RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:03:19 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]

I haven't, believe me. It is just that policy decisions are for Council and Committees. The Communications team puts out the materials according to the brief. I am just giving you the facts where relevant, in a way I hope is helpful. If it's not, then I apologise.

Best wishes

Lizzie

[/quote]

There's nothing for you to apologise for - you're just getting caught in the cross-fire.

This could never have happened in the old days - Ms Herne made a decision and then told council exactly what they had to rubber-stamp. That was the last that council ever heard except when things went wrong and then Ms Herne was able to trace the problem back to poor decision-making by council!

There is more than one way of defining good governance.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

patrick murphy — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:41:10 GMT

also note that the compulsory CPD creep has finally been realised, with very strong statements about our need to protect ourselves with detailed records of our learning lives.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

David Mills — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:32:08 GMT

Perhaps this sort of stuff is a cynical ploy to force people to join the scheme. More subscriptions. More money for RCVS.

Anyone any idea about seeing the accounts from the scheme and how much flow there is between PSS and other RCVS departments?

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Bob Russell — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:00:24 GMT

I do not agree that nothing has changed. There is a world of difference between a practice bearing the RCVS logo and Practice Standards Scheme and the term RCVS Accredited Practice.

One simply says it is part of the PSS the other (and the We're off to an accredited practice) is encouraging the public to favour one practice over another.

One says the practice is a member of the scheme and the other suggests the RCVS is endorsing that practice. This is NOT the same thing at all and has NOT been going on over 7 years!

Not professional and as a member of the RCVS not acceptable to me. Misleading, confusing, divisive and inappropriate.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:31:47 GMT

Best wishes

Lizzie

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Julian Earl — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:24:47 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]

That's good to know, thanks. I was just concerned that as this issue with logo use had arisen seven years after we started using it in this way that people had not previously been aware.

Best wishes

Lizzie

[/quote]

I think you've missed the point of this thread.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:16:01 GMT

Nope, we've objected from the start. It's just that this latest effort by Belgravia House, blatantly deceitful, prominent, advertisements in the popular pet press, has caused more people to speak their minds.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:04:44 GMT

That's good to know, thanks. I was just concerned that as this issue with logo use had arisen seven years after we started using it in this way that people had not previously been aware.

Best wishes

Lizzie

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:59:10 GMT

Thank you, Miss Lockett. I think most of us did know that.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:53:31 GMT

Just to answer the point about the use of the logo, the RCVS Accredited Practice logo has been used since the beginning of the Scheme (2005) to identify a practice accredited through the Practice Standards Scheme and all materials produced to promote the Scheme to the public since then have used this logo. It was updated in the new corporate colours last spring. You may or may not agree with this (clearly not, in fact), but I just wanted to let you know that it's not a new thing.

Best wishes
Lizzie

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

David Mills — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:36:16 GMT

How did this bit of literature get through the committee I wonder? What is it meant to achieve for the RCVS or PSS?

Above all, it just seems a peculiar thing to be spending money on. Is it, perchance, like one of those HR initiatives such as personal development reviews which are essentially self-preserving, self-serving for those that oversee them (keep them in a job) but don't make one jot of difference to the individual or animal concerned. Hmmm.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Bob Russell — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:41:35 GMT

I don't feel the PSS is particularly for us. We have the guidance notes (and found them useful) but £400 is a new computer or half a good ECG machine.

For a big practice £400 is a drop in the ocean but for a small practice it is significant enough for us to weigh up its value. I am unconvinced it will make my practice significantly better, safer or efficient. When it does I will sign up.

I value the impressions of our locums and should consider an 'exit' questionnaire. I hope they have found the place up to standard!

I go back to who authorised the RCVS logo be used to advertise one practice as superior to another when I know that is wrong?

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Clive Ansell — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:24:54 GMT

The PSS in its current form is meaningless nonsense. That said I am in favour of the idea of a minimum set of standards, but it needs to apply to all practices and be more practical and enforceable.

As a locum, I am in the position of having worked in many practices over 11 years, both in and out of the scheme. It seems to me the PSS is not synonymous with high, higher, or better standards of care at all, and that many practices have just jumped through hoops and ticked boxes to enter the scheme, which has made not one jot of difference to how they work. In fact the best practice I work in in terms of hygiene, and adequate staff and equipment is not in the PSS, and by far the worst practice is PSS tier 2.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Bob Russell — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:47:59 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

That's all very well, but what about the practices that don't?

[/quote]

They will take little notice of anything anyway!

I am not against the PSS. We have used the guidance notes and found them useful. I am sure we would get some benefits from the paper exercise but I chose not to get involved in a scheme that ensures compliance with the law but gives little or no additional protection to patients.

If I was completely certain that all our paperwork is completely in order I would like to put up a sign saying 'This practice meets or exceeds the requirements of an RCVS Accredited practice' and save £400!

I don't quite have enough confidence that all the bits of paper are in the right place so perhaps I won't do this.

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:40:27 GMT

That's all very well, but what about the practices that don't?

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Bob Russell — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:27:15 GMT

As the new guide to professional conduct has included (surprise, surprise) that:

"veterinary surgeons must maintain minimum practice standards equivalent to the Core Standards of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme"

it is clear that there is no longer a need to use an RCVS Accredited Scheme practice as the PSS is, in effect now compulsory bar the £400 fee and the availability of RCVS advertising!

Once again the RCVS have decided they know best and are determined to keep to the agenda of some members of council.

Clearly this is no longer a council answerable in any way to its members. My vote is that we ditch the whole lot and start again!

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Ian Mostyn — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:42:34 GMT

Can we contact the Advertising Standards Agency as being a member of the PSS is not synonymous with "high standards of care". We are also inspected voluntarily at least every 4 years being a nurse training practice and I see no benefit in being in the PSS. I feel the need for a multi-signature letter to put in an official complaint - I would sign happily as that advert is not on.

Ian

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Mark Rowland — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:09:14 GMT

Or even protection of its good name by favourably looking at a disciplined vet from a PSS practice over one thats not because after all, theyve come from a practice with our logo on it so they must be OK!

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Bob Russell — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:57:13 GMT

I have to admit I was shocked and horrified when I saw this and a similar advert in the magazine.

This practice is as legally regulated as a PSS one. I am subject to the same disciplinary procedure as a vet in a PSS practice. We try to work to the highest possible standards we can and are good at knowing our limitations and when to call for help!

I am not sure that many vets realise that this blatant misuse of the logo has occurred.

I understand that the cost has come out of the PSS fees but I am wondering at what point the RCVS gave permission for this endorsement. Perhaps RCVS accredited cat food, flea drops and wormers next!

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

james herriot lied — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:34:28 GMT

Must admit, perhaps because I'm a locum, until Evelyn started on this one, I'd not really grasped the issue fully. However, wording like, 'So, make sure your practice carries the RCVS Accredited Practice mark' does suggest that those which don't are inferior, and by extension that the accreditation scheme ensures excellence of clinical standards. And this will have cost money - which may / may not have been taken entirely from PSS subs.

I'm beginning to understand Evelyn's insistence on asking the question.......

Re: RCVS endorsing/recommending part of the profession only!

Mark Rowland — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:28:36 GMT

Count me in