Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Clive Ansell — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:45:52 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

I know you're not responsible for this Arlo but there should be a fourth choice: 'should Vets Now be called to interview by the RCVS to explain the apparent disparity between their 'official' policy on OOH visits and what the employees seem to believe they are told'.

[/quote]

Agree 100%.

2 of the 4 OOH clinics I have worked in had an unofficial policy of not doing house calls. period. end of. one had an official written in the practice manual policy the same. The fourth had a rota of back up visits and did and still does home visits. so, only 1 of 4.

What this case, and the previous RCVS Vs Albring case have in common is that no accountability or culpability whatsoever has been laid at the door of the employers, directors or owners of the OOH clinic concerned. If a doctor makes a mistake, their NHS trust employer is held to account. Again in both cases there was no procedure in place to provide sufficient back up staff to cover both manning the clinic and attending a house call at the same time.

I guess it is easier to follow the path of least resistance and just blame the vet working on the floor, then just hang them out to dry if it goes wrong.

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Christopher Saul — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:23:59 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"] (as do the majority of vets) that Mr C made a bad decision[/quote]

The last time I looked 45% was a minority, though a significant one

Even if it were a majority; only 6 % see the sanction as appropriate.

Do you think all bad decisions should result in a striking off? If so most - no all - vets wouldn't get past their first year in practice!!

Look - the way I see it is - no-one is perfect, I've seem some vets make some pretty awful mistakes ( and I guess I might have made some in my time, I do really try not to but hopefully I've not done anything too bad), but I think it is more constructive to try and put things on the right track with advice and guidance. I think people should be allowed to learn from their mistakes, not go to the gallows on a first offence.

All this argument makes me sad, we're all on the same side here (I hope), i.e. all trying to do the best job we can for our patients.

As to what sanction - I think advice and guidance would be the way forward - compulsory CPD, mentoring, probationary period etc etc

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Mark Holmes — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:29:04 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

The RCVS disciplinary committee concluded (as do the majority of vets) that Mr C made a bad decision and allowed an animal to suffer for longer than was necessary.

They then had to decide on a sanction which would promise the public that this vet could be trusted not to make the same decision if put in the same position again.

What other sanction do you feel would have done this, considering they couldn't discuss it with him?

I agree that an indefinate suspension, until he gets in contact, appears a 'fairer' sanction. However, the result would have been exactly the same - he couldn't practice until he explains his actions before the DC - which is the same as the current sanction going to appeal. It is just semantics, with the outcome being exactly the same. Being struck off isn't a lifetime sentence (contrary to what a lot of people seem to think).....a vet is always able to ask to be restored to the register.

[/quote] Are you reading the same poll as me? The majority of Vets on the poll think he has no case to answer. However if something needed saying, a reminder of responsibilities and a recommendation that OOH protocols are reviewed to ensure that similar circumstances are covered would have sufficed

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:21:45 GMT

The RCVS disciplinary committee concluded (as do the majority of vets) that Mr C made a bad decision and allowed an animal to suffer for longer than was necessary.

They then had to decide on a sanction which would promise the public that this vet could be trusted not to make the same decision if put in the same position again.

What other sanction do you feel would have done this, considering they couldn't discuss it with him?

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Christopher Saul — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:43:27 GMT

Whatever our opinion on his motives, only 5% so far think that the sanction was appropriate....

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Bob Russell — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:37:40 GMT

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]

Another option which perhaps should have been included was :

3: I think that Mr C made a (very) poor error of judgement but this does not amount to unprofessional behaviour

[/quote]

No. Just an error of judgement based on VetsNow's perceived protocol.

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Christopher Saul — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:15:57 GMT

Another option which perhaps should have been included was :

3: I think that Mr C made a (very) poor error of judgement but this does not amount to unprofessional behaviour

Re: Mr Chikosi Case: A poll

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:25:18 GMT