Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Anthony Todd — Wed, 07 May 2014 17:09:27 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]For fault to be apportioned evidence is required.[/quote]

As far as I know ADR is designed exactly to avoid that, otherwise you are in litigation with all the costs and time that involves.

In the case of my mythical stallion injected with the wrong drug, which can cause death, this should be easy to determine without expert witnesses etc.

Of course if the parties do not agree then you go to trial, which I have also done, but again, neither side improved their position.

Still nothing to do with the RCVS in my view.

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Bob Russell — Wed, 07 May 2014 15:48:08 GMT

Most arguments are related to costs, not negligence. To show negligence would involve expert witnesses so mediation would probably not work and it would be up to the courts to deal with these (and compensation).

Mediation does not involve compulsion. It allows both sides to put their cases and perhaps come to agreement.

For fault to be apportioned evidence is required. Arbitration and expert determination are not the same thing as mediation.

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Anthony Todd — Wed, 07 May 2014 14:03:28 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Why should a non-vet mediator be a problem?[/quote]

Mediators are pretty sanguine and sensible and have the ability to persuade warring parties to come, reluctantly, to an agreement.

I've been through ADR and it's cheaper and more "practical" than litigation but I'm blowed if I can see how it relates to veterinary science, or medicine for that matter, unless is it just about agreeing damages for the loss of an animal due to the fault of the vet or not.

Sounds as if it is a new avenue for clients to gain satisfaction, and totally separate from the DC process.

This was available through the civil courts anyway, and ADR was just a quicker cheaper more sensible way of settling disputes involving property including compensation.

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 07 May 2014 11:18:25 GMT

Sounds like it may be a storm in a teacup to me. Anyway I will continue to bury my head ostrich like as the RCVS always do, as I can retire whenever I want now quite frankly my dear I don't give a damn!

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Bob Russell — Wed, 07 May 2014 11:15:17 GMT

I am broadly in favour of a mediation scheme as long as it is 'fit for purpose'.

Most complaints are supposed to be related to communication breakdown and this is not dealt with well by the present arrangements and leaves a number of clients unsatisfied (as seen by negative forum and facebook posts).

If VDS are satisfied with any new arrangement then so will I be! Where they come into the equation I am unclear!

I cannot see much point in having a go at the RCVS until details of the process have been announced. Why should a non-vet mediator be a problem?

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 May 2014 17:06:05 GMT

Abusing the humans involved would come under the heading of "conduct likely to cause a beach of the peace", and would therefore be a criminal matter. RCVS would become involved if the magistrates found you guilty,because then it would become "conduct bringing the profession into disrepute".

Wynne

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Anthony Todd — Tue, 06 May 2014 16:10:12 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]You're not the only one.[/quote]

So if I arrive drunk and treat a valuable racehorse with the wrong drug at the wrong dose, and the stallion drops off the end of the needle and I abuse the owner and trainer and groom and drive off knocking over the stable dog I won't go before the DC provided I engage or agree to ADR and come to some sort of agreed compensation?

That was always available via the civil courts wasn't it? It was known as "a commercial matter" and the RC wanted nothing to do with fees or money???

So why is the RC getting involved now?

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 06 May 2014 13:05:24 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I'm lost here.[/quote]

You're not the only one.

Current position (my understanding, which someone is probably going to tell me is all wrong):

Complaints to RCVS of negligence are politely redirected. RCVS are not directly concerned with instances of negligence (unless so gross, etc. etc....). As far as I am aware, negligence can be pursued through the courts or could go to arbitration. The result may be the award of compensation to the client if the veterinary surgeon was at fault.

Complaints to RCVS which are taken on and investigated by PIC are those of professional misconduct . They are not disputes between client and veterinary surgeon: the client complainant is just the witness to what may have been misconduct. There is no financial compensation to the client even if the veterinary surgeon is ultimately struck off. The only "dispute" that may be involved is over who is telling the truth.

Thus as far as I can see, Alternative Dispute Resolution ought to refer only to alleged negligence, which is not presently the business of the RCVS. Is the aim of this "EC Ruling" to make negligence the business of the College?

Or, is the College's "Alternative Dispute Resolution" meant to be concerned with matters that are already the business of the College, to wit complaints of misconduct, via a sort of convenient if inaccurate Humpty Dumpty type extension of the meaning of "dispute" (rather as "race" now apparently can also mean "religion", "nationality" or even "where you live")? If so, I wonder how you can find an "alternative resolution" to a complaint of misconduct. Bribe the complainant to withdraw it, perhaps?

