
| Progress committee | Standing, not visit year | Progression and remediation decisions from the longitudinal record | A competency gap found in the last term, with no time to reassess |
| Dean plus curriculum lead | Kickoff, then whenever a wall appears | Named owners, assessment calendar, and the working list as a handoff | The lead is somebody's fifth job, and the milestones are fiction |
AAVMC originally published the model in 2018 and revised it in 2023-24 (CBVE 2.0). AAVMC's own pages describe a model organized around competencies, with time-based training de-emphasized in favor of targeted learner outcomes. The AAVMC Council on Outcomes-based Veterinary Education (COVE) continues to revise the model. Whatever this page says, the current booklet on aavmc.org is the document to work from, not a saved 2018 workbook.
AAVMC also publishes that the COE is jointly supported by AAVMC and AVMA, and that accredited institutions are required to be reaccredited every seven years. That is sponsorship and cycle context. It is not a license to paste CBVE domains into a self-study as if they were the Standards.
How is CBVE different from AVMA COE Standard 11?
They are different documents with different jobs. Confusing them is how a college builds a beautiful CBVE map and still cannot produce Standard 11 evidence.
| AAVMC CBVE 2.0 | AVMA COE Standard 11 | |
|---|---|---|
| Whose document | AAVMC member-organization model | Accreditation Policies and Procedures of the AVMA Council on Education, July 2025 edition |
| Job | Curriculum and assessment model | Accreditation: entry-level health care, independently, at the time of graduation |
| The "nine" | Nine domains of competence and 32 competencies | Nine competencies observed and assessed formatively and summatively, with timely documentation |
| Graduation marker in this model | Competent on the CBVE milestone scale | Processes to remediate students who do not demonstrate competence in one or more of the nine competencies |
| Treating one as the other | Imports a member-org framework into the accreditor's document set | Will not survive a visit team reading this year's Policies and Procedures |
Standard 11 is accreditation. In the July 2025 Policies and Procedures, new graduates must have the basic scientific knowledge, skills, and values to provide entry-level health care, independently, at the time of graduation. Processes must be in place to remediate students who do not demonstrate competence in one or more of the nine competencies. The college must have processes whereby students are observed and assessed formatively and summatively, with timely documentation, for having attained those nine competencies: comprehensive patient diagnosis through critical analysis of new information and research findings relevant to veterinary medicine. That list is COE text. It is not the CBVE domain list.
CBVE is a curriculum and assessment model. The Competency Framework consists of nine domains of competence and 32 competencies, all of which AAVMC treats as core for veterinary graduates. The nine domains are Clinical Reasoning and Decision-making; Individual Animal Care and Management; Animal Population Care and Management; Public Health; Communication; Collaboration; Professionalism and Professional Identity; Financial and Practice Management; and Scholarship. Nine domains are not nine Standard 11 competencies. Crosswalking them is local work. Declaring them identical is a documentation error.
This guide does not restate Standard 9 instructional-week minima, filing dates, or the annual interim report. Those belong in the companion COE operating guide. If you use CBVE locally, you still run the Standards from the current P&P. A CBVE implementation does not waive them.
A 30-second check. Open last year's competency map. Name the CBVE edition it was built on (2018 or 2.0). Then name one student whose assessments cover a single CBVE domain across more than one year, and name where Standard 11's nine competencies live as a separate record. If you cannot name all three, you have a labeling project, not two working systems.
What are the three parts of CBVE 2.0, and which of them can a college change?
