incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:37:03 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

If I'm doing litters of puppies/kittens, I'll put " progeny of............." in the name space. At least this narrows down the possible identity.

Wynne

[/quote]Excellent idea. The problem is that the majority of vaccine cards I'm seeing with pups for second vaccines are from dodgy breeders/petshops/dealers and the even more dodgy vets who support them so such a simple idea is alien to them if they can't be bothered filling in any of the rest of the record.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Bob Russell — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:20:45 GMT

By definition it is not possible to follow the 12 points of certification because the patient is not 100% identifiable. I sign on the basis of 'as stated by owner'.

It is a record of work done and as such should be as complete as possible.

Our children have health books which include a record of their vaccinations. These are signed on the basis that the identification is as stated by parent! Not sure why people need to get bogged down with the certification bit. Just fill in the cards fully!

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:56:26 GMT

If I'm doing litters of puppies/kittens, I'll put " progeny of............." in the name space. At least this narrows down the possible identity.

Wynne

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

John Flynn — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:20:03 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I think that is a bit unfair. We are producing certificates as good as it is physically possible to do so with the information available. They may not be perfect but while microchipping is not compulsory and there is no legal requirement to produce a record of vaccination they never will be. However the whole point is that we are providing the best practical means of being able to identify the animal. That does not equate to a bad certificate.[/quote]

scan one in and I'll tell you whether I think it's a bad certificate or not; i'm not sure i would agree from the posts previously that you are producing certificates as good as can be - they sound like bad certificates to me.

In my books, a certificate is a certificate is a certificate; I can't see how you can produce a certificate that fails to comply with the 12 points of certification above and say it's not a bad certificate.

I'm still not sure what you use these certificates for or why you issue them or how much you charge to do so, but it's perfectly possible to issue a reasonable certificate adhering to the 12 principles cited above; I'm capable of doing this for a dog or cat as much as for livestock and horses.

If you're issuing a large number of dodgy certificates that do not adhere to the principles agreed at the European level, then I think that is detrimental to the integrity of certification in the veterinary profession.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] If you don't call it a certificate - don't sign it.[/quote]

Couldn't agree more.

If you are not capable of producing a proper certificate, then don't produce a dodgy one and sign it and say it's the best you can do.

If you're presented with a certificate by an owner that does not conform to the standards required for professional certification (such as you cannot individually identify the animal in question, or are not in a position to state whether the bitch in front of you has been neutered etc), then don't sign it - simple.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:03:43 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

A bad certificate lays you open to all sorts of issues. If we are producing certificates they need to be 100% watertight. You absolutely CANNOT certify something an owner tells you - so them saying this is Ben is meaningless from a certification viewpoint.

[/quote]

It depends how it is written on the certificate. In the animal details section of the Pet Passport there is a footnote to several categories, including the age of the animal, that states that it is as described by the owner. Also I have microchipped several puppies at 8 weeks that were docked when a few days old, I sign that to the best of my knowledge the puppy I have microchipped is the one that was docked previously.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Bob Russell — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:32:47 GMT

Our cards have record of vaccination printed on them. They do not claim to be certificates and I tend to agree they are often not up to certification standard. They can and should be completed fully each and every time. I am not interested in the nit picking regarding certificate or record. As a profession we are duty bound to do as good a job as we can.

I doubt anyone will be taken to task unless there is clear deception such as signing when a vaccine has not been given or falsifying the date it was given. All my vaccination records can be backed up by clinical records.

If any pet is microchipped I am happy for my signature to certify vaccination. Until then it is a record of vaccination of the patient as identified by the owner. Not watertight but the best available under the circumstances.

Many large animal vaccines have been PML (showing my age!) for decades so no change there. My view is that vaccines should all be POM-V and as they are supervised and no signature required farmers are entitled to administer them.

None of this is an excuse for signing an incomplete card!

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:10:28 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Quite like the description 'bad certificates' and worse ones. Sums up the situation rather well IMO. Not sure that it brings the profession into disrepute but blank cards do! [/quote]

I'm absolutely sure the profession doesn't actually want these record cards to be certificates or the DC will need to meet daily.

It's not that long ago the VMD reclassified various large animal vaccines from POM-V to POM-VPS. There is nothing to say that they won't do the same with small animal vaccs.

