DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Jo Dyer — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:20:55 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]If I was running regional meetings with falling attendance, I'd probably hire some belly dancers, throw in a few Chippendales, offer free marijuana, and spike the speakers' drinks with Ecstasy. Bet you it'd be a sellout. [/quote]

Please see if they'll employ you Arlo

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:23:56 GMT

Actually, when I was a student, the Chippendales, (good-looking young men who were too poor to afford adequate clothing) hadn't been heard of. We tended to use the phrase "Chippendale legs" to refer to dogs like daschies, or bassetts whose veins wriggled all over the place when you attempted to hit them. A few years later, I had to unlearn the expression, or I got some VERY funny looks

Wynne

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Anthony Todd — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:54:53 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]This is a female dominated profession so Chippendales might be a good idea but each to his own![/quote]

Google Sam Maloof if you want to combine curves with furniture and get his rocking chair:

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Martin Whiting — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:46:31 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]I will book you seat next to me when I book mine if you like?[/quote]

Dear JG Wray,

I was just wondering if you did want to attend the Council meeting?

Many thanks,

Martin

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:28:23 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]This is a female dominated profession so Chippendales might be a good idea [/quote]

That was precisely my thinking.

I didn't mean to suggest either that Malcolm had an eye for a Chippendale, or that the belly dancers should perform upon some 18th Century cabinetry!

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Bob Russell — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:23:36 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="martin whiting"]even if it is a joke, promoting recreational drug use is a good idea in a forum discussing professional conduct.[/quote]

With 10,000 vet surgeon members, I bet that no more than two or three have ever, ever had even had the tiniest blow or the sneakiest pill. And nobody has ever even dreamt of driving the short distance home after drinking enough to turn the crystals.

Personally, I am more offended that anyone might think I would be attracted to the Chippendales (I assume that it is the fine physiques and not the fine furniture you mean!)

[/quote]

This is a female dominated profession so Chippendales might be a good idea but each to his own!

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:14:15 GMT

Maybe a past-president would do her Stevie Nicks impression (vide "School of Rock")

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:11:16 GMT

I'd take the belly dancers. They are quite astonishingly skilful.

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:51:51 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]even if it is a joke, promoting recreational drug use is a good idea in a forum discussing professional conduct.[/quote]

Personally, I am more offended that anyone might think I would be attracted to the Chippendales (I assume that it is the fine physiques and not the fine furniture you mean!)

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:48:15 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]I do not think, even if it is a joke, promoting recreational drug use is a good idea in a forum discussing professional conduct.[/quote]

Hi Martin, I think to be fair, the fact that I am so obviously joking means I am not promoting drug use. I was making a very serious point about the need to be audience-focussed.

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Bob Russell — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:46:30 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]

Dear Arlo,

I do not think, even if it is a joke, promoting recreational drug use is a good idea in a forum discussing professional conduct.

Many thanks

Martin

[/quote]

Maybe not but what fun to be an observer when the 'medication' kicks in!

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Martin Whiting — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:29:23 GMT

Dear Arlo,

I do not think, even if it is a joke, promoting recreational drug use is a good idea in a forum discussing professional conduct.

Many thanks

Martin

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:21:28 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Seriously, the fact that attendance at RCVS regional meetings keeps falling tells me the communication problem is largely the fault of the membership.[/quote]

I take a more self-critical view if people don't respond to my invitation to do something: it says to me that I haven't made it interesting enough. If I was running regional meetings with falling attendance, I'd probably hire some belly dancers, throw in a few Chippendales, offer free marijuana, and spike the speakers' drinks with Ecstasy. Bet you it'd be a sellout.

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:07:08 GMT

Lizzie. If you intend to do that, let me know your favourite make of shoes - I'll make sure I buy shares !

Seriously, the fact that attendance at RCVS regional meetings keeps falling tells me the communication problem is largely the fault of the membership.

