Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

rjhvet — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:53:15 GMT

Only other thing I have done in situation where client wont allow me to treat as I see fit is get disclaimer signed , even if quick note on back of scrap of paper, but if client v awkward can't force . in these days of high tech phones , could record conversation , is I am asking you to sign disclaimer and you are refusing ( and probably being rude etc in recording also )

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Gerry Henry — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:33:22 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]

And surprisingly maybe, it is not just pet owners that sometimes have unreasonable expectations or complaints. This weekend I was called to a farm as a locum. I had never been there and they had a cow with a total uterus prolapse ("bed out").

Without even saying good morning, the farmer immediately went into a rant about the last vet who replaced a prolapse with help of an epidural (coccygeal) anaesthesia, and "the cow did a split and never stood up". So, no epidural or any bad outcomes would come on my head!

I explained that the cow had a serious condition and that treatment involved a number of risks, that I was informing the farmer of the standard procedure and its involved risks and that I expected him to give me an informed consent (orally - isn't it surprising that in large animal practice we don't normally use consent forms?).

Farmer got annoyed and his wife joined in saying that there must be small print in "my contract with them" saying that I had a duty of care and bad outcomes were for my account!

By this time I declined the work (there were other vets on call in the area) , reminded them of their duty of care under the 2007 animal welfare act., and left.

Was I wrong? I did feel sorry for the cow, but do I have to agree to assist at my own risk?

Mariette

[/quote]

You are absolutely correct, never allow clients to circumscribe treatment, if they won't give you complete clinical freedom to pursue what is in you opinion the best option then walk away.

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

rjhvet — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:13:37 GMT

Just reread presume you warned o of duty of care not that other vets had to attend . would still be fuming if other practice

.normally find clients back down when mention welfare act and either consent to treat or pts

Shouldn't read without glasses and half asleep !

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

rjhvet — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:10:33 GMT

Can you confirm, it appears that you attended the farm , then didn't like farmers attitude , then left the farm. Then advised that other vets in the area ( different practice's ) were on call and they had a duty of care under the animal welfare act !

Apologies if I misunderstood but if that was the case I think it may be you that might have some trouble under the welfare act / duty of care from the royal college . If I was the next vet to be called I would be fuming at the very least .

Some farmers can be like that but can see why he may have been irritated ......

Apologies if I have totally misunderstood your post .

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

mariette asselbergs — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:00:56 GMT

Farmer got annoyed and his wife joined in saying that there must be small print in "my contract with them" saying that I had a duty of care and bad outcomes were for my account!

By this time I declined the work (there were other vets on call in the area) , reminded them of their duty of care under the 2007 animal welfare act., and left.

Was I wrong? I did feel sorry for the cow, but do I have to agree to assist at my own risk?

Mariette

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Stephen Courtney — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:13:51 GMT

I think we all have experience of dealing with lunatics - we are fair game for crazies, and OOH work / solo visiting etc makes you vulnerable to them. We now have CCTV video and audio in consult rooms, and record all OOH phone calls. not for Big Brother reasons - who has time to eavesdrop of 16 busy vets? - but for protections. it has been invaluable in proving what was said by whom, time and again. It's sad that we need it, but these are the times we live in...

Not all pet owners are mad, but ALL mad people have pets......

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:27:59 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="J G Wray"] Other case outcomes required vets to articulate post mortem findings clearly and clarify notes. Two others recommended the remedies offered by the vets be accepted, so not all exclusively financial. Furthermore, these cases went to ADR after going to RCVS first.[/quote]

So fair enough really, and hardly vexatious.

If my dog had an unfavourable outcome and the vet hadn't articulated PM findings clearly or clarified notes I'd be pleased there was a way of getting answers.

What did clients do before?

I obviously didn't understand that this "ADR" is different from the commercial model, but it seems like a good improvement to me.

[/quote]

The way I read it, Mr Wray was saying that there were some cases that were vexatious, and other cases which suggested that the vets should articulate PM findings etc.

Personally I feel that any acknowledgement by the RCVS that the number of complaints received does not always reflect the performance of our profession is a very positive step forward. It seems obvious to me that societal attitudes and individual situations can have a huge impact and yet some seven years ago when I was dealing with the RCVS relatively frequently, I often felt that the committees who dealt with complaints tended to see the numbers rather than the bigger picture.