We have a number of farmers and gamekeepers who vaccinate their own dogs (usually just lepto only). So long as you are seeing their animals regularly they can easily satisfy the definition of under your care.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Bob Russell — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:01:48 GMT

I sign vaccination records to confirm what I have done. Quite true not all animals can be identified with 100% confidence but that is not what I am doing. Without a better system in place that is the best I can do!

I certify that I have vaccinated a black labrador that the owner has told me is Ben!

Yes we check microchips every time a vaccination is done. How are we to know otherwise if the chip is still functioning? It is pretty much second nature to check chips at almost every visit.

Yes I can check the owner and pet details in a few seconds! I tend to agree many of these records are not true certificates without the pet being identified by microchip (barring forgetful episodes!) cards go out as complete as we can make them.

Quite like the description 'bad certificates' and worse ones. Sums up the situation rather well IMO. Not sure that it brings the profession into disrepute but blank cards do!

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:53:58 GMT

[quote user="John Flynn"] Martin and Bob are producing a large number of bad certificates, [/quote]I think that is a bit unfair. We are producing certificates as good as it is physically possible to do so with the information available. They may not be perfect but while microchipping is not compulsory and there is no legal requirement to produce a record of vaccination they never will be. However the whole point is that we are providing the best practical means of being able to identify the animal. That does not equate to a bad certificate. Putting your signature on something that makes it virtually impossible to confidently follow a trail to identify that animal brings the whole profession into disrepute and encourages dodgy breeders. dealers and pet shops. If you don't call it a certificate - don't sign it.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:16:50 GMT

I'd usually scrap the old card and make out a new one. Our PMS will print out a label with all owner and animal details.

That way they have one with our details. I strike through the primary vaccination section and write 'replacement card'.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Glenn Hodgson — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:20:40 GMT

id fgenerally fill un the blanks. would be backed up by history from previous vets.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Nicola Cole — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 20:14:31 GMT

With an incomplete vaccination card would most people issue a new one or just fill in the missing details from the clinical records (for animals which are not microchipped)?

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Charlotte Marshall — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:50:21 GMT

Well for all our disagreements about whether they are certificates or not ,we got a phonecall a few years ago from a vet who was an RCVS Practice Standards Inspector. Turned out he had been locuming somewhere and seen a pup for second vacc which one of our vets had vaccinated. Now I hasten to say normally our vaccination cards are fully completed (certainly if I've done it!) however in this case someone had been in a rush and there was no name and address and the animal details were only partially completed. He rang to inform us that this was not good enough and not to do it again!

By the way I always refer to them as vaccination record cards rather than vaccination certificates!

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 13:09:27 GMT

[quote user="CatherineThomas"]

Those of you who say a microchip should be checked at every vaccination, do you have enough chip readers in the practice for every vet? I find that in most practices you have to go searching for the chip reader every time you need it.

[/quote]

Well, we were a bit old fashioned, and admittedly we had one per consult room, rather than one per vet! (and one in the kennels downstairs as a spare.) They don't cost the earth!

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

mariette asselbergs — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:00:53 GMT

You can get very decent readers for 20 quid.

Mariette

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

CatherineThomas — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:11:30 GMT

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

John Flynn — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:58:19 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"] they are not a good certificate because of the general lack of definitive identification. That is our fault if we fail to check chip numbers every time but we should. However, my main point stands: that an owner is using your signature on the card as proof, therefore by any definition, it is a certificate, just a bad one without a chip number.[/quote]

I'm not Pandora, but nothing like an argument I don't properly understand to stick my nose in

Why would you want to produce a large number of bad certificates?? I can't understand this point any more than Michael's. From an outside perspective, it sounds like you, Martin and Bob are producing a large number of bad certificates, while Michael is producing some worse ones, surely that's bad from the point-of-view of the integrity of a vet's signature in all cases?

If you intend on certifying something like the administration of a vaccination to an individual animal then do so properly. (http://www.fve.org/uploads/publications/docs/fve_98_053_certif_principles_en.pdf)

If you don't intend on certifying it then don't scribble a random signature on a piece of paper for no purpose.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Julian Earl — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:45:56 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

Julian - quite happy to go over the old ground.

