Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Chris Barker — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:04:27 GMT

[quote user="Jill Nute"]

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

["In fact, there used to be regular meetings between RCVS and VDS which (very sensibly in my opinion) discussed matters of mutual interest - ie complaints about vets - and what might be changed to improve the situation.[/quote]"

[/quote]

For greater accuracy, my understanding is that the proposed meeting is between PIC Chairman and others with the Executive of the VDS.

More significant in terms of improved understanding on each side would be for there to be liason between the whole of PIC (including its lay membership) and the team of Claims Consultants at the VDS - I understand that such meetings did used to take place and it was these meetings that were stopped at the behest of Gordon Hockey

Chris B

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:35:39 GMT

Thanks for that update. The period I was referring to was prior to your presidency and the account came from more than one of the VDS personnel involved. I am pleased that the dialogue was reinstated for the reasons you describe.

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Jill Nute — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:54:03 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

As a matter of accuracy I think you have been misinformed Malcolm, there were meetings between RCVS Officers & VDS while I was an Officer, (2007-9) & as the Chairman of PIC I attended one such meeting last year, & have another in the diary for this year. In addition VDS were represented on the working group looking at the possibility of developing an Alternative Dispute Resolution system which reported to Council a few months ago. Not all matters of mutual interest involved complaints about vets, considerable time was also spent on seeing how we could avoid or reduce complaints about vets, which is why RCVS are also party to and support the VDS Recent Graduate CPD & re-union meetings which are held at each vet school every year. Jill Nute

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:18:19 GMT

[quote user="Jon RUBEN"]RCVS currently represents both the client and the vet.[/quote]

I think we need to be careful about saying things like this. The RCVS regulates vets it doesn't represent them (the role of elected members being to ensure that the voice of practice is heard at all levels within the regulator) - that is done by the BVA. We investigate complaints made by MOP we do not represent them. If a complaint has a reasonable prospect of success as a case of SPMC before the DC AND it is in the public interest to pursue it then the RCVS becomes the complaint at a DC hearing and at that stage is the advocate for the charge of SPMC (in much the same way as the Queen is a party to every court criminal court case).

The PIC process is overseen by three lay observers who are independent of the RCVS. They review every single case that has 'potential' to amount to SPMC and sit in on every meeting of the PIC. Currently they have no votes at meetings but they have direct access to RCVS Council should they wish to report any matter. When cases are dealt with by Veterinary Case examiners (such as myself) the lay observer must agree with our recommendations - if not they are refered to the whole PIC to consider in full session. Thus there are a number of safeguards in the system for both complainants and vets. I would like to think that we strike the right balance - but being human I'm sure that on occasion things go wrong too.

Hope you are well - happy Easter!!

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:56:18 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

1. Whether they have ever experienced the Compalints procedure or even phoned RCVS ProfCon

[/quote]

Presently as a member of the PIC I examine around 5 cases per week that have reached the 'examination' stage. On occasion I am asked for advice re an enquiry received by the department, the most bizarre of which is 'can you use botox in a horse!' Formerly as a member of the DC I saw the other end of the process.

As a member of the profession I have had to call prof con on relatively few occasions when I must say they have always been really helpful - including one occasion when I needed to report a client to the police and RSPCA due to a mounting welfare crisis. I accept that as a member of Council my experience could be different to others.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

2. What they feel about this "tension" between RCVS and VDS. Is it good?

[/quote]

The VDS have a job to do and by and large they are very good at it. There is no 'tension' at a personal level between the RCVS and the VDS. I strongly advise all members to join the VDS. One thing that I noted as a DC member was that a number of vets appeared before the committee with poor or no representation. VDS members always had excellent representation usually at QC level (although I must say the best advocate I saw was a retired vet who was acting as a Mckenzie friend). The DC and RCVS welcome the fact that members have proper representation - because it makes hearings easier and quicker. Properly trained advocates identify the issues and deal with them - they do not wast the committee's time.

I also note as a PIC member that where vets contact the VDS early in the course of a complaint (as the RCVS always advises) that the information we need to effectively consider matters arrives well presented and in an easy to follow format. In the vast majority of cases this enables the complaint to be closed promptly.

I agree with comments elsewhere that a once yearly meeting betwen the VDS and RCVS would be very useful - although I have no idea why this was stopped (it happened before I was a member of Council). In my view the efficient and prompt processing of complaints is in everyones interest (esp the general public's) and a better understanding between the VDS and RCVS would aid that. I have raised the issue in the past (4 years ago)and frankly I cannot recall the reasons given for NOT holding a meeting but I will certainly (if I'm still around after the election) raise it again.