I have probably more experience of RCVS complaints than the average veterinary surgeon because of my client support role in an out-of-hours company. Occasionally clients would go first to the RCVS without complaining directly to me, and those I could do nothing about. However, we worked hard to mediate between our vets and clients to resolve cases and most of those who went to the RCVS after I had done what I could for them were those who (in my opinion) were genuinely being unreasonable.

I'm not sure they were all vexatious. Some of them did indeed seem to want a fight. Many obviously just didn't want to pay, but there were also quite a number where the owner was obviously mentally unwell (I saw an example someone gave on here recently where an owner had complained about their euthanased dog being visible through a consulting room door when the vet had made absolutely sure due to the client's request that such a thing had been impossible, so other people have also experienced this type of complaint). The general attitude I experienced from the RCVS was that any complaint against the company I worked for was "guilty until proven innocent". I was never sure whether this was because of general attitudes towards the concept of separate out-of-hours provision, but I always suspected it was just because the company name cropped up so often.

Oddly enough, each case I dealt with started with a query from the RCVS that seemed deeply accusatory, and in all cases I recall, they concluded that we had acted reasonably. I found it deeply frustrating. I always felt that if they did see it just a numbers game (lots of complaints means the company is bad) it was very unfair as that allowed no acknowledgement of the fact that vets who were dealing entirely with non-bonded clients in stressful situations, at a cost that was higher than clients at that time were used to paying, would inevitably receive more complaints than the average practice. Indeed the average practice who had turned their out-of-hours care over to us probably received fewer complaints overall because out-of-hours cases generally lead to more disputes. It is unlikely they had suddenly improved, just their situation had changed.

Perhaps my impressions of the RCVS at that time were incorrect, however as I said before, any acknowledgement that not all clients who complain have a valid point is a positive step in general for us as a profession. It's all too easy to make assumptions when hearing from only one side in any situation (as tends to happen in the popular media). Personally I feel it is doubly important for vets not to accuse, or make assumptions about any other vets until they have heard both sides of any given story.

*climbs down off soapbox*

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Anthony Todd — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:56:13 GMT

So fair enough really, and hardly vexatious.

If my dog had an unfavourable outcome and the vet hadn't articulated PM findings clearly or clarified notes I'd be pleased there was a way of getting answers.

What did clients do before?

I obviously didn't understand that this "ADR" is different from the commercial model, but it seems like a good improvement to me.

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

J G Wray — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:04:10 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Well, no, in 7 they found that all was fair and reasonable on the vet. side, in the fees charged. and that those fees should be paid and in the other 7 who knows.

Not necessarily "that the complaint was vexatious"

[/quote]

Weeeelll that's not how I read it. Other case outcomes required vets to articulate post mortem findings clearly and clarify notes. Two others recommended the remedies offered by the vets be accepted, so not all exclusively financial. Furthermore, these cases went to ADR after going to RCVS first.

In the past RCVS didn't offer any breakdown of these cases to this level particularly those where it was below the level of further consideration by PIC. Now there is recognition of what was always known secretly, but never admitted to at RCVS. Some clients complain unreasonably, vexatiously, frivolously. It was all lumped together as a certain level of complaints and a poor reflection on the profession. Now a fairer picture is emerging.

RCVS was compelled by EU Ruling to become fairer through the ADR. Why wasn't it fairer before? Perhaps this is a question for any Old Guard practitioners standing for re election.

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 18:16:56 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I think one of the principles of ADR is that the resolution is private and binding [/quote]

Maybe I've got it all wrong, but I thought that it was not binding.

Re: Vexatious complaints to RCVS

Anthony Todd — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:46:45 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

14 decisions reached

7 of these"...OS (Ombudsman Service) recommended that the client should pay outstanding fees they owed to the veterinary practice..."

[/quote]

Well, no, in 7 they found that all was fair and reasonable on the vet. side, in the fees charged. and that those fees should be paid and in the other 7 who knows.

Not necessarily "that the complaint was vexatious", as I understood ADR, just that the fees were not justified, or justifiable, or a mistake, or charged twice or the work [of the fee] wasn't done etc. etc.

ADR, as I understand, is all, and only about money, but this may be a sort of modified version.

I think one of the principles of ADR is that the resolution is private and binding so we probably won't ever know.