Reporting Vets to RCVS

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Mark Rowland — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:27:51 GMT

It's been available as a free download for a long time. If you care about pain relief, surely the diligence should be on your part to access the information, not expect it to be spoon fed to you. Have you not got your copy yet, you must be in a minority, I suggest you access it as a matter of urgency from my cpd website. I am well known on this site for promoting cpd and analgesia for exotics. I think to put the onus of blame on referral centres is a little misguided. The information is out there, others cannot be held to account IMO for those who fail to seek it especially if ther are seeing non dogs and cats with any regularity. As regards my opinion, I don't really understand this. Pain relief or no pain relief is a welfare issue as you have stated. Is there anyone here who would have the opinion that a parrot with a broken wing shouldn't get pain relief? I would still prefer to educate that vet rather than report them but that's just my opinion.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

George Cooper — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:40:14 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"][quote user="George Cooper"]

Surely the overarching consideration HAS to be animal welfare - be that "pain" or "suffering", iatrogenic or neglect - and whether it has been compromised by a veterinary surgeon by co-mission or omission. And if so , bugger so-called professional buddying.

The trouble is - that requires an "opinion" and not necessarily fact, which is why JGM's original question cannot be answered here or anywhere.

[/quote] So I would say 70 % plus of my exotic referrals are not getting what I would call adequate pain relief. Would those referring vets prefer one of my exotic analgesia charts or a letter from the college do you think?

[/quote]

Mark - as I pointed out in my post, your post is purely your "opinion" however well intentioned and admirable it may be.

However, your question deserves a serious response and you highlight a veterinary controversy that has pertained for years and years, namely that of the provision of adequate pain relief. And it is something that I personally have held as important since the 70s before proper drugs were available, as such.

So - I would suggest that your handout regarding exotics and their need for pain relief, with appropriate drugs and appropriate doses should be sent immediately to every vet who refers to you, or whose cases you inherit, regardless of professional sensibilities otherwise you, too, are guilty of the sin of omission.

I could go so far as to say that your handout should be sent to every subscriber to vet surgeon.org just as soon as it can be arranged. What are we here for if not to help animals?

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Mark Rowland — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:41:13 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]

The trouble is - that requires an "opinion" and not necessarily fact, which is why JGM's original question cannot be answered here or anywhere.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Anthony Todd — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:27:45 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]

Sorry, tried to give 5 stars but only the red one stuck.

If every vet just applied the above test to almost every situation their action would be totally obvious and clear.

Arlo. can you change my red star, it's stuck!

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

George Cooper — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:38:33 GMT

The trouble is - that requires an "opinion" and not necessarily fact, which is why JGM's original question cannot be answered here or anywhere.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Simon Roch — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:56:39 GMT

All very interesting....trouble is that for the RCVS to do anything then they would have to make a decision......which is clearly not going to happen!! Stand by for an episode of sweeping under the carpet!!

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Rajat — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:45:24 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"]Please X-ray chinchillas heads. Oh and don't give steroids to birds. There I said it.[/quote]

Love this bit ! Add 5 stars!

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Mark Rowland — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:59:35 GMT

I don't think there is a referral vet alive who hasn't raised his eyebrow at a history or a referred case. Does that mean RCVS reporting? Not to me. An illegal act of extreme stupidity such as the case referred to is not the same as far as I'm concerned. I cannot believe the stupidity if what has been said is correct. I get this a lot. My most frequent question has to be "my chinchilla has had x dentals, why didn't the vet X-ray it's head?" Believe me it's quite hard to answer. It's not as though the equipment or technique is not straightforward. However I never fan the flames, there is no point. I would rather try to pour oil and educate the referring vet by phone or in the report. I have had one however where the client decided to go to the college. I was asked for my opinion and backed the vet ( correctly in my view). The fact that an animal is referred shows in itself that the referring vet is exercising a degree of diligence. This is far different from a vet doing something wrong and getting found out. I have been the victim of a silly complaint from a vet designed solely (IMO) to get me into trouble and while absolutely nothing came of it, it did piss me off a bit (and still does). Please X-ray chinchillas heads. Oh and don't give steroids to birds. There I said it.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:53:44 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

RCVS have handed down the directive to monitor colleagues' clinical performance and we all have the remit to recognise and highlight poor welfare, so where's the line for referral vets, mindful of the relationship they need to put food on their table.?

JGW

PS I don't see how the RCVS missive can work in these circumstances. The more circumstances where this is shown to be poorly thought through, the greater the pressure to revise a well-meanining, but flawed directive.

[/quote]

Now I see what you're on about. I'm quick that way.

I agree entirely. I told Belgravia House in the consultation that this clause was ill-conceived. But they don't listen to me.

I doubt there will be any revision though, other than a few tinkerings with "clarifications". The loss of face would be intolerable.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

J G Wray — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:36:25 GMT

[quote user="Andrew Kent"]I also can't see the connection between your story and your question![/quote]

The patient was ill. The differential included disease against which the patient was allegedly vaccinated. The clients asked simple questions and the policeman understood the misrepresentation of fact, illegal import and a professional going off piste. At this point, their vet, who ultimately made the complaint was put in a corner by the owner's partner, who gave the vet no choice, no discretion but to report.The discretion came later, with no apology, no graciousness from the Respondent for halting the process before DC. This discretion exists for a Complainant to exercise once the PI process is under way, but probably doesn't in a civil court. Lucky for the Respondent the Complainant was a colleague and not the client and it remained at RCVS, because AMI issued warnings.

