The floods and domicilaries

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Bob Russell — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:03:42 GMT

A code is fine if it is properly drawn up after consultation with a suitable range of those who will be bound by it. I do not remember being consulted in any way nor being aware of changes until it arrived. I therefore consider myself bound by the original guide plus my conscience and will defend my corner accordingly if necessary.

What the public expects is not important IMO. What a reasonable veterinary surgeon expects is much more reasonable. The public expects vets to work 24 hours a day, charges a tenner per operation and visits within 20 minutes of a phone!

A First Class regulator has to know what is first class before deciding what is a reasonable standard to be expected of a clinician in the real world. Sitting in an ivory tower spouting edicts at those they perceive as 'below' is not good regulation.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:54:04 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The code is fine[/quote]

No 'tain't, but I guess we're stuck with it now (as the weasels know, "Vets Abandon Professional Code!", however inaccurate, would not look good).

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I did not ask for a change nor do I know any vet that did. This was a creation by Belgravia House and sums up everything that is wrong with the RCVS. For anyone to regulate they have to know what a profession expects before they can decide what is acceptable and what is not. [/quote]

Quite. But a "First Class Regulator" decides what they think the public expects, and then orders the profession to do it.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Bob Russell — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:36:15 GMT

I view a guide as a way of assisting me to do something or go somewhere, a sympathetic and helpful thing.

A code tells me what is expected, proscriptive and failing to follow is likely to get you into trouble!

I did not ask for a change nor do I know any vet that did. This was a creation by Belgravia House and sums up everything that is wrong with the RCVS. For anyone to regulate they have to know what a profession expects before they can decide what is acceptable and what is not.

The guide was perfectly good. The code is fine if the PIC/DC can get their act together.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:49:58 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Actually, we're in agreement:

[/quote]

It seems we are, more or less.

But there is a difference between a written Guide and a written Code – that's why the weasels at Belgravia House weaselled the change. "Code" in this context is a weasel word – sounds innocuous, doesn't it, until the implications start to emerge.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:10:50 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]All we need is a guide to broad principles, with a few detailed prescriptions here and there where really necessary.[/quote]

Actually, we're in agreement:

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Would it not be appropriate to have a Code comprised of broad principles and specific rules for those limited areas where clarity is necessary.[/quote]

I wasn't considering the difference between a Code and a Guide (obviously I should). What I meant is that regardless of its name, it should be a system of broad principles supported by specific rules (or detailed prescriptions) where necessary (and I mean really necessary!).

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:02:01 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Evelyn, isn't there a commonsensical half way house? (this is not a rhetorical question). Would it not be appropriate to have a Code comprised of broad principles and specific rules for those limited areas where clarity is necessary.[/quote]

Scope here for a whole new thread, Arlo.

The answer to your question is no.

We don't want a written Code at all. All we need is a guide to broad principles, with a few detailed prescriptions here and there where really necessary. Your code should be something you have in your head and your heart, informed by your conscience, your personal ethics, your professional ethics and an instinct as to what is professional behaviour.

A Guide to Professional Conduct should be just that: a guide. This gains more respect, as we are concerned with obeying the spirit, not the letter, and we can adapt it to fit every set of circumstances. A written Code starts to resemble Law (as I believe Belgravia House fully intend) and can only become ever more prescriptive; it is obeyed in the letter but not the spirit, and there is a constant search for loopholes; it commands little respect.

The prescriptivists are in the ascendant in Belgravia House.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:29:15 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I know this is not addressed at me, but an emphatic no.[/quote]

Michael, I said:

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]and specific rules for those limited areas where clarity is necessary.[/quote]

which is completely different to:

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]If you ended up with a 500 page rule book many more vets would fall foul of the disciplinary process for accidentally contravening rule 425, subsection 3b clause ii.[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more that a 500 page rule book would be a disaster.

However, there are other things (notably OOH home visits) which either need to be removed, or clarified.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Bob Russell — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:28:08 GMT

Linked with the old Guide to Professional Conduct (flawed but better than the code IMO) much of the guidance came from previous DC decisions. Clearly some of these have been strange to say the least recently (the now infamous Chikosi and perhaps almost as worrying Edward Gillams case which really should never have got to DC ).

The DC decisions were the limited areas and should have provided the clarity.

The reality seems the RCVS is still being driven by some pretty incapable people with a few dissenting voices. There really seems to be deafening silence unless a vet is able to spend quite a time searching for documentation (well hidden) on the website. A link to minutes of meetings on the front page would be a start!

