D C decision

Re: D C decision

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:09:42 GMT

[quote user="Chris Allen"]I guess if the specialist training courses he attended were so wide and varied it could relate to this?[/quote]

If it does, that's just ridiculous. Are they suggesting that the courses were wasted on him? Stupid.

Re: D C decision

Chris Allen — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 20:39:26 GMT

I think here it is a case of context as in the decision (paragraph 3) it includes:

"This is evidenced by the extent of his involvement in assisting in the work of veterinarians in Australia, as well as by his attendance at many CPD events and on specialist training courses."

I guess if the specialist training courses he attended were so wide and varied it could relate to this?

Re: D C decision

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:52:25 GMT

I think the term 'specialist' is diluted by the mass use of the word in many areas. The local agricultural merchant has 'grassland specialists' and 'animal health specialists'. I forget who, but there is a company advertising themselves as 'bathroom specialists'.

It's confusing for the public that a vet can specialise in a species but not be a specialist! I'm not sure 'consultant' is the right term, as I'd think a veterinary consultant was someone working in an advisory capacity.

I'm not sure I have a perfect solution, but I'm pretty damn sure that neither the term consultant or specialist really fits the bill.

Random thought - how about going with the 'advanced practitioner' for the middle tier with certs etc and 'expert' for those who are current Specialists? Calling yourself a cattle expert who specialises in farm animals makes general good sense (too me anyway).

Re: D C decision

Nicola Cole — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:43:37 GMT

I'm not sure that the term 'specialist' is confusing for clients-as long as you explain what you mean! I usually explain to owners that there are 'different levels of referral', go through the options and advise them which I think is most appropriate in that individual case.

Re: D C decision

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:22:12 GMT

[quote user="CatherineThomas"]One definition of the term specialist is someone who devotes their work to a particular field.[/quote]

It doesn't have to be their entire work.

[quote user="CatherineThomas"]But then also by this definition you can not specialise in all species and all subjects.[/quote]

Maybe you could if you had a brain the size of that of the Mekon (Eagle, passim) or the Grand Lunatic (Wells, H.G., First Men in the Moon)

Re: D C decision

CatherineThomas — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:08:47 GMT

One definition of the term specialist is someone who devotes their work to a particular field. So therefore if someone works entirely with one species or one area of medicine or surgery does that not make them a specialist, even if they aren't an RCVS recognised Specialist?

But then also by this definition you can not specialise in all species and all subjects.

Re: D C decision

Colin Cameron — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 17:41:41 GMT

[quote user="Rob Reid"]RCVS Recognised Specialists who have been frustrated in the past by other referral practitioners with less experience calling themselves specialists. [/quote]

As far as I can see there is no restriction on the use of the term "specialist" only "RCVS Recognised Specialist". I have little sympathy with their frustration. Some of the referral vets I have referred cases to were certainly the equal of many of the RCVS recognised Specialists I have come across and had vast experience over many years in their chosen field. The only difference was that they had not taken any further examinations. While I respect the dedication and expertise of anyone who has obtained further knowledge and qualifications I have concerns over the growing idea that only they are good enough to do referral or second opinion work and that somehow those of us in general practice are at a lower level even if we have in depth knowledge and advanced skills in a area of special interest but may have insufficient spare time to pusue further qualifications. Some of those referral only practices could do worse than to recognise that without us they would have no work ( the clue is in the name....referral !)

If those "specialists" called themselves for example "Consultants" ( another title not protected in veterinary medicine) then this would add confusion with the same term in human medicine so that would serve no purpose.

One solution could be if the title "Consultant" or "Veterinary Consultant" was made protected for those who have advanced further qualifications and who are currently " RCVS Recognised Specialists". People would then compare them with the human Consultants

Others who may specialise in any particular field but who have, either by design or circumstance, not been able to obtain further qualifications could be recognised by the use of the generic term "specialist" simply implying that they have particular knowledge, experience and skill in their chosen field.

I have an open mind on this subject but cannot abide the rather superior attitude of some of RCVS Recognised Specialists and referral Vets I have come across, although most seem perfectly normal individuals.

Just a few thoughts

Re: D C decision

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:01:16 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] I refer to the sentence, "In addition, the committe wanted to see evidence that Mr Cronin recognised that a veterinary surgeon could no longer have specialist knowlede across all fields of veterinary practice."[/quote]

As it stands, it's a fairly bizarre sentence. What sort of evidence is he supposed to produce?

Re: D C decision

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:55:14 GMT

I agree with you there, but are they strongly implying that no-one (under any circumstances) should routinely treat all animals. That's how I read it. You and I can live with that ruling. There are geographical areas where the choice is between the local LA practitioner seeing the occasional SA or no treatment at all. Perhaps I phrased things badly when I said it was dangerous for DC to restrict a veterinary surgeon's ability to treat all species. On second thoughts, I'll take that back, but only when there is proven evidence of incompetance.. I still hold that stating that no veterinary surgeon could expect to be a specialist on all species, is extremely confusing. BTW although DC are now mainly lay people, I would expect a definition of "RCVS approved Specialist" to be included in their basic training.

Wynne

Re: D C decision

Bob Russell — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:39:40 GMT

As I see it the term 'specialising' should really have been replaced with concentrating upon! The terminology (unless I have missed something) was used by non-vets and not Mr Cronin or the DC.

I am sure Mr Cronin would prefer to be working with a restricted number of species than not working at all!

