RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:23:05 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]SPVS Snowscene and CITS [/quote]

Often thought about those , love skiing ,but want to escape work completely when on holiday

[/quote]You're the first to know this outside the organising circle but CITS is going to Obertauern in Austria next year Jan 23rd-30th. Subjects orthopaedics and imaging. I understand your reticence on not wanting to mix holiday with work but this formula really does work: lectures morning and evening and free to ski all day, fantastic hotel, masses of apres ski with a great bunch of all ages. Go once and you will be hooked. If you want to register your interest on CITS let me know or email Marina at simonandmarina.scott@gmail.com. Have a look in back numbers of Vet Times for my reports on CITS and Snowscene to whet your appetite and look out for the little article I hope will be published soon on next year's CITS.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:32:48 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]

What bothers me about this decision is that it send this message:

It is good to go on a lovely specialist CPD course in a nice place learning new techniques and being entertained by sports/ the outdoors/ nature/ food etc. to the value of 35 hours a year, job done.

It is useless and not at all counted to read through most of all the vet publications you receive in order to stay up to date with what is happening and developing.

[/quote]

Dear Mariette,

Could I just reassure you that the RCVS decision is almost the complete reverse of what you are thinking. The RCVS recognises (a) the value of self directed study (b) that different people learn in different ways. That is why you can record activities such as reading at home, online CPD, staff training, clinical reviews, meeting drug reps. participation on this forum etc etc.

The only requirement is that you have to make a note of doing these things IF you want them to count towards your compulsory 35 hours per year. I would imagine that the vast majority of practitioners would easily meet the 35 hour rule by simply recording what they read. You can of course record more!

I would encourage use of the online recording system - which really makes it all very easy.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

RCVS Recognised Advanced Practitioner in Equine Practice.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

ruths — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:52:20 GMT

There is an interesting article in the vet record just now. It's about the first vets who took the professional studies part of the cert AVP. There is evidence (self reported) of both conceptual and behavioural change after completing the module- which is assessed by reflective essays. That is the holy grail of education. Collecting hours spent in cpd venues isn't

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

grumpyoldman — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:16:17 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]SPVS Snowscene and CITS [/quote]

Often thought about those , love skiing ,but want to escape work completely when on holiday, I can see that a tax free, VAT free skiing trip has its advantages.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:56:14 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"] could not help noticing that at this years BSAVA congress people were being scanned in and out of lectures , I wondered if they were just managing numbers in popular streams but actually it was to record attendance [/quote]They've actually done that fora cople of years but I don't think there is any reason for BSAVA to record data of attendance they are not in bed with the RCVS - are they?!

Indeed although I only attended Sunday the blank certificate of attendance has the whole congress dates on it. Would the RCVS demand to see your receipts to show you paid for the whole thing if you completed it as such.

Some people mock the overseas conferences but on SPVS Snowscene and CITS you will not be invited back if you take the piss and miss too many lectures and will not get a certificate.

Come to think of it I haven't had mine for Snowscene yet and only missed one and a half: the one because I was too pissed to stagger back from the apres ski bar on time and the half because I was sat in an ice bath trying to get the massive haematoma on my backside under control. C'est la vie.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

J G Wray — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:13:04 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

Your right , but you can see where its being steered . Its the same reaction to everything , regulate a bit more, every time a fly enters the room they get a bigger swat ,instead of just opening a window.

[/quote] Bang On. It justifies RCVS' existence to invent new regulation. As a profession with a 94% public trust rating from RCVS' own survey and miniscule numbers of "real" complaints, coming from the millions of interactions each year between vets and the public do we really need more regulation or do we need more encouragement to do what we do so well and are so well motivated to do?

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

grumpyoldman — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:55:22 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]You can still do 100% of your CPD from self study[/quote]

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:43:41 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"] I think the imposition of limits on the type of learning and pushing towards "courses" for all is probably unfair. [/quote]

There is no such thing happening. You can still do 100% of your CPD from self study - you just have to write it down. The only change the article suggests is that you will have to document what you do, rather than claiming 10 hours 'free'.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Nhombokisheni — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 20:17:57 GMT

No sir, not suggesting that at all. I believe you got the correct summation when you say "the insinuation that a few bad types getting away with things makes good people less reliable and likely to follow suit is intrinsically flawed." This in my view is axactly the approach being taken by regulatory bodies.......any identified flaw/mishap is met with more regulations. Its no longer really about the majority who are reliable....its about these few being legislated against and the rest getting caught in the storm.

In my opinion, its about authorities concentrating not on the good BUT the "perceived loopholes" and unfortunately they seem to have only one response -------more legislation. In a number of significant cases the reactions are "knee jerk" type and so the reliable majority pay the price.

So, no I dont think the reliable are going to follow suit, instead, I greatly empathise. In our jurisprudence lectures, it was clear the multitudes of innocent professionals are paying for the misdeeds of the few through overlegislation.

Yes, the profession does manage to always take of itself, the challenge lies in passing audits, meeting goals/targets etc, especially them targets that have nothing to do with you personally, which are now considered measures of sector performance. These are identifying faults preventing achievement of these targets inevitably leading to more legislation/more boxes to tick and a lot of disgruntled innocents.

