draft performance protocol

Re: draft performance protocol

Chris Barker — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:46:22 GMT

'I for one find this very possibly a great idea, with no effective means to actually do it.'

Which goes for much of what currently appears to be happening at the RCVS. One gets the impression that at the RCVS unless 'it' is active then 'it' doesn't feel it is 'regulating' properly. But the changes sought (and on which the Queens Counsel was quizzed) are not to improve a measured deficiency, they represent 'good ideas' aimed either to deal with a perceived but unquantified 'problem', or simply to mirror 'best practice' in other professions.

Translating 'good ideas' into workable practice without adding to the burden of the practising vet is a skill our Regulator has yet to master. But what I find troubling is that from these initial ideas, accepted without question (or even response) by the majority (perhaps because the 'drive' behind them is poorly explained, or deliberately hidden) can derive changes which will really have impact on all working vets - ie. regulation of professional 'poor performance' (just who is going to judge that, in a profession where we could probably find twenty ways of boiling an egg?) and compulsory revalidation.

As usual it is the honest professional who will have to find the time (and money) to comply with the latest 'good idea', while those MsRCVS who ignore their basic professional responsibilities (and who by their actions have convinced the Regulator that we are all evil and that regulation must be increased) will carry on as before in their wilful non-compliance.

Chris B

Re: draft performance protocol

patrick murphy — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:24:48 GMT

how are they going to do that. I can only envisage spot checks based on complaints, which will probably be biased, or an opportunity to get at our neighbours, who we all know are not as competent as us.

that or an army of either clipboards, or us formfilling which with just the Vet Drug,training practice, and standardss scheme I just won't be able to keep up, and then y performance profile will be very poor.

I for one find this very possibly a great idea, with no effective means to actually do it.

Re: draft performance protocol

Chris Barker — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:08:19 GMT

From the total lack of replies - clearly not...

This is the companion protocol for the health protocol already introduced by the RCVS. The argument runs that the health protocol allows the RCVS to deal with ill, mentally ill. alcoholic or drug-dependent veterinary surgeons without recourse to their sole blunderbuss disciplinary procedure. And as such we should welcome it as a GOOD THING....

The Perfomance Protocol is a similar idea - a touchy feely way of dealing with under-performing veterinary surgeons without recourse to the disciplinary process. And as such it is slipping under the radar. Were that it could be so simple. But there are profound consequences to its adoption.

This would be the first foray by the RCVS into the minefield that is clinical performance. At present the RCVS can only adjudicate on gross professional misconduct, but following a recent opinion obtained from a QC that it has the right, nay the responsibility, to get involved in the area of poor clinical performance and negligence. DEFRA at EFRACom were very ready to see the RCVS pick up this role, and by introducing this Performance Protocol the RCVS is demonstrating its readiness to dive into the mire..

At present the RCVS has no right, or mechanism, to be pro-active in this field. It will be dependent upon, and now seems ready to positively encourage, reports from disgruntled clients with allegations of poor clinical performance by their veterinary surgeon. And while no doubt there will be examples of underperformance which should be examined, this has the potential to become a charter for the disappointed and the unscrupulous who just wish to avoid paying a wholly justified account. The workload could become immense and very expensive for he RCVS to administer, with consequences for our retention fee.

Chris B