CBVE 2.0 has three primary components: the Competency Framework, the Milestones, and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). AAVMC is explicit that the nine domains, the 32 competencies, the milestones, and the eight core EPAs should be maintained across programs. Subcompetencies and extra EPAs are the local layer.
| Component | Keep as published | Local layer |
|---|---|---|
| Competency Framework | Domains and competencies should be used as published, so programs stay comparable | Illustrative subcompetencies may be modified or refined. They can become course or rotation objectives. Numbering is domain.competency.subcompetency (for example, 1.1.2) |
| Milestones | Labels: Pre-Novice 1, Pre-Novice 2, Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, and Proficient. Competent is the graduation marker in this model. Proficient is beyond graduation | If your forms still say "meets / does not meet" with no developmental language, you are using a pass bar with CBVE labels |
| EPAs | Eight core EPAs for all veterinary graduates | Schools may add EPAs for local context, but the total number should be limited (8-12) so each student can be assessed performing each EPA multiple times |
The EPAs published in the model are: gather a history, examine, and prioritize differentials; develop a diagnostic plan and interpret results; develop and implement a management plan; recognize and initiate care for an urgent or emergent patient; formulate questions and retrieve evidence; perform a common surgical procedure on a stable patient; perform general anesthesia and recovery of a stable patient; formulate preventive-healthcare recommendations. There are eight EPAs published in the model, considered core for all veterinary graduates. EPAs are essential workplace activities, described at a high level so they can be observed across species, clients, and settings. They require integration of multiple competencies from multiple domains. They are not simulated skills, and they are not a single competency in isolation.
A list of forty "EPAs" is not more rigorous. It is a list nobody can observe. If your map uses a homemade numbering scheme that nobody can translate back to AAVMC's system, you have already broken comparability.
Pre-Novice 1 and Pre-Novice 2 describe development in controlled and simulated settings. Novice is the expected level at entry into an authentic workplace, where variability and ambiguity are expected, and where learners may initially regress.
What does assessed longitudinally actually require?
It requires assessments against each competency across the program, gathered over time, not a single end-of-rotation score treated as the record. AAVMC's framework page is direct: the competency framework should be the scaffold on which the curriculum and assessments are built, and learners should be assessed longitudinally across the program for each competency so graduates have achieved the necessary outcomes by the time of graduation.
That sentence is an operating rule. A color-coded coverage matrix is not longitudinal assessment. Longitudinal assessment is a dated observation, tied to a competency or EPA, that a later reader can find.
When implementing the model, AAVMC says it is critical to maintain fidelity. The booklet names five core components from the medical-education literature: clearly articulated outcomes, sequenced progression of learning, tailored learning experiences, competency-focused instruction, and programmatic assessment.
| Core component | If this is missing |
|---|---|
| Clearly articulated outcomes | You have a poster, not named outcomes |
| Sequenced progression of learning | Checkpoints are missing or only exist at graduation |
| Tailored learning experiences | Every student gets the same path regardless of evidence |
| Competency-focused instruction | Teaching is still organized only by discipline hours |
| Programmatic assessment | One end-of-rotation score stands in for a competency |
Programmatic assessment, in AAVMC's own definition, is an intentionally designed formative and summative system in which the longitudinal development of learning is visible to the student as actionable feedback, and which provides rich data for informed holistic decision making on progression. A progress committee is part of that design, not an optional extra.
The AAVMC Council on Outcomes-based Veterinary Education has also been public about the failure mode: without shared terminology, and without fidelity to those core components, programs cannot evaluate whether the model is working, and they risk a premature verdict that CBVE "failed" when the components were never actually in place. If your faculty mean three different things by "EPA," you do not have a terminology problem at the edges. You have an implementation that cannot be diagnosed.
Remediation is not a letter in a file. AAVMC is explicit that a learner struggling with a specific competency will take more time, and that building curricular time for additional practice and reassessment is critical. Standard 11 separately requires processes to remediate students who do not demonstrate competence in one or more of its nine competencies. Two remediation rules, two records, or you will discover the gap in a visit year.
How do you map the curriculum without treating the map as the program?
You map existing course and session outcomes to the CBVE competencies to show alignment and find gaps. AAVMC says the simplest way to do that is a spreadsheet comparing existing program outcomes with the CBVE competencies. The milestones then sign-post expected progression at each stage of training. That is the start of the work. It is not the program.
A map without assessments is a poster. A map whose owners left is archaeology. The operational test is whether a course director can find their own sessions, see which competencies those sessions claim, and see the assessments that actually scored them, without an IT export and without the original mapper in the room.
