New RCVS guidance on referring cases

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Tiago Cardoso — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 21:59:37 GMT

These new rules seem like a lot of unnecessary hassle. I get that the aim is to make things clearer for clients, but it feels like they’re just adding more red tape and making a bid deal of something that wasn't really a problem. Vets should be trusted to communicate their qualifications without all these extra hoops to jump through. Jm2c

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Pete001 — Mon, 02 Sep 2024 11:13:25 GMT

I dont think this is anything new is it? Its just to say if u need to refer, then refer responsibly and reassure the o that the person who are referring to is competent in that area and is registered as an AP or specialist etc

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 30 Aug 2024 19:46:23 GMT

[mention:5cc50b29df0b4bef881b52329beedddc:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] You heard it here first! (Well, you didn’t, but you know whatimean!)

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Andy Moores — Fri, 30 Aug 2024 18:19:43 GMT

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Andy Moores — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 18:43:47 GMT

Most of the new guidance is actually a clarification of previous guidance. Not much has actually changed but it does reinforce and serve as a reminder of the responsibilities of clinicians when referring a case to a colleague. I'm one of those referral clinicians that has been pushing for clearer guidance from the RCVS on the whole referral process. I see too many cases where a pet has had surgery performed by a non-specialist, there have been complications and the client finds their way to me. Most of the time in such a situation the client was never offered any choice for the original referral (it's usually to the GP practice's 'orthopaedic surgeon' -i.e. a peripatetic certificate holder/AP) and they were never made aware that the original surgeon was not a specialist or that a specialist referral was an option. This is wrong and it always has been (there has always been a requirement in the code of professional conduct to make owners aware of available options when referring a case, its just that some vets choose to ignore that requirement). I have absolutely no problem with certificate holders/APs taking referrals but we must be absolutely transparent with owners, especially these days with so much attention on the profession. It's the owner's pet and their money -they should be able to choose who treats their dog and where that treatment takes place in full knowedge of the level of expertise available to them. I agree that the requirement of the referring vet to make the owner aware of the level of expertise likely to be available at a particular referral centre is a bit clunky, but it should be easy to find out if a centre is staffed only by non-specialists, or by specialists and non-specialists (e.g. residents) or only by specialists. I do think it's really important to avoid vague titles such as 'Consultant' or 'Referral Surgeon' -these provide no indication of a clinician's expertise or experience but owners are understandably going to assume that such a person is highly qualified, which they may not be. The conflict of interest statement is also not new and (in my opinion) is really important. This would not only apply to a referral to a referral centre in the same group, but also a referral to a peripatetic certificate holder/AP where the host practice keeps a substantial chunk of the referral fees.

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Judith Joyce — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:28:20 GMT

Agree with Rachel, the onus does need to remain with the referral practices when they accept the case. GP vets are not necessarily aware of the hierarchy of qualifications and experience. This has probably been done after longterm pressure from the referral practices who do have Specilaists or APs with positive motives for clients, but also seeking to maintain competitive advantage over those without Specialists or APS. Certificate holders seem to have been abandoned again.
They don't seem to have addressed the availability of those Specialists or APs when they are needed.

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Rachel Perry — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:10:52 GMT

Sounds great! But the onus should be on referral practices just as much - many ‘specialist hospitals’ are not fully staffed by Specialist clinicians and even within a hospital I would bet that most people could not name the Specislists from the APs from the ‘practice limited to..’

RE: New RCVS guidance on referring cases

Rob Loxley — Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:45:49 GMT

You say ‘now advises general practitioners to check that the vet they are referring a case to is on the RCVS Specialist or Advanced Practitioner list’ which suggests that cases should be referred to specialists or Aps, where the code actually says ‘whether’ they are on such a list (presumably more so you don’t call them a specialist or ap if they aren’t)