Unfortunately many members are no longer covered by VDS membership as some of the larger practices use other commercial insurers. I would advise them all that as far as I know the VDS is the only insurer who will defend you against an RCVS complaint. Remember if you are called to appear before the DC you cannot get your 'costs' back and hiring a QC does not come cheap. The VDS provides £150K to cover the expenses of a formal hearing and in some cases that is all used up!

[quote user="J G Wray"]

3. Whether complainants should have advocates to ensure their best interests during the secret PI phase of a complaint.

[/quote]

Complaints may get advice from the RCVS about HOW to make a complaint and if it is an issue which has POTENTIAL to be of interest to the College. Thereafter I think it is up to them to seek whatever advocate they like. Some complain via Solicitors, some use the citizens advice bureau most seem very eloquent at making their own complaint.

The RCVS cannot and should not be an advocate for either party in the complaint process. the LRO separating the PIC from the Council (membership) will be a further step in the correct direction of separatinmg the investigatory function from the standard setting function.

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

J G Wray — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:18:56 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Sorry - the RCVS provide a set of notes and a form that can be filled in. This can be down loaded from the web site. That is NOT advocacy.[/quote]

Well, that isn't quite the whole picture. RCVS block as best they can, any advocacy sought by complainants. When this is available it throws those involved at RCVS into a flat spin, because they see their own actions as in the best interest of the complainant and the process and unusurpable if there's such a word. They can see no merit in something as uneccessary as an advocate, because they're there to do that job.

An example of when a vet would make a perfect advocate - a complaint arises because an owner seeks the services of a vet and things go poorly at some distance from the owner's customary vet e.g. whilst on holiday, or living away for a time, or where routine services are provided to a family member who lives away from the family . The owner generates the complaint, the customary vet could provide support and advocacy if they, in their professional judgement saw merit in the complaint. In the same way VDS vets provide guidance for the respondent in coping with the secretive PI process, the advocate vet could steer the complainant through the rules for practice (GtPC stuff) and technical matters, particularly if/when the RCVS visitation cadre are lacking in clinical knowledge and add their dead hand to the mix.

Other advocates could be solicitors, who might in turn call on vets, or academics or those in niche practice like OOH service providers.

Advising the complainant that there is nothing wrong is seeking additional help would stop the RCVS from having to "refine" the complaint - something which has been viewed as "grooming" in the past.. - a form of advocacy

Advising the complainant they can have additional help protects the RCVS process, because it self-evidently balances the support available to both sides. Dealing with the influence of this advocate will require a profound smartening up of PI practice, which is another thing altogether and, in my view the main reason such a move would be unpopular.

RCVS are about to put themselves in the spotlight, of their own volition and these sorts of anomalies will be played on.

WHich candidates are prepared to help RCVS get over this pain barrier?

JGW

PS Attribution - I borrowed the "dead hand" analogy from Dr Viner, this year's Treasurer, as in the "dead hand of RCVS" c. 2004

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Jon RUBEN — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:29:59 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Chris Barker"] I think the tension between the RCVS/Prof Con and VDS is likely to prove unavoidable given that they are approaching problems from different directions. But that we should need advice from an Insurer to coach us how to communicate with our own regulator is troubling.[/quote]

In fact, there used to be regular meetings between RCVS and VDS which (very sensibly in my opinion) discussed matters of mutual interest - ie complaints about vets - and what might be changed to improve the situation. RCVS, apparently under the direction of the now-departed registrar stopped these meetings. The now-departed registrar cited "legal advice" and, I am told got animated when her word was questioned. I believe that none of the others involved knew of the source or nature of the legal advice nor understood exactly why a constructive sharing of experience and views that was of potential benefit to all parties had suddenly become legally inappropriate. It would be nice to hear from the sitting councillors that this matter was discussed at council and the chosen way decided upon before the now-departed registrar spoilt the party.

That is all water under the bridge but I see an opportunity for the sitting and prospective councillors to look again at this matter and perhaps move to re-instate the RCVS-VDS meetings. What do the candidates think?

[/quote] I can see meetings being useful. But as stated b4. RCVS currently represents both the client and the vet. An impossible position. Jon

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Bob Russell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:49:51 GMT

With the now-departed registrar gone I suspect there are a number of issues that should be revisited. Perhaps the sitting councilors should start to make a list of things the ex-registrar got particularly defensive about and work their way through it looking for other duff decisions!