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:25:15 GMT

I know this is not addressed at me, but an emphatic no.

The beauty of guidance is that it is open to interpretation which means you can defend yourself with justification. If we have prescriptive rules then there is n wriggle room. If you ended up with a 500 page rule book many more vets would fall foul of the disciplinary process for accidentally contravening rule 425, subsection 3b clause ii.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:07:50 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]You want an unequivocal minutely prescriptive Rule Book about the size of three copies of Adams' Lameness in Horses? Well, each to his own, but be careful: I imagine there are elements in Belgravia House today ("First Class Regulator") who would like the same.[/quote]

Evelyn, isn't there a commonsensical half way house? (this is not a rhetorical question). Would it not be appropriate to have a Code comprised of broad principles and specific rules for those limited areas where clarity is necessary.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Birte Toft — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:24:50 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Now, another tale. There is a vet on the Isle of Bute called Duncan McIntyre. A few years ago he asked the RCVS whether he would have to risk a complaint with all the attendant stuff if a particular farmer called him and he declined to visit. This farmer had threatened him previously with a shotgun. Can you guess what the RCVS ProfCon advice was, bearing in mind the wording of the GtPC and Code?

I believe the other vet on the island is his daughter.

[/quote]

Prof Con advice is not generally helpful at all, I've mostly found it makes things worse. Having said that, when we found ourselves in a situation similar to your story (minus shotgun), Prof Con made it very clear that we were under no obligation to provide any kind of service to a client who had acted in a threatening manner. My boss duly sacked the client and informed them that the provision of veterinary treatment for their animals was their responsibility. This was also on a Scottish island, and we were the only vets there, so the client effectively had no access to emergency treatment.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Bob Russell — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:31:18 GMT

If someone threatened me with a shotgun I would not be talking to ProfCon, I would be talking to the Police. Under no circumstances would I be visiting again whatever level of animal welfare was compromised.

An armed escort would probably not persuade me to visit!

Client actions have repercussions!

Re: The floods and domicilaries

J G Wray — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:37:23 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]You want an unequivocal minutely prescriptive Rule Book about the size of three copies of Adams' Lameness in Horses?[/quote]

You are such a naughty man.

The question about domiciliary visits is specific. It lends itself to a specific response from the advice people at RCVS if the requirement to visit were lifted. 'Tis but one thing, the subject of a petition signed by 2,000 people, not a general point.

JGW

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:13:37 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

It becomes unequivocal if the Code becomes unequivocal. The Regulated become clear, the public are made clear.

Clear and Unequivocal are Good Things. PrfoCon comes into line with RCVS Strategy. This is a Good Thing for RCVS, so why not?

[/quote]

You want an unequivocal minutely prescriptive Rule Book about the size of three copies of Adams' Lameness in Horses? Well, each to his own, but be careful: I imagine there are elements in Belgravia House today ("First Class Regulator") who would like the same.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

J G Wray — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:55:28 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I don't know, why don't you tell us? However my guess is that it went something like this, but in words much more polite:[/quote]

Eeee you are a wag.

ProfCon's performance, behaviour and advice is critical to whatever comes out of this consultation. They are first point of contact over Code issues. Their advice up to now is equivocal and was for me. It becomes unequivocal if the Code becomes unequivocal. The Regulated become clear, the public are made clear.

Clear and Unequivocal are Good Things. PrfoCon comes into line with RCVS Strategy. This is a Good Thing for RCVS, so why not?

JGW

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:38:42 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Weeelll, there you go, it's just plain common sense, but one of the questions I asked was what guidance do you think ProfCon gave me?[/quote]

I don't know, why don't you tell us? However my guess is that it went something like this, but in words much more polite:

"We think you know what the obligations of a professional veterinary surgeon are, Mr. Wray, and the limitations upon them. We could read out what the Guide sorry Code says, if you haven't got it handy. We think you should consult your conscience and your personal professional code, use some common sense and form your own judgment. You are a big boy now.

By the way, Mr. Wray, did you really want advice or are you just stirring?"

[quote user="J G Wray"]Now, another tale. There is a vet on the Isle of Bute called Duncan McIntyre. A few years ago he asked the RCVS whether he would have to risk a complaint with all the attendant stuff if a particular farmer called him and he declined to visit. This farmer had threatened him previously with a shotgun. Can you guess what the RCVS ProfCon advice was, bearing in mind the wording of the GtPC and Code?[/quote]

Yes, because we've been told several times. They said he ought to go.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Gina Dungworth — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:30:49 GMT

That reminds me of a story...