Do not buy a module that treats CBVE, a local EPA list, or a discipline-specific "Day One" list as a checkbox that replaces Standard 11. AAVMC's EPAs describe activities learners should be entrusted to perform independently at the time of graduation. That is CBVE language. Standard 11's "entry-level health care, independently, at the time of graduation" is COE language. Adjacent sentences are not the same requirement. Keep both visible.
Start in a spreadsheet, name an owner, and diff the map against CBVE 2.0 at the start of each academic year, the same way the companion COE guide tells you to diff the Policies and Procedures.
How should EPAs be used in clinic?
As repeated, directly observed workplace assessments, across contexts, feeding a program of assessment. Not as a one-time skills checklist at the end of fourth year.
| Clinic rule | What it is | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot vs program | Assessment of a learner's ability to perform an EPA is a snapshot. EPAs are most effective when used across clinical training in a variety of contexts | A one-time skills checklist at the end of fourth year |
| Observation | Assessment of EPAs requires direct observation. Nested pieces (history, then examination, then differentials) are allowed when observing the whole EPA is impractical | Simulated checkoffs standing in for workplace observation |
| Entrustment scale | Can look backward (how much supervision did this take) or forward (how much trust for the next time) | A pass bar with EPA labels |
| ITERs | In-training evaluation reports that feature the milestones give the learner a current level and a next step | A single end-of-rotation grade with no competency underneath it |
| Cap | Extra EPAs allowed; total limited (8-12) so each student can be assessed performing each EPA multiple times | A list of forty "EPAs" nobody can observe |
| Off-campus sites | The competency record has to exist at the site where the student actually worked | A campus program plus a set of affiliates with no EPA evidence |
Learners typically ask to be observed. Multiple instruments, at multiple points in time, are what programmatic assessment actually is. Oversight of off-campus sites, and the COE rules that govern them, belong in the companion operating guide and on the campaign page.
Who owns progress decisions, and what happens when a learner is behind?
A named curriculum lead owns the model, the map edition, and the assessment calendar. Domain owners can produce the evidence for their domains. A progress committee reviews longitudinal data and makes progression and remediation decisions. The dean removes walls those people cannot move: faculty time, data access, and honest answers when a competency is missing.
| Role | What they own |
|---|---|
| Named curriculum lead | The model, the map edition, and the assessment calendar. If this role is somebody's fifth job, the milestones are fiction |
| Domain owners, in writing | Evidence for their domains. The owner list is a living document; update it when people leave |
| Progress committee | Longitudinal data, progression decisions, and remediation plans. A committee that meets only when a visit is scheduled is not this |
| Dean | Faculty time, data access, and honest answers when a competency is missing. Visible sponsorship at kickoff |
Show a learner where they have not yet met expectations, and put a plan and a timeline next to that gap. AAVMC asks for a holistic view (EPA performance) and a granular view (competencies and milestones) in the same remediation conversation. Cohort data sets realistic targets. A single failed rotation grade, with no competency underneath it, cannot do that work.
AAVMC puts faculty development and change management next to the five core components for a reason. Timing, resources, and change management are the challenges member institutions have most commonly reported when implementing CBVE. Workshops that teach the domain names without teaching how to observe an EPA, how to write a milestone judgment, or how to bring a remediation plan to the progress committee, are not faculty development. They are a glossary.
Where it goes wrong
The failure points below are the ones that look like progress in a slide deck and collapse when someone asks for a student record.