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:36:16 GMT

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:32:48 GMT

Jonathan You have my sympathy-an appallling situation-and RCVS should be ashamed of not categorically backing you up

Wynne

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:52:11 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]RCVS. The guidance for complainants is supposed to be enough. But by offering this RCVS are placing themselves in the position of advocacy of the complainant, [/quote]

Sorry - the RCVS provide a set of notes and a form that can be filled in. This can be down loaded from the web site. That is NOT advocacy. It is simply providing the means for MOPs to make a complaint.

Could you suggest an alternative procedure?

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

J G Wray — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:10:47 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]What is preventing a complainant from obtaining legal assistance or the help of an expert witness?[/quote]

RCVS. The guidance for complainants is supposed to be enough. But by offering this RCVS are placing themselves in the position of advocacy of the complainant, which is odd, if they are supposed to be a neutral force, without presumption.

What do candidates think?

JGW

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:09:29 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]She contacted a local referral ortho centre who estimated £3500-£4000. [/quote]

Anybody else see that this has a certain relevance to this case?

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:04:50 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]For MOPs there is nothing except a trust in RCVS to handle their complaint correctly. RCVS process does not make space for any assistance for the complainant. This oversight is not being addressed. Clearly, a complainant should be able to draw on legal assistance or help from an expert witness. [/quote]

I don't quite follow you. What are you suggesting that RCVS should do differently? What is preventing a complainant from obtaining legal assistance or the help of an expert witness?

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

J G Wray — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:45:49 GMT

[quote user="Jon RUBEN"]1) I have somehow or other never been subject to a complaint, that has progressed beyond a letter from a client[/quote]

Absence of experience of complaints procedure, a statutory function, noted.

[quote user="Jon RUBEN"]I am not sure that there is tension between VDS and RVCS, they have totally different roles in this matter. [/quote]

Check with VDS yourself. VDS, unlike other indemnity companies is prepared to assist in RCVS investigations. There was a specific protocol issued when the cadre of veterinary inspectors was formed from PSS inspectorate for visitations with Mr Hepper. RCVS don't like it, but you can rely on VDS to assist advise and even be present during one of these visitations. You should know all this as a mature vet.

[quote user="Jon RUBEN"]By Advocates do you mean legal, paralegal, other vets ...? [/quote]

For MOPs there is nothing except a trust in RCVS to handle their complaint correctly. RCVS process does not make space for any assistance for the complainant. This oversight is not being addressed. Clearly, a complainant should be able to draw on legal assistance or help from an expert witness. The RCVS provide their dubious inspectorate who are "trained" in interview technique, but are woefully lacking when it comes to clinical knowledge, to "support" the complainant at visitation. Would you support assistance to a complainant?

[quote user="Jon RUBEN"]I am concerned personally about the situation where the RCVS GtPC suggests that it could be a breach of confidentiality to report a client for cruelty.[/quote]

The RCVS aren't. They could give advice, "based on the facts as presented". They could devise test criteria as in "So long as you can evidence the following conditions have been undertaken".. but they don't. Furthermore, they look at the profession through a lens which shows them nothing but complaints and draw conclusions about the profession based on the fact that there have been complaints to be divided up into this type and that type without any qualification of meritorious action by the Respondent. But, you know all this, or rather you do now.

JGW

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Chris Barker — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:36:11 GMT

As an aside, I am appalled that the various wings of officialdom will take no responsibility for the 'policing' of legislation and seek to pass the buck onto a charity, the RSPCA, for initiation of legal action. Where was the clarity in the original legislation tasking an official, government funded body to ensure the implementation of the law?

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Chris Barker — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:30:26 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

I would like to know from the candidates

1. Whether they have ever experienced the Compalints procedure or even phoned RCVS ProfCon

2. What they feel about this "tension" between RCVS and VDS. Is it good?

3. Whether complainants should have advocates to ensure their best interests during the secret PI phase of a complaint.

JGW

[/quote]

1. I've been complained about twice. The first time I had to provide a written letter and documentation to defend my actions in a case where an owner lost it big time. After receipt of my information a letter of closure was sent out by the RCVS, a copy of which I received. The second time I knew nothing of the complaint before it was dismissed - the complainant's own letter offered me a perfect defence - and I was informed by letter after the fact. So no complaints from me there.

I have on occasion phoned Prof Con for advice/clarification. I have found these calls singularly unhelpful, as they tend to either simply quote the GTPC or stress how any decisions ultimately remain mine... This defensive position taken by those with far better legal knowledge than me is frustrating, but partially explicable by our Guide/Code of Conduct being coached in terms which are general rather than specific, this by design to allow 'wriggle-room' (which I guess is more helpful to a defendant than to a complainant).

