RCVS petition OOH home visits

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:09:55 GMT

I'm going to lock this thread, because Jo has started another here, and otherwise we'll end up with parallel discussions.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:42:05 GMT

Very very sad if an animal dies in agony, and the veterinary surgeon who refused to attend gets away with it.

Wynne

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Stephen Courtney — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:29:33 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

So pretty much what we had all along then?!

I'm not sure that changes my responsibilities on call one little bit.

[/quote]

Your responsibilities will be as they always were. But you will no longer be at the same risk of disciplinary action for refusing to attend visits that aren't truly needed.

We also have the same responsibilities to our employers, to provide a service. there was never any talk of banning visits altogether, simply making it crystal clear what the owner's responsibilities are vs the vet's.

and yes, will wait to see the final draft!

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Anthony Todd — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:50:50 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

So pretty much what we had all along then?!

I'm not sure that changes my responsibilities on call one little bit.

[/quote]

-1 a major change in responsibility and covers all I thought. Of course the proof will be in the future.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:48:46 GMT

So pretty much what we had all along then?!

I'm not sure that changes my responsibilities on call one little bit.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Jo Dyer — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:11:15 GMT

Wow…. I've just read the 49-page PDF "Standards Committee Recommendations' and found all this

'New guidance to state that:

in all but exceptional circumstances, interests of animal best met at practice
vets are not obliged to attend away from the practice unless in their personal judgement there is a set of circumstances which indicate that the welfare needs of the animal could only be served by doing so
owners may request but cannot demand attendance away
ultimate decision for the vet with a list of key factors to consider
vets may decline where visit is not necessary or where they have overriding safety concerns
responsibility for welfare ultimately rests with owner/keeper/carer (vets can help owners meet their responsibilities)
disciplinary action will be considered only where there us a wilful disregard for animal welfare
removed statement re owner placing onus of decision-making on vet at first contact
highlight that vets give owners advice to enable them to decide what steps to take in the animal's best interests'

Lots of other good stuff in there as well!

Hats off to Standards Committee for listening and acting.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Jo Dyer — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 19:42:30 GMT

Well, I'm going to be positive and say it looks like a step in the right direction. It will be very interesting to see the actual wording of the Guidance, promised 'in a couple of months'. Hopefully no more vets will be disciplined because their interpretation of 'unsafe or unnecessary' differs from DC's..….that would be a truly positive result.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:37:25 GMT

Breaking news ... the RCVS Council has just announced its response to the 24/7 review:

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2014/06/05/115635.aspx

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Martin Whiting — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:50:01 GMT

Dear JGW,

You seem to have remarkable insight into the workings and mentality of the staff at the RCVS.

I am just not clear how to reconcile it with my understanding, is yours by direct observation or assumption?

Martin

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

J G Wray — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:54:46 GMT

Just before this thread goes dormant I'd just like to add a footnote.

I really don't think people understand how RCVS regard ideas like the one articulted by 2,000 petiotners here. It is regarded as anti-RCVS and a betrayal of what RCVS stands for, nothing less. The words that have come particularly from the Officers of the RCVS should not be taken as anything more than a token, or the petitoners will be disappointed. The consultation process is so prolonged and set up to dilute, modify and emasculate these attempts at influencing RCVS policy that there will be little effect.

I, for one, had hoped that there would be a change of management and culture, brought about by the new CEO. HOwever, the Officers have worked him out and have pigeon-holed him as a facilitator of their Charter activites, no more. . The CEO is also hampered by a desire for a legacy, being able to say he transformed RCVS into a First Rate Regulator. There will be no mention of how much it cost and who paid for it, nor will there be any space for the needs of the profession .

RCVS, I mean RFPs, are still paying for the IT overspend, but we are about to see something much more expensive and bureaucratic emerge as they reach into new areas of regulation through CHarter activities and nothing is going to modify their behaviour or alter their course. As far as RCVS is concerned consultation = nominal consideration+rejection; there are no variables.

If you are a petitioner, please judge RCVS by their deeds rather than words and don't promise yourself something exciting.

JGW

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

J G Wray — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:55:48 GMT

2,258 How many members does SPVS and BCVA have?

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:17:42 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I may be going to Bangor[/quote]

Please let me know when.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

J G Wray — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:39:15 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

For a while I believed that the PSS was some sort of warranty for the public. I.e. I'm taking my dog to somewhere where someone high up had looked into and they achieved an accreditation. It must be a bl**dy good place!. I'm not taking my dog to a pet shop, it's a RCVS PSS practice.

By extension this meant to me (at least for a while) that I was working in a very reputable practice. I shouldn't be worried about the practice not having their OOH arrangements sorted, about their dispensing protocols sorted. In a PSS practice, I'm not going to be told: 'You're wrong to work in here, because the receptionist prescribes antibiotics!'

[/quote]

Back in 2006, someone wrote to the Veterinary record thus,

"..

SIR, – As a practitioner I am still struggling to understand what is in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme for my practice. I would look for four areas of gain:

Enhanced sales consequent upon RCVS Practice Standards Scheme participation, perhaps through increased registration of new clients;
Reduced indemnity insurance premiums, consequent upon improved management procedures and improved complaints handling;
Improved recruitment of staff, because we could look for staff willing to comply and staff would know what sort of practice they would get; and
Improved management procedures in general.