One black male middle aged black Labrador looks very much like another. A certificate is only valid if it relates to an individually identifiable animal - there is a good chunk of animals out there un-chipped. I'm not daft enough to realise that people have borrowed other dogs vaccination cards to get into kennels.

Even if you took the dog to be microchipped I don't check it every single booster, sometimes I simply forget (cf with a rabies where I'd always check).

I asked they guys at the VDS if a simple vaccination card was a certificate - I was told categorically no.

A VN can sign if they administer a 2nd vacc or a booster under direction of a vet.

You cannot read my signature, I don't stamp alongside the scribble. I have a shortened sig (almost stylised initials) that I use as getting Woodhouse in that box not straightforward (I have ruined many passport applications by leaving the box)

[/quote]

Morning Michael, I would certainly concede they are not a good certificate because of the general lack of definitive identification. That is our fault if we fail to check chip numbers every time but we should. However, my main point stands: that an owner is using your signature on the card as proof, therefore by any definition, it is a certificate, just a bad one without a chip number.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

John Flynn — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:40:12 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]It takes two seconds to fill in the card properly.[/quote]

That doesn't sound like a certificate as I know them then... I don't think I've ever certified something in less than 5 mins. (But I might be on cross-purposes here)

Equally I'm not sure what the purpose of Michael doing an illegible, unidentifiable squiggle (his signature) as part of his vaccine records is? Why would you do this?

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:23:44 GMT

5 gold stars Bob.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Bob Russell — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:19:43 GMT

The only reason VDS don't consider vaccination records to be certificates is because some vets have chosen not to treat their signatures as being of value thereby debasing the whole system.

Yes not perfect because you may be vaccinating a black labrador but that is all you are signing to say you have done. If the record has a microchip number on it we should all be checking to ensure we are vaccinating the appropriate animal.

Going over old ground again but I fail to understand why it is an issue. It takes two seconds to fill in the card properly.

One reason these pet shop clowns feel able to abuse vaccination cards/records is because a minority of the profession can't be ars*d to do things properly. Rather than asking if a vaccination record is a certificate, why not just fill the damn things in properly?

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:11:11 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]Okay, I'll bite at that piece of bait!![/quote] You shouldn't have Julian. The lid on Pandora's Box will never close on this topic, Michael is either blind to what is obvious to us or he is just playing Devil's Advocate big time. Just ignore him. He is correct that a vaccine card with just a description of a puppy/kitten is flawed but until everything is microchipped its the best we can get and if the card is fully completed at least there is a chain to follow at the end of which should be a vet who can say yes I did vaccinate N black lab pups that day or no I didn't so there is pretty good chance you can prove its validity. Sadly Michael doesn't seem to get this nor clearly does he value his signature and membership of the RCVS.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 23:08:54 GMT

Julian - quite happy to go over the old ground.

Even if you took the dog to be microchipped I don't check it every single booster, sometimes I simply forget (cf with a rabies where I'd always check).

I asked they guys at the VDS if a simple vaccination card was a certificate - I was told categorically no.

A VN can sign if they administer a 2nd vacc or a booster under direction of a vet.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Julian Earl — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:11:14 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

IF it was a certificate (and it isn't) then you couldn't use the stickers anyway..........

[/quote]

Okay, I'll bite at that piece of bait!!

Oh yes it IS a certificate. Why? Because Mr and Mrs Owner are using your signature to prove something to a third party, that is, you are certifying that Puppy-dog has had such and such product on the stated date.. If it's not a certificate, you don't need to sign it at all, you just hand out a meaningless list of data, the clinical history records say, which is purposeless. The whole point of the certificate is that it is used to show that this animal is not a risk to others in a kennels or wherever. and your signature that you took five years to earn the right to use, is the valuable bit on the piece of paper.

It's frankly daft to suggest your signature proves nothing; therefore you are certifying by using your name and title.

Re: incomplete vaccine cards - this one takes the biscuit

Chris Allen — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 19:55:40 GMT

Here in Slovakia all vaccine stickers go into the passport (microchipping is compulsory here so its all linked) with the name written next to it and stamped and signed as well. Kinda suprised that the UK is so far behind here without a proper system for proof of vaccination status...