| Failure | Fix |
|---|---|
| The 2018 file. Tracking built on the original booklet and never diffed against CBVE 2.0. | Record the edition date on the map, and assign the curriculum lead a standing annual pull from aavmc.org. |
| The two nines treated as one. CBVE domains pasted into a Standard 11 table, or Standard 11 competencies relabeled as CBVE. | Two columns, two owners, one crosswalk that admits it is a crosswalk. |
| The map as the program. Coverage colored in, assessments never attached. | Every claimed competency has a dated observation a stranger can open. |
| EPAs as the whole model. Eight workplace activities standing in for 32 competencies, including ones AAVMC says may be best assessed pre-clinically. | EPAs in clinic, domain-level assessment across the program, progress committee looking at both. |
| An EPA list that cannot be observed. More than 8-12 EPAs, or EPAs written as single skills and simulated checkoffs. | The published eight, plus only the extras you will actually watch more than once. |
| Terminology drift. Faculty using "milestone," "EPA," and "competency" as synonyms. | AAVMC's definitions, in the faculty development the booklet already asks for, before anyone designs a new form. |
| No time to remediate. A competency gap found in the last term, with no curricular space to practice and reassess. | Remediation slots on the calendar at design time, not as an exception. |
| Single-person knowledge. The map, the ITER template, and the progress-committee rules live in one person's head. | Every artifact in a shared, access-controlled location the moment it exists. |
The working list
Download the CBVE dean working list (Excel) or the plain CSV if you would rather import it into Google Sheets. Every task above is a row, grouped by edition, framework, assessment, clinic, and governance, with columns for the suggested owner, what good looks like, status, and notes. Put real names in the owner column at your next leadership meeting.
The list is a handoff into the standing process, not the system of record. If the longitudinal record only exists in this spreadsheet, you still do not have CBVE assessment. You have a tracker.
Where this lives in Medtrics
People → Process → Platform. Named curriculum leads run CBVE assessments as a standing process. Domain owners produce the evidence. A progress committee reads the longitudinal record. The working list is a handoff into that process, not the system of record.
In Medtrics, enrollment, evaluations, and outcomes live in one system of record with a governed KPI layer and exportable analytics. That is the standing assessment record a progress committee can open without assembling a visit-year packet.
The COE document set and the eleven standards belong on Veterinary Education and in Managing AVMA COE Accreditation. This guide stays on the competency model.
Sources and status
This guide was verified on September 1, 2026 against the following sources. After publication, the current editions on aavmc.org and avma.org remain the only authoritative statements of the member-organization model and of any accreditation requirement.
- AAVMC CBVE landing: outcomes-based, learner-centered approach; model originally published in 2018 and revised in 2023-24 (CBVE 2.0). Member-org framework, not COE Standard text. aavmc.org, CBVE
- AAVMC CBVE resources page: model organized around competencies; time-based training de-emphasized; COVE continues to refine the model. aavmc.org, CBVE resources
- AAVMC CBVE Competency Framework page: nine domains of competence and 32 competencies; learners assessed longitudinally; framework as the scaffold for curriculum and assessments. aavmc.org, Competency Framework
- CBVE 2.0 booklet (2024): three primary components (framework, milestones, EPAs); eight core EPAs; 8-12 EPA cap; milestone labels; five core implementation components; spreadsheet mapping; programmatic assessment; remediation time. CBVE 2.0 PDF
- AAVMC accreditation page: COE jointly supported by AAVMC and AVMA; accredited institutions required to be reaccredited every seven years. Member-org context, not Standard text. aavmc.org/community/accreditation
- Accreditation Policies and Procedures of the AVMA Council on Education, July 2025 edition, and the principles HTML (last update to this section: July 2025): Standard 11 nine competencies, entry-level expectation, formative and summative assessment with timely documentation, remediation processes. avma.org, coe-pp-July-2025.pdf · principles
- Chaney, Hodgson, Banse, et al. The Importance of Adhering to Terminology When Implementing Competency-Based Veterinary Education (CBVE). Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 2024. Fidelity and shared terminology as implementation conditions. PubMed abstract
- Banse, Kedrowicz, Michel, et al. Implementing Competency-Based Veterinary Education: A Survey of AAVMC Member Institutions on Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Success. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 2024. Timing, resources, and change management as commonly reported implementation challenges. School counts in that paper are not used here. PubMed abstract
AVMA, the Council on Education, and AAVMC are named descriptively. This article is an independent operational guide from Medtrics, not AVMA, COE, or AAVMC guidance, and nothing here promises any accreditation outcome. The work does that, or nothing does.