Currently, the RCVS is not promoting the scheme to me as having these virtues. The RCVS claims management procedures will be standardised, but the Practice Standards Scheme has no monopoly on these and in fact any practice could (and should) set up its own, without paying a subscription fee. The RCVS has no comment on the recruitment point or indemnity insurance premium..."

President Hill - she's still there - declined to say anything specific in response. so I guess your comment

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]I believe you're asking a question you already know the answer to.[/quote]

might have some weight. But, in a debate you're allowed to bring up stuff that others might not know.

The Lone Working stuff is another reason based not on venal concerns or clinical policy for declining to visit, as a matter of practice policy. I would like to understand how RCVS refuses to contemplate policy and how it can practically not influence risk assessments for domiciliaries. can you enlighten me?

JGW

PS I will be taking two holidays in Europe this year. Yet, I have an invitation so I may be going to Bangor, to climb some mountains and go to Bodnant to see the Wisteria. It's so difficult to be partisan I like to embrace all.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:32:39 GMT

Oh Francisco, ten stars for that....

Or maybe not? Remember a great film called Padre Padrone ?

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:25:21 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

No no, JGW (and the UK) is more a Euro father [/quote] ... And for those in the know of latin, that would be the true definition of patronising...

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

David Mills — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 22:53:57 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

I'd like to think of you as a 'Euro brother'

[/quote]

No no, JGW (and the UK) is more a Euro father i.e. the Brits supply most of the sound economic and political thinking and the rest of the Euro zone (except mother Germany) run around like truculent kids, being damned annoying and irresponsible with their pocket money.

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:38:29 GMT

I'd like to think of you as a 'Euro brother'

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:37:59 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Weeeell, Arrangements should be in place in all businesses. [/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]

RCVS make the point that they cannot support policy, but don't expect a risk to be taken. The assessment is subjective, and it is the extension of policy, so how can RCVS square this especially in their PSS practices?

[/quote]

I believe you're asking a question you already know the answer to.

I know now how wrong I was. Particularly in the Chikosi case (but also in many veterinary hospitals in the UK), the practice does not have a proven back-up to avoid having you struck off if a OOH visit is required and there are animals hospitalised (non-critical???? but hospitalised none the less). It makes you wonder if PSS and other similar recognitions have any value at all. Are they just incomplete? misguiding the public? If the public wants to complain to someone about RCVS awarding a 'title' to a practice or hospital, because they feel that they are not up to standards (I.e. it's been signed but it is clearly lacking 'high standards'). Who do they complain to?

PS. I'm Spanish Jonathon. I would never think of you as a 'Euro cousin'

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

J G Wray — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:21:57 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]No, start with the people who bicycle on the pavement, then the people who park on the pavement, then the people who park with two wheels on the pavement, then the people who let their dogs shit on the pavement, then the people who leave their wheelie-bins on the pavement all week.[/quote]

Is this what folks in Bangor do now? Around the time of Boudicca, a bunch of Europeans, led by Italians, went up there and sorted out the locals good'n'proper. Perhaps you should ask for the same treatment again from our Euro cousins?

JGW

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

J G Wray — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:19:26 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I couldn't find anywhere in that website that says anything that contradicts my views expressed in this debate. Can you?[/quote]

Weeeell, if I can understand your points through all the repetition, then I think there's something here that's been overlooked. The Lamplugh Trust exists because of a tragedy. It gives advice on strategies for lone working, particularly away from base. It makes the point that Lone Working Arrangements should be in place in all businesses. All practices, especially PSS practices should have these. It forms a Practice policy on domiciliary visits. It isn't policy based on the demands on the vet back at the practice, based as it is on risk assessment., but it is a practice policy.

If there were an unequivocal position on visits then practices could make Lone Working Arrangements and build assessments without the troubling influence of the threat of punishment from RCVS on their vets.

JGW

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Anthony Todd — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:08:53 GMT

Read-receipt in minutes, so it isn't too difficult, even for the RC...

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Anthony Todd — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:58:50 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]E Mail 24-7@rcvs.org.uk[/quote]

Thanks Neil, have sent things I can remember and have [cheekily] asked for a read-receipt.....

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:58:25 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]...ok, but only if we start with the people who park on those double yellow lines! [/quote]

No, start with the people who bicycle on the pavement, then the people who park on the pavement, then the people who park with two wheels on the pavement, then the people who let their dogs shit on the pavement, then the people who leave their wheelie-bins on the pavement all week.

[quote user="sandpiper"]Could not the DC then decide that the obligation to relieve animal suffering superseded any prior agreement with the client, legally binding or not and that failure to act beyond such a contract ie. visit, still constituted SPM?[/quote]

Of course, and they would be right.

[quote user="J G Wray"]Next year RCVS will have to have an Alternative Disputes Resolution mechanism in place, it is a European edict and being a European thing it is difficult for them to wriggle.[/quote]

Oh f***ing H*ll, when are we going to tell the "European Community" (community? ha ha) edictors to take their Directives and stick them where the monkey keeps his nuts?

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Anthony Todd — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:36:31 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Estate agents still go on house visits alone, but use various strategies to minimise their risks.[/quote]

Yes but not at night and they aren't selling off Council Estates yet...

See the Suzy Lamplugh site.....

Re: RCVS petition OOH home visits

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:05:55 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]have you got a link please[/quote]

Check the RCVS website or

E Mail 24-7@rcvs.org.uk

Neil