RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Mark Hutchinson — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 17:51:56 GMT

I can see this contributing to Veterinary stress again. Most complaints come from clients not wanting to pay bills or trying to find someone to 'blame' for an animals problems. At least that is my experience of a single complaint. I would say the complaints procedure is awful to go through. Guilty till proven innocent is the motto from my experience. They will find something to reprimand you on even if its a forgotten explanation of your procedures to a client due to an emergency situation. Be a first opinion practice but make sure you have the procedures in place of a full scale 24 hour referral practice. Thank your lucky stars for the VDS for giving support even when you have done nothing wrong.

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Martin McDowell — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 17:04:16 GMT

Well said Arlo. Well said.

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

K Kuc — Sun, 26 Jan 2020 18:05:56 GMT

Employment lawyer Belinda Lester stated in last week's Veterinary Record, "the public would welcome the change", and "if it happens, you are going to get more vets being found guilty of misconduct." Thanks Belinda. And thanks RCVS. I think it is becoming increasingly clear the RCVS is not there to represent the profession, or support the profession, but rather there to bully and control the profession, benefitting from the threat of disciplinary action to keep the profession in line. If the RCVS is really there to represent the animal owning public, and protect them from all us terrible vets and VNs, perhaps the public should be paying the registration fees.

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:01:21 GMT

It's very simple. Is the veterinary surgeon guilty of what they are supposed to have done, or not? We have a principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. End of story. If someone in RCVS is sure that some guilty veterinary surgeons are getting off because RCVS couldn't prove the offence, perhaps they could now share this secret information that proves the guilt with the rest of us? If they are sure that the guilty are getting off because RCVS couldn't prove guilt, the answer is to improve RCVS investigations and procedures so that they can prove guilt – I believe the fashionable phrase is " they should up their game" .

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Sarah Keir — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:30:35 GMT

I think I might retrain as a lawyer - looks like a lucrative line of work.

Estimates published last year put the total cost of outstanding compensation claims at £83bn.

NHS England's total budget in 2018-19 was £129bn.

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Sarah Keir — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:30:00 GMT

I think I'm going to retrain as a lawyer - looks like a lucrative line of work.

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:01:36 GMT

[mention:1ea52c326e77493f9148fbb75c9cb2e8:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that a lower standard of proof means a couple of things: first that PIC will be more likely to refer a case to a full DC (knowing they have a better chance of winning), and second that there would inevitably be a greater risk of a miscarriage of justice. And perhaps more to the point, my impression is that many in the profession live under a sort of permanent rumbling cloud of the threat of complaint / disciplinary. So in a profession characterised by high level of trust from the public, and a high suicide rate, what on earth is the rationale for a lower standard of proof. Does the College think there are vast numbers of shady vets getting off scot-free because the current level of proof required is too high? If so, where's the evidence?

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 01:45:48 GMT

This seems serious. Is it that when a client (or anyone else for that matter) complains against you, they have to provide less strong evidence to prove their allegation? Therefore, the college will be obliged to take more complaints into consideration.

RE: RCVS commits to consult with the profession over proposed changes to standard of proof in disciplinaries

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 21:25:14 GMT

I think your last sentence is no exaggeration - lives will be put in danger if this change is made. The lowering of the standard of proof by other regulators has proved very controversial and certainly in the medical profession is deeply regretted - at a time when the profession is (rightly) struggling with how to mitigate widespread mental health issues introducing a lower standard SPECIFICALLY to increase the number of vets facing disciplinary cases and specifically to increase the number of vets found guilty of misconduct is hard to comprehend. As a profession we are already at a ridiculously high risk of suicide and the activities of regulatory bodies are well known to cause increased anxiety in professions.The effect on the mental health of health care workers facing an investigation by a regulatory body can be devastating (Bourne et al, BMJ 2014 ¹) and are well documented. In the medical profession a General Medical Council (GMC) referral results in 26.3% of doctors suffering depression & 22.3% anxiety and many suffer actual physical illness too – gastrointestinal problems, headaches, and relationship breakdowns. More than a quarter end up being signed off from work for a month or more. There is no reason to believe that RCVS investigations have any less impact on veterinary surgeons – indeed given that we generally have less backup and support I would suspect the problem is greater. What is even more alarming is that being investigated alters the behaviour of the doctors concerned, making them more defensive, more likely to ‘hedge’ and avoid clinical decisions, order unnecessary tests and administer excessive treatments to the detriment of patient safety and well-being. Interestingly this behaviour spreads to the colleagues of doctors under investigation. An incisive and startling conclusion of the BMJ study (involving almost 8000 doctors) is that the damage done by GMC investigations to patient safety is so great that it outweighs the benefit of the GMC’s regulation. That is an astonishing – yet fact based – conclusion. Regulation is making patient safety worse! Given the serious negative impact both on the health of those working in health care and on patient safety, of being investigated or being subject to formal disciplinary hearings the focus of the RCVS should be on how to DECREASE the number of hearings not how to increase the number