Wynne

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:44:44 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]I think there is a mismatch of understanding around words, here. [/quote]

Dear Ms Lockett,

I think you're right and if I may add this here, there's another word where there's a mismatch in dealing with RCVS as well and that's transparency.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]What you talk about in terms of communications is day to day interaction with individuals - whether they are vets, VNs, members of the public, etc. This is dealt with on a day to day level by the depts. that the query relates to. This is what is generally called customer service. Of course the communications team advises on issues such as tone of voice, language used, templates etc - but at a more strategic level.[/quote]

You have this idea that what I'm talking about is something that comes under a customer service area, which is currently being run by the estimable Ms South. It isn't. It might be summed up as follows

From some correspondence with RCVS

".."..Discussing ideas is fine, but advancing them along some recognised path at RCVS, to be evaluated, refined and presented, even for eventual rejection, is better.

Thank you for your time and if such a path appears please could you point it out to me?"

Communication with RCVS for me is not the occasional peck at RCVS for clarification, but a respectful consideration and evaluation, refinement and if merited presentation to Our RCVS. But as you say, you've got your ideas. Meanwhile RFPs will carry on paying for them.

JGW

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:26:17 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Nah! Multiple channels of communication just mean a little Facebook logo sitting next to a Twitter one - job done!

[/quote]

Bob, multiple channels currently includes (not an exhaustive list!):

RCVS News and other RCVS publications - hard copy and electronic such as RCVS e-News and The Practice Standard

Our website

Traditional media - hard copy titles and websites - press releases, features, letters, columns

Social media (twitter, Flickr, LinkedIn)

Responses on fora such as this one

Webinars

Videos

Public affairs, lobbying, consultation responses

Events (such as Meet the RCVS Days, Stakeholder Open Days, Regional Question Times, RCVS Day, talks to all of the vet schools, talks at all of the vet school graduate reunions, CPD events, stands at BSAVA Congress, BVNA Congress, VPMA/SPVS Congress, AVS Congress, London Vet Show, London Pet Show...)

Marketing, such as advertising, direct marketing, merchandise

Literature, such as the Code, CPD Cards, Pocket Guides and explanatory documents

Apps

Surveys, market research and consultations

So, a wee bit more than a couple of logos...

On this topic I would be grateful for suggestions of other ways we can reach you all... short of me walking round with a sandwich board to all practices!

thanks

Best wishes

Lizzie

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:14:19 GMT

Yes I remember that - and our service team is developing a Service Charter, as outlined in the Strategic Plan, thus: 'Introduce a service charter, for the public and the profession, of rights, expectations and responsibilities for every function within the RCVS and assess compliance.' (page 8)

What you quote from the Strategic Plan (ie 'Develop our communications with the public and profession to ensure they are in plain English and embrace multiple channels of communication') is with regards to our broader corporate communications activities.

I think there is a mismatch of understanding around words, here.

When I refer to 'communications' activities - and what we do in the communications team - it means corporate communications to mass audiences, such as literature, social media, advertising, PR, website, publications, lobbying etc. This is the norm in organisations such as ours - in fact most organisations have a 'communications' or 'marketing' department that deals on this level. It is against this context that I answered your questions at our open day - which should have been clear from the fact that I had just outlined to you what the dept did and given you a handout of our roles and responsibilities.

What you talk about in terms of communications is day to day interaction with individuals - whether they are vets, VNs, members of the public, etc. This is dealt with on a day to day level by the depts. that the query relates to. This is what is generally called customer service. Of course the communications team advises on issues such as tone of voice, language used, templates etc - but at a more strategic level.

I can clearly see how the confusion arises, but we have, of course, had this conversation before...

Best wishes

Lizzie

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Bob Russell — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:08:02 GMT

Nah! Multiple channels of communication just mean a little Facebook logo sitting next to a Twitter one - job done!

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:57:06 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]You have quoted this meeting many times, and it's not ever an accurate representation of what happened. You asked me, if you get a call from a vet and one from a journalist, which takes priority. I said the one from the journalist. This is because I work in the press office, amongst other roles. If you had asked the same question of someone in our Registration, ProfCon, Education or VN depts., you would have had a different answer. [/quote]

Dear Ms Lockett,

Thank you for your recollection. Do you recall my subsequent question about whether you have charter for communications from RFPs? Your reply was in the negative and you may recall that I articulated my view that I think you should have one.