As it happens I yesterday contacted Prof Con regarding an advert placed in our local paper. On an issue which is not immediately covered by the Guide/Code but which might be seen to bring the profession into disrepute. The phone was answered promptly, the gent answering the phone was as helpful as he could be in the circumstances, but no name was offered until an email address was given to me, at which point I was able to assume to whom I was speaking. The gent has gone off 'to consult' others in the dept (and possibly with the head of Advisory) as my enquiry is not to be simply answered by either the old Guide or the new, simplified Code... I await the outcome.

2. I think the tension between the RCVS/Prof Con and VDS is likely to prove unavoidable given that they are approaching problems from different directions. But that we should need advice from an Insurer to coach us how to communicate with our own regulator is troubling. I am also worried by the impression given by staff at the RCVS that they would prefer to avoid ownership, either of the query, of any advice or even of the original conversation. 'From the outside' I have gained the impression that chains of responsibility within Belgravia House are not all they should be - by all accounts the previous Registrar was highly defensive of 'her' staff and therefore 'blame/responsibility' was hard to apportion. In the absence of a full copy of McKelvey we shall never know whether a full chain of responsibility was uncovered by the investigating group (and reported/redacted/withdrawn under legal threat) or whether the 'chain of responsibility' was so tenuous, so poorly organised that no-one could be 'blamed' for the failings which allowed the overspends.

3. Discussions elsewhere have highlighted the unsatisfactory situation when a PI investigation is suspended with no prospect of resolution/completion, and the uncomfortable limbo in which a complainant may be left. And also the situation in the medical profession when practitioners subject to supervision under the equivalent of either our health or performance protocols continue to work within the profession and become subject to later criticism. These examples illustrate that however well our disciplinary process may appear to function, there are still areas in which it can be shown to lack logic or natural justice. It is difficult to see who could offer complainants the support to which JW hints; certainly I can recall the resentment expressed by practitioners who were the subject of a complaint when they heard allegations/suggestions that Prof Con were party to the 'grooming' of a complaint.

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Jon RUBEN — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:09:26 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Recently, there has been a certain "tension" between Professional Conduct Department at RCVS (ProfCon) and the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS). VDS encourage their members to follow a protocol when interacting with ProfCon

Thus, when I phoned ProfCon yesterday, it went as follows

Dialed 02072222001 and had pleasant chat with receptionist, asked for ProfCon
As expected ProfCon answered the phone with no identification of who had picked up.
I clearly identified who I was and where I was phoning from and asked for the members of ProfCon's name. She gave me her Christian name. I asked for her full name. I made a note of this as per VDS. No confusion possible there.
I asked for advice and was offered guidance which was in effect a regurgitation of the GtPC. I pressed ProfCon on this having explained that time would be of the essence in respect of breaking confidentiality and sacking a client on a welfare plus OV/LVI procedural issue and it was prudent to inform RCVS beforehand (VDS).
I made it clear I was making a record of the conversation at a given time and date and got ProfCon person to agree (VDS). This precipitated a suggestion that I speak to a colleague.
After some nonsense about being vague who I could speak to I was put through to another colleague, who used her surname right off the bat. I noted this (VDS)
This colleague was a mite more forthcoming, boiling it down to whatever decision you make you may be asked to justify it, which is obvious. I made the point that clarification is helpful even if ProfCOn don't give advice. I agreed the call with this colleague checking that she had a record as well (VDS).

VDS get involved in RCVS complaints - thank Goodness. But, they ask for a record of all interactions, because long experience has taught them that RCVS procedure is not as watertight as some would have us believe.So, we know we can rely on VDS if a complaint comes in to RCVS, but we need to play ball with VDS and not trust RCVS to get procedure right. VDS is on our side. RCVS is on a side somewhere, but whose is difficult to determine.

I make the point about who knows, because the RCVS does not encourage a complainant to take professional advice on matters of SPMC. Thus, a MOP has to rely on RCVS to deal with these matters. RCVS has no choice but to accept the VDS advisory role for a Respondent, but cannot cope with a similar Advocate for a Complainant. Another anomaly in the current RCVS process.

I would like to know from the candidates

1. Whether they have ever experienced the Compalints procedure or even phoned RCVS ProfCon

2. What they feel about this "tension" between RCVS and VDS. Is it good?

3. Whether complainants should have advocates to ensure their best interests during the secret PI phase of a complaint.

JGW

[/quote]

Well JGW, I am replying as you have addressed this personal matter to all candidates. I realise that I am not entitled to have any views on this being a single policy candidate.