Many years ago, an elderly neighbour that I occasionally got asked to deliver post to during the snow (no vehicle access, but being young and daft I'd happily drag her parcels across the fields on my sledge, have a cup of tea with her and then sledge back down the big hill) had a routine veterinary visit for her horses and asked the equine practitioner if he thought her dog would survive the winter, because while she had a shotgun, she'd rather he did the job more quietly there and then if he thought it was going to become necessary before the spring. She died at a ripe old age a few years ago, not long after Dad had sourced a Panda 4x4 for her as being an easier vehicle to climb in and out of than her old Land Rover.

We seem to be escaping the floods where I am, although I did end up shin-deep in mud earlier trying to get to where the ponies were sheltering from the wind.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

J G Wray — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:21:05 GMT

Weeelll, there you go, it's just plain common sense, but one of the questions I asked was what guidance do you think ProfCon gave me?

I believe the other vet on the island is his daughter.

If the RCVS is going to stand by its claim that the concerns about 24/7 and domiciliaries are all hooey then I'd like to know how joined up they are in their behaviour even before a complaint is risked.

They have made a paper commitment in their Strategic Plan to

Develop our communications with the profession and the public in plain English

Improve the advice line for the public and the profession

ProfCon is run by the Registrar, not Council, not the CEO. It's a fiefdom within RCVS and whilst the FRR initiative might be the headlines and the Officers claim to be listening, ProfCon is pretty much impervious to change. Ironically, they know all about the petition because they are taking the emails, so they're aware of stuff. So, from everyone's experience of ProfCon how much confidence is there that guidance and advice will be helpful and RCVS action consistent with ProfCon's behaviour?

JGW

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Laurence Webb — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:14:28 GMT

I think is is adequately covered by not risking life and limb (wading through waist high floods with a visit case balanced on your head, really?) and whether it is one of those rare occasions where the animal can not be moved such as being impaled on a spike. Assuming that, under normal weather conditions, you would expect the client to attend the surgery why should it be any different?

They can wade through the water, get a lift on a tractor or ask the emergency services just as well as you can.

Go if you want to, or think it is the right thing to do (even if not strictly required under the GtPC) but I can't imagine the DC getting involved.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Christopher Saul — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:05:28 GMT

I think if they struck someone off for not being able to hire a chinook to get to a housevisit then employment lawers would have a field day....

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Bob Russell — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:54:27 GMT

Getting a bit silly now!

Get there if you can safely. Don't even try if there is a real risk.

Anyone complaining to the Royal College because a visit was refused in this scenario would receive a prompt reply!

The DC just made a real balls up of an undefended case or two. They are not stupid!

In the dim and distant past I have got as close to a farm as is safe (snow) then the farmer has collected me by tractor - quite good fun really. Cup of tea and bacon sandwich before returning to the car!

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:51:00 GMT

If you live in a flood plain you're going to get flooded. If you live at the seaside you're likely to get washed away by a storm. If you live up a lane in the hills you're going to get snowed in. These are choices, those who make them should not belly ache when the inevitable happens and should make necessary contingency plans which includes getting your pet to the vets. I've just had a call from a vet because my client can't get through the floods my direction but can get to them, asking if it is OK to give some meds to tide them over.

Farmers are bit different as they are by necessity often farming in these risk prone areas but then they are going to be a lot more resourceful and farm vets are likely also to be set up more for getting into difficult areas plus have a bit more time to do it.

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:45:34 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]that would only happen here if you waded in.[/quote]

Or drove into flood water..........

Lots of cars washed away and damaged.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Do your best That's really all Royal College ask.[/quote]

Exactly. That's all we can do. If I thought I could reasonably get then I would (4X4) but there is no point wrecking the car or hurting myself.

Never not done a call yet!

Re: The floods and domicilaries

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:37:55 GMT

B ack in my mixed practice days I can remember leaving my car on the main Llandrindod Newtown road, and walking 2 miles along a drifted up lane to get to a sick cow.

Do your best That's really all Royal College ask.

Wynne

Re: The floods and domicilaries

J G Wray — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:57:25 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I think ProfCon would understand:[/quote]

Sooooooooo, get a helicopter and take a photo to justify......

Any other non-clinical grounds for declining to visit? RCVS do not expect us to risk life or limb, allegedly, but that would only happen here if you waded in.