Contacting RCVS is no problem. Getting some form of communication is what's missing. Surely, you agree communication is more than taking messages from a telephone call or posting a Twitter feed?

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]The action outlined in the Strategic Plan is to produce a 'Service charter' and we have not published it yet. [/quote]

It exists in the public domain in outline with the following:

"..Develop our communications with the public and profession to ensure they are in plain English and embrace multiple channels of communication.."

This fall so far short of communication in its fullest and most productive sense as to be a joke. It's articulation not communication.

JGW

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:48:58 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]Well I think this just brings us in line with other professional bodies doesn't it? [/quote]

Sorry, what does?

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:48:03 GMT

Evelyn You and I still cheerfully do OOH We still do visits when necessary.

The ones I consider have entered the wrong profession are those who aren't willing to either do OOH or pay someone else to cover for them, and who'll move heaven and earth to think up totally spurious "reasons" to avoid NECESSARY visits.

Wynne

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Martin Whiting — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:37:43 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]who knows he's in the right profession and doesn't want the entire profession to be changed by Belgravia House? [/quote]

Well I think this just brings us in line with other professional bodies doesn't it? How is that being messing up the profession? Surely it is bringing us in line with public expectation the way it should be?

You can use the List of Registered Medical Practitioners to check details of all the doctors on the GMC's register.

It gives details of:

doctors' reference numbers, gender and any former names
the year and place of doctors' primary medical degrees
status on the Register, including whether doctors hold a licence to practise
date of registration
entry on the GP and Specialist Registers
any publicly available fitness to practise history since 20 October 2005

The same is true on the dental council.

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:26:24 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]They can't give in to every disgruntled veterinary surgeon who's realised (too late) that they're in the wrong profession, so (selfishly) want the entire profession to change to accomodate them.[/quote]

Indeed, no, Wynne.

What about the disgruntled veterinary surgeon who knows he's in the right profession and doesn't want the entire profession to be changed (and b******d up) by Belgravia House?

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Bob Russell — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:22:21 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Consultation is a 2 way thing. Take the trouble to reply to RCVS consultations, read the regular newsletters, take the trouble to attend regional veterinary meetings (of all sorts) and, if a Councillor is present, introduce yourself, and raise any worries - if they don't want to be bothered,then they shouldn't have stood for Council in the 1st place. Communication is a 2 way thing.

Also, remember Councils Have to govern the profession in such a way that they are seen to be acting in the common good. They can't give in to every disgruntled veterinary surgeon who's realised (too late) that they're in the wrong profession, so (selfishly) want the entire profession to change to accomodate them.

Wynne

[/quote]

Not sure this is fair. The RCVS should be seen to be behaving in a correct and fair manner both from a public perspective but also the regulated. We are pretty aware of our responsibilities as a profession so are qualified to know when it is dysfunctional even if not that well equipped to say specifically what went wrong!

I don't doubt that all the councillors are there for the best of motives. I don't see much evidence of people wanting things to change because they realise they are in the wrong profession. Just the opposite IMO, it is because they do care!

I think Mr Wray should consider standing next year if he thinks the RCVS is that bad!

I am saddened by the lack of effort by the college to directly face up to the Chikosi decision document debacle. A clear statement of what would have been acceptable for Mr Chikosi to have done. Would half an hour have been okay? Twenty minutes? Ten?

Without clear guidance it is nearly impossible for the profession to meet the DC's acceptable threshold! Only the blanket nonsense has been covered and an out of hours consultation does not cover acceptable delay times (perhaps I may be proved wrong).

Perhaps once Mr Chikosi starts to interact with the Royal College a full acceptance of events and new guidance will emerge.

Re: DC and RCVS after the PC ruling

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:40:32 GMT

Also, remember Councilhave to govern the profession in such a way that they are seen to be acting in the common good. They can't give in to every disgruntled veterinary surgeon who's realised (too late) that they're in the wrong profession, so (selfishly) want the entire profession to change to accomodate them.

Wynne