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Anthony Todd — Tue, 06 May 2014 09:00:27 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]ADR is not suitable for all complaints. [/quote]

I'm lost here. Does this mean that the DC is going to sort of mediate with both sides of a complaint and reach a ruling to which both sides agree, which, I think, is what ADR does, nothing about malpractice at all, it's about money, goods and services.

If I treated an animal whilst obviously drunk with an unlicensed drug at a gross overdose and the animal died the complainant and I would sort of agree to settle if I did whatever, or paid the complainant a sum and the DC would take no action?

Where does being struck off fit into the mediation process?

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

J G Wray — Tue, 06 May 2014 07:34:34 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]We certainly are. How are Ombudsmen related to ADRs?[/quote]

They would be looked to to provide "facilitators" or they may be asked to do something more detailed. It goes like this. RCVS have this EC ruling and need a process to deal with those complaints it receives about service and for want of a better phrase "product provision". Havea look at the breakdown of complaints in RCVS Facts. They are receiving complaints which are at a level which the EC wants addressed, but may not meet the test of being sufficient to progress through to a charge of disgraceful prof misconduct on an individual basis or may be about a practice which currently RCVS cannot regulate, leaving the complainant without recourse. This is a grey area creeping into "malpractice", an Americanism but readily understood, but not necessarily negligence.

Here is an extract fromthe BDC complaints process which looks as likely as any to be a model for referral to the Ombudsmen facilitators:

"..

Is there another option instead of the complaints process?

The College offers a voluntary and confidential program for the resolution of some complaints by a negotiated settlement, as an alternative to the formal investigation process. This option is called alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It provides an opportunity for you and the dentist to reach a negotiated settlement.

Is ADR always an option?

ADR is not suitable for all complaints. College staff will decide if your complaint is appropriate for ADR. Both you and the dentist must agree to participate for ADR to proceed.

How does ADR work?

A facilitator will work with you and the dentist in a respectful and confidential way to simplify the issues and enhance your ability to reach a settlement that is agreeable to both of you.

The facilitator is a neutral person, not a member of the College’s staff or a College committee. The College pays for any reasonable costs and expenses of the facilitator.

ADR is usually much faster than the complaints process. There is usually less correspondence and documentation involved. For some, these factors may be an important consideration. However, there is no right of appeal of the final settlement.

If, for some reason, the ADR process does not result in a negotiated settlement, your complaint will be processed in the usual way through the normal complaints process........."

The RCVS looks at our profession through the lens of the complaints process. It sees complaints as the norm, not the exception. Their view is skewed further by vexatious and frivolous complaints - "vex and friv" in the jargon of Ombudsmen. With the provision of this service by "facilitators "and/or Ombudsmen who stand apart from RCVS we lose self-regulation and RCVS which means us, pay for the referrals to ADR. Then if we agree to ADR we pay again, with no guarantee that the "vex and friv" will have been weeded out rather than just off loaded by RCVS improving their stats no end.

RCVS have no choice over this and they know that they've touched sensitivities with post-nominals and "blankets" and even visits policy. NOw watch how transparent they go with this issue, how they communicate, how they manage something that should have been consulted on years ago.

JGW

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 05 May 2014 23:29:37 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

You funny man, you say this living in a remote corner of North Wales, a quasi-autonomous part of a United Kingdom, so who knows which country you're talking about?

JGW

[/quote]

Everybody except you, I should think.

And a bit less of the "remote", if you please. Otherwise we'll cut off the electricity from Wylfa (also, while we're at it, the piddling amounts from all the ghastly windmills), and the water too. You'll have to survive on Russian gas.

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Colin Thomson — Mon, 05 May 2014 22:42:17 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]We're talking at cross purposes. [/quote]

We certainly are. How are Ombudsmen related to ADRs?

And if the RCVS pays for the PIC process, what's the beef with them paying for the ADR process (although its not clear they have to)? As I understand it you'd only go to the ADR process if you agreed to it - you couldn't be sent there.

Colin

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

J G Wray — Mon, 05 May 2014 22:26:09 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]Doesn't sound like one to me.[/quote]

We're talking at cross purposes. The RCVS (RFPs) will pay for all the set up costs and the costs of any complainant, as now with the PIC/DC process. The vet or business - since when did RCVS regulate businesses??? - will pay their ombudsman costs. IN the case of the finaincial ombudsman it's £500.

SO, how do people fancy the trade off? £500 and the hope a non-vet (non self-regulating) mediation service will find in your favour vs PIC? They could be exactly the same complaint if its about service levels or what might be termed "inappropriate product" provision. BOth of these are referred to in the RCVS Facts breakdown of complaints.

Then there's the issue of what sanctions the Ombudsman would have available to them.....WHo fancies losing at the ombudsman and then being passed over to the PIC, errr because they lost at the ombudsman? It doesn't have to be the orignial complainant that dobs you in later.