Re: D C decision

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:39:35 GMT

If DC had merely said that Mr Cronin could only expect to be allowed to return in a limited capacity, then I would have no problems. It's the phrasing that no veterinary surgeon can expect to be a SPECIALIST (not merely passably competant) in all species, when (to my knowledge) Mr Cronin has never even claimed to be a specialist in everything that worries me.

The implication, for veterinary surgeons, and animals living in remote areas is potentially very serious.

Wynne

Re: D C decision

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:31:08 GMT

I agree veterinary knowledge is expanding at an exponential rate. I also think that unless Dennis Cronin has actually claimed to be a specialist in several fields, then it's difficult to know exactly what DC mean.

I bet that when this week's VR eventually arives on the Shetland Islands, the resulting explosion will be many orders of magnitude larger than on the day they scuttled the German fleet in Scapa Flow !

OK I agree that's an extreme example, but,especially now the GUIDE has been replaced by the CODE, it is very very worrying if DC start restricting a veterinary surgeon's ability to treat all species. Most of the time it is in the animal's interest if veterinary surgeons VOLUNTARILY restrict themselves to a limited range of species. There are still some geographical areas where that is simply not practicable.

This is one where we realy need clarification of exactly what they mean.

Wynne

Re: D C decision

Bob Russell — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:30:54 GMT

I have scanned the decision and must say I consider it pretty sensible!

It shows sympathy towards a colleague who has major problems but has accepted that it may well not be in his or future patients interests to allow him to return to single vet practice. It can be immensely stressful (don't I know it!) and all the pressures involved could trigger further problems.

As I read it, they are expecting undertakings that Mr Cronin will re-enter the profession in a sensible and controlled manner that will allow some degree of safety net for him (thereby protecting animal welfare).

I don't know Mr Cronin nor much about the original case but returning to solo practice after such a break must be daunting for anybody. Commonsense would suggest a supportive environment essential. Depression is an insidious and evil disease and anyone that manages to control it has my respect.

If they had just said 'No' and made Mr Cronin wait another 11 months there is nothing to suggest everyone would be in a different position then. They have asked for a plan of how Mr Cronin plans to re-enter the profession safely for all. They have given him three months to do so.

Sensible, measured, sympathetic and bordering on wise IMO. I was not expecting to be able to say that about the DC!

Re: D C decision

Rob Reid — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:23:33 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I have known Denis Cronin from the earliest days of my career, he is a thoroughly decent bloke and I wish him well but he clearly has many demons he needs to sort out and made some very serious errors of judgement. It is very important that animal welfare is the prime consideration with regard as to whether he is allowed to,practice again.[/quote]

Agreed and I think that if there are health issues at play, then the decision also protects him as well. Last thing we want is for Mr Cronin to make a bad call as a result of his illness, both in terms of the impact it would have on the animal but also on the knock-on effect it would have on his mental health.

Re: D C decision

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:02:10 GMT

I think there's a danger of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The RCVS is surely saying that a vet cannot be expected to be omnicompetant in all fields and that if the individual wishes to pursue CPD to show he is making efforts to keep himself up to date to return to practice, he may have concentrate in one area nominally small animal, equine, farm work etc but in his case maybe greyhounds and pigeons. If so this is probably the first time that the profession has accepted that omni-competance is no longer possible with the amount of knowledge we have to assimilate today and that maybe it won't be far off the day when students will have to specialise at university. This is something the surgery cat said several years ago (that may seem a bit cryptic to most but some may know what I'm referring to) but nonetheless it makes a point. However they are, in true RCVS style, maybe shooting themselves in the foot as there is still an obligation for vets to treat all species in emergency so we still need to know one end of a horse from another even if we only treat goldfish.

I have known Denis Cronin from the earliest days of my career, he is a thoroughly decent bloke and I wish him well but he clearly has many demons he needs to sort out and made some very serious errors of judgment. It is very important that animal welfare is the prime consideration with regard as to whether he is allowed to,practice again.

Re: D C decision

Rob Reid — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:43:55 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"](collander on head - yet again)[/quote]

He he no brickbats from here.

It's not the first time there's been 'confusion' regarding an RCVS DC statement (blanket-gate for example.)

It is something that has needed clearer clarification for a while, I know there are RCVS Recognised Specialists who have been frustrated in the past by other referral practitioners with less experience calling themselves specialists. Hell, I know I'm guilty of it sometimes when I speak to clients regarding referral

Re: D C decision

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:38:39 GMT

My interpretation of specialist would be "RCVS recognised specialist", but since (to my knowledge) no-one, and that includes Mr Cronin has ever claimed to be a specialist in everything, then I do worry exactly what DC mean. I think they should clarify.

Wynne

(collander on head - yet again)

Re: D C decision

Rob Reid — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:30:10 GMT

I guess it all depends on your interpretation of specialist. I would personally be thinking of a specialist as someone I would refer a case to with advanced knowledge and experience of the field in question (preferably a 'Recognised Specialist') In which case I don't think they're implying that we shouldn't have the ability to TREAT all species, which as you've said Wynne is vital for the profession in the UK as a whole.

I don't recall the specifics of the original case, but it looks like from the article that Mr Cronin was involved with Racing Pigeons and Greyhounds. Maybe they're just trying to tell him not to stretch himself too far, especially if he's suffering from ongoing depression.

(Of course as a sideline, this leads to the debate as to just who should call one's self a 'Specialist' etc.)