However,

1) I have somehow or other never been subject to a complaint, that has progressed beyond a letter from a client

2) I am not sure that there is tension between VDS and RVCS, they have totally different roles in this matter. The VDS is an insurance company that wants to keep its payouts to a minimum and look after the people they have insured. The RCVS currently (although in my view incorrectly) has the role of both representing vets AND their clients and consequently has a permanent conflict of interests

3) By Advocates do you mean legal, paralegal, other vets ...? Do you mean someone who represents the complainant (ie the client) or the person being complained about (the vet)? Could we use the word 'complainee' for this person? Or just a person who gives advice?

I am concerned personally about the situation where the RCVS GtPC suggests that it could be a breach of confidentiality to report a client for cruelty.

Jon

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:33:16 GMT

This should really cross-refer with this thread, where I've just posted something in support of JGW (whatever next ).

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

Bob Russell — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:51:59 GMT

The ferry company has a responsibility here as well. They could be prosecuted if anyone could be bothered.

Typical response from the RCVS it seems. Unfortunately with the demise of export certification there is little welfare supervision for pets. One of the few cases where farm animals have better protection than pets.

I too would like to hear the candidates response to the situation.

Re: Candidates - What to do when contacting RCVS ProfCon

J G Wray — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:01:55 GMT

The "interaction" which precipitated my enquiry of RCVS and incidentally VDS and AHVLA is a doozy.

Last Friday we took a call from a client in France. They had been to the French vet for the passport signing and worming, then afterwards returned to him because their dog was in a subsequent RTA. The French vet took a rad and confirmed a pelvic fracture.

The dog showed up at our practice as an extra on Monday morning surgery, non ambulatory. The dog had been given morphine on Friday and the owner had been given French metacam ( think about it), and Tramadol but hadn't used the Tramadol because he thought it might constipate the dog.

My colleague picked her jaw off the floor, pointed out the ilio-sacral luxation, contralateral ilial shaft fracture, acetabular fracture, pubis fracture (comminuted) and ischial fracture and made the point that this was a welfare case as well because of delay and transportation, never mind coming in through the PETS scheme when unfit to travel. She contacted a local referral ortho centre who estimated £3500-£4000. The owner did not take any of this well and announced that they would take the dog back to France to get it fixed there for E1500, because he need to make the saving because he was getting divorced.

He took the dog away because we couldn't stop him. My colleague managed to hold on to the rad for an opinion from me and my other colleague and the owner agreed to return at 5pm to see if anything else could be done. He arrived at 6pm, in the middle of a busy surgery. The issues were covered again, but this time, equipped with info from AHVLA, we pointed out that as LVI/Ovs we could not allow him to transport the dog on welfare grounds, which contravene the PETS scheme requirement for a patient to be fit to transport. He told us the dog was on its way back to France....

This am we phoned the Local Trading Standards office and spoke to a TSO whose name we had been given by the AHVLA on duty vet for the South East. The AHVLA vet was clear that TS were the prosecuting force and it was their pigeon. The TSO was symnpathetic but unwilling to get involved. He spoke to the AHVLA vet and explained to us that there is an "unwritten understanding" that TS deal with farm animals and welfare issues in connection with PETS issues are for the RSPCA, because the clue is in the name Pet Travel Scheme. The dog is beyond RSPCA reach in France, but the owner still has an address here. We shall see what the RSPCA make of it all, as and when the owner returns.In short the contravention of the PETS regulations in respect of welfare gets shipped to RSPCA and paperwork irregulairities are dealt with by AHVLA. News to me.

Our position is not safe, but is justifiable. We contacted RCVS, the flakiest of the contacts we made because we could see this going badly and needed to make it clear early that we would be breaching client confidentiality on welfare and public interest grounds on the hurry up. RCVS refused to sympathise or give advice and if our owner makes a complaint to them we will have to go through the process for doing our job properly.

VDS advice was to make records of everything. Everything; names, dates, conversations and not to take the RCVS process for granted. They also suggested the RSPCA from the purely welfare angle. AHVLA were v helpful and phoned back promptly. It's just that they were wrong about welfare issues in connection with PETS. They agreed, however, that if they had found out about us failing to attempt to block the re -export, then they would have investigated and considered complaining to the RCVS about our shortcomings as OVs. Nice.

How do the candidates feel about discussing this sort of thing on a forum such as this, in anticiptation of a possible complaint to RCVS from the client?

JGW