JGW

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

J G Wray — Mon, 05 May 2014 22:11:08 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]This is a EC ruling.[/quote]

So God help us all. When is this country going to reclaim its independence?

[/quote]

You funny man, you say this living in a remote corner of North Wales, a quasi-autonomous part of a United Kingdom, so who knows which country you're talking about?

JGW

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Colin Thomson — Mon, 05 May 2014 22:10:57 GMT

Is this an artibration service?

from http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/commercial-disputes/dispute-resolution/alternative-dispute-resolution-faqs

[quote]

1. What is alternative dispute resolution (ADR)?

Alternative dispute resolution is the collective name given to several methods of dealing with disputes without going to court. The method most commonly used in ADR is mediation, with conciliation as another possibility. Both these procedures involve the use of a neutral third party to encourage and facilitate (but not impose) a solution to the dispute. Other procedures, such as arbitration, adjudication and expert determination, are sometimes classed as ADR methods. However, they are similar to the court process in the sense that they involve the imposition of a solution by a third party, rather than the facilitated negotiation of a settlement. In these questions we will concentrate on mediation, as the principal method used in ADR.

[/quote]

Doesn't sound like one to me.

Colin

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

J G Wray — Mon, 05 May 2014 22:06:25 GMT

[quote user="Linda Filshie"]Why, if this has been on the cards since 2011 (or actually since 1998, if I'm reading the Directive correctly, which is not a given), has nothing been done by now? I see the dentists got round to it in 2006 - shades of Nero at the RCVS, perhaps....[/quote]

Why don't you ask RCVS? This is a rhetorical question. They have stopped campaigning to be elected. Good luck with finding out why they've done so little so far.

You should expect a casual reply along the lines of

"Well, we're going to discuss it in Council next time"

NOw, if you recall, there's the small matter of the 24/7 consultation and the recommendations issuing from it for Council to consider at that meeting. There's all the other stuff from Committee as well. RCVS doesn't agree anything by debate in COuncil unless it comes from Cttee or is the "view of the Board". This is destined to be one of those because there is so little time. It stinks.

Why don't you ask one of those you voted for to put their hand up and ask who is going to tell the profession they're giving up self regulation to an as yet unnamed organisation, staffed by who knows who, for an unnamed sum? Then watch the Board do their knees - using indignation as a pretext cf Catlow - so you will never hear a peep out of them again. Nice.

JGW

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

J G Wray — Mon, 05 May 2014 21:53:16 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]In what way do you see this service being paid for by RCVS?[/quote]

In the way that the consumer is not, contrary to your belief, expected to pay for arbitration services. For RCVS read RFPs.

Have a look at

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

JGW

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 05 May 2014 21:32:26 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]a) Be proud of our self-regulatory status, with it's impartial disciplinary system run by well informed PI and DC people. So why is "independent" good now?[/quote]

It's not good. It's only you who says RCVS will say it is. I admit, RCVS will probably say it is, in the sense that if we've got to have it this is probably the least bad way.

[quote user="J G Wray"] I'm already feeling queasy at the prospect of having something like the ADR foisted upon me and my business, justified by someone who is so utterly divorced from the realities of veterinary practice, run by inexperienced non-vets and paid for by retention fees.[/quote]

Me too, but I already feel so nauseous about things coming to this profession that a little bit more queasiness is not easily quantifiable.

[quote user="J G Wray"]This is a EC ruling.[/quote]

So God help us all. When is this country going to reclaim its independence?

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Colin Thomson — Mon, 05 May 2014 20:45:15 GMT

Jonathan

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm already feeling queasy at the prospect of having something like the ADR foisted upon me and my business, justified by someone who is so utterly divorced from the realities of veterinary practice, run by inexperienced non-vets[/quote]

At last - something we can agree on!

[quote user="J G Wray"]and paid for by retention fees.[/quote]

Something we can't (Didn't last long, did it?). As I understand it in other industries ADR costs are usually borne by each side their own, initially at least. So if you agree to go to ADR rather than PIC (for example) (and I think both sides would have to agree to use ADR - I don't think you can be forced to use them) it would be your practice (or you) who would be paying.

In what way do you see this service being paid for by RCVS?

Colin

Re: Self-Regulation ends next year July 2015

Linda Filshie — Mon, 05 May 2014 18:39:22 GMT

Well it's one reason to vote UKIP...

I feel mostly confused. Why, if this has been on the cards since 2011 (or actually since 1998, if I'm reading the Directive correctly, which is not a given), has nothing been done by now? I see the dentists got round to it in 2006 - shades of Nero at the RCVS, perhaps....