Mr Ness has alluded, as a referral vet, to cases where the first opinion vet has "had a go". I would like to know where the referral vets draw a line, if they too get asked the question of whether there has been bad luck, poor clinical performance or worse, negligence by first opinion vets in the lead up to the referral. If poor clinical performance or worse then there is surely a welfare issue as well as, in their judgement poor clinical performance of a colleague. Getting cornered by a client can happen, as the story illustrates.

JGW

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

James Laidlaw — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:08:32 GMT

In this specific example though, there's no vet I know who would administer a vaccine, imported illegally from the US, BY a client, to an animal at their clinic. If they did, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in defence in my mind. If it's an ongoing case, it's stupid to bring it up in a public forum. It also has very little (if anything) to do with a vet referral specialist seeing a patient who has undergone imperfect surgery. I'd always advocate discussing any issues I have with the work of a colleague (we're all colleagues after all) directly with the person responsible. Pushing the complaint up the chain ultimately to the RCVS is entirely dependant on individual circumstances in a case/complaint...

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Stephen Courtney — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:59:37 GMT

I can neither cast a stone, nor judge. i have been unwise, hasty, over eager to please, insecure, pressured, stupid, wise after the fact, and have made mistakes.

I have also grown up, wised up, been careful, resisted pressure, stopped wanting my clients to love me, preferred respect, and made fewer mistakes, of late.

I hope that I have always been honest, but I also am aware that like almost everyone i am incapable of judging myself honestly

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:26:02 GMT

[quote user="Andrew Kent"]I also can't see the connection between your story and your question!

[/quote] Having read the OP again I can't see where a referral vet became involved, the puppy went to the new owner's vet who treated it. There is no relationship between an underperforming first opinion vet and a referral vet there is simply a vet prepared to act illegally and unethically and someone who tried to pick up the pieces and had no choice but to give information leading to this person's just demise. Still whatever loopy posts JGW makes they give us food for thought.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Andrew Kent — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:06:26 GMT

I also can't see the connection between your story and your question!

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Andrew Kent — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:04:23 GMT

The cases that referral vets see have by their very nature been referred - that on the whole means that the vet has decided that the case has moved outside their ability/facilities/interest or whatever. Granted there may be times when the work done by the original vet is questionable but they have at least referred the case to somebody else rather than continuing to pursue something they should not - I think that stands them in a better position in the eyes of colleagues and is an important aspect of professional conduct.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Bob Russell — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:59:38 GMT

Commonsense say's that any vaccine travelling across the globe is going to have a high likelihood of failure unless there is careful temperature control.

A cheap illegally imported vaccine is likely to have been shoved in a Jiffy bag and go over temperature in the post and possibly frozen in the air. I would automatically ignore any such vaccination as of dubious efficacy and would report the matter to the VMD if there was any sort of paper trail.

If a qualified individual is daft enough to use this vaccine and even dafter sign to say he or she has done so then they need their heads examined anyway.

It may be improper to discuss this individual case but not to discuss the misuse of any medicine!

I fail to see the link between a referral clinician and an illegal act!

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:40:04 GMT

Jonathan Haven't you heard the phrase "sub judice"

If a case is under consideration by either PIC or DC it is most improper to discuss it

Wynne

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:39:21 GMT

Its not a question of 'dobbing' a colleague who 'but for the grace of God go I' had a rush of blood to the head. He acted not only unethically but illegally. In my experience this is not usually a one off indiscretion but the actions of a serial offender. The rest of us spend our lives living by the rules and getting frustrated by those who bend or break them in the interests of profit. I have no sympathy I'm afraid the offender deserves to fry. Sadly, I see parallels with a similar situation developing in my area but can say no more for now.

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

J G Wray — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:23:25 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]A true story? Or just an invention to serve your "point"[/quote]

The story is true. The case is still "open" at RCVS at PIC. The case did not go to DC, or rather hasn't yet, because the vet who dobbed the other in made strenuous efforts to ask PIC to get the Respondent to accept a commitment to remedial CPD and hold the case open, instead of going to DC. If this ever goes to DC then there is a paper trail. The vet who dobbed in the other has also mollified the client, but is unclear to this day why they've had to do so much work to resolve the matter. The Respondent hasn't apologised for their action and at one point launched an indignant diatribe about how disappointed they were over being dobbed in by a "colleague".

The question remains, if referral vets are given to judge the work of first opinion vets then which guardian and arbiter of animal welfare is going to dob in a colleague? Vets are quick enough to do so when trivia, nebulous reputation and rank self-interest is involved, so what about when it "really matters"?,

JGW

Re: Reporting Vets to RCVS

James Laidlaw — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:44:17 GMT

A true story? Or just an invention to serve your "point"