A lot of those employed at regulatory level just want to show a "decrease" in a particular target area, so they deem legislation does not really affect the "good" because they are good already...it brings the outliers into the fold....yes its very flawed..but thats the way I see it.

I love VPH, and can tell you that the number of new regulations out of Brussels in any one year is astounding.......and a lot of it is about "ammendments" addressing perceived shortcomings.....

Over legslation is everywhere...

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

grumpyoldman — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:27:58 GMT

[quote user="Nhombokisheni"]The problem has always been the one or two "rotten tomatoes" who for reasons best known to them feel its professional to "cheat". These are the ones who get RCVS re-thinking about current status.[/quote]

I am not sure about this , the insinuation that a few bad types getting away with things makes good people less reliable and likely to follow suit is intrinsically flawed. I think we are getting too much of the wrong type of over-regulation already. And the professions image has always managed to take care of itself unless your suggesting that some recent changes/developments/interests have tarnished it recently :-)

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Nhombokisheni — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:27:55 GMT

I believe its not just a case of trust.......its also about ensuring a relevant image of the profesion in many ways.. The problem has always been the one or two "rotten tomatoes" who for reasons best known to them feel its professional to "cheat". These are the ones who get RCVS re-thinking about current status.

Would a validation requirement at practice level be an option???? That way all practice submissions are verified before being sent to RCVS. This would also ensure practice managers/owners are held to acount for CPD making monitoring more realistic and believable.

Just a thought.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

grumpyoldman — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:15:10 GMT

Over the years I have been on some great courses and a few frankly terrible ones where a glass eye would have nodded off. There is no doubt that sometimes a few hours at home with books and journals pen and paper can be far more beneficial than getting up at 6am driving 120 miles listening to someone read a hand out with a few slides then driving home again for 9pm. I think the imposition of limits on the type of learning and pushing towards "courses" for all is probably unfair. Locums for smaller practices can be anything from £350-450 per day which immediately doubles the cost to the practice. That is if they are available ,they tend to just want week blocks not odd days , which is reasonable, they are trying to earn a living as well . I think we should move away from forever trying to follow the medics in our clinical governance ,there is a massive state funded sector underwriting everything they do.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

grumpyoldman — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:56:33 GMT

I could not help noticing that at this years BSAVA congress people were being scanned in and out of lectures , I wondered if they were just managing numbers in popular streams but actually it was to record attendance ,except i had a practice badge because it was flexible and cheaper ,so who gets the credit for that ?? . What was to stop me handing my badge to a 3rd party and lurking about in the exhibition extracting drinks and favours if i had a mind to?. It just seems a bit odd and mildly offensive that after all these years reading books journals and going on courses we are no longer to be trusted to just get on with it .

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:52:37 GMT

Mariette,

Don't over complicate this. You can jot down "30 minutes spent reading Vet Times - articles on neoplasia in cats and foot injury in dogs - will consider greyhound corns in future". No one is going to ever know you spent more time reading about someone trying to catch a penguin and an exchange of letters of homoeopathy........

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

mariette asselbergs — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:20:50 GMT

What bothers me about this decision is that it send this message:

It is good to go on a lovely specialist CPD course in a nice place learning new techniques and being entertained by sports/ the outdoors/ nature/ food etc. to the value of 35 hours a year, job done.

It is useless and not at all counted to read through most of all the vet publications you receive in order to stay up to date with what is happening and developing.

Unless, again, you concentrate only on a few articles which focus on what you do or need in your practice, document them with "reflective thoughts", up to 35 hours, done!

In my mind, the reading of the vet literature which comes your way is one of the most important ways to stay up to date because it is most often there that you pick up on what is going on and where/when/ on what topic you might best book your next CPD course.

And for that skimming through in quantity is more useful than just focusing on a few convenient articles.

Mariette

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 19:24:03 GMT

[quote user="Luca Poddighe"]We have two possibilities A) we believe that the CPD constitute a cutting edge and therefore keeping up to date is uniquely in our interest and then whoever doesn't want to keep up to date will eventually pay for their lack of interest; B) we believe it's only hours that we need to cover without any link with our professional skills then no one cares and you need to punish to avoid that people will not do CPDs.[/quote]

I'm sure we all know people not doing the CPD they should. I think it would be a real step in the wrong direction RCVS simply trusting that we'd done enough CPD.....

I tend to feel that revalidation is the way forwards. If that means keeping the CPD record AND some notes or an essay explaining how the vets are applying it to our own learning and development then that should be a positive step. I quite like the medical model where you can claim hours or claim extra by application and changing your practice. It's a perfectly valid process doing CPD and deciding you are already doing best practice....

If they call in 20% per year they will get round everyone in 5 years. Remembering that everyone who signed up for the CertAVP, or holds advanced practitioner or specialist status has already had their CPD record scrutinised........

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Luca Poddighe — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:24:41 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Aaaahh that's what you think. This is the re accreditation discussion. Having this would further validate RCVS' existence, so why wouldn't they want it? Cost is no problem , RFPs would pay for it. The justification would be that is a feature of First Rate Regulators and the public deserves the best protection from "bad" vets the Regulator can require... and vets cannot be trusted.[/quote]

I haven't said that it is the right way to go. But the only way to show that you have to make sure that people keeps up to date studying is re accreditation. If RCVS trusts only CPDs that you pay to apply, it is confirming that the only purpose of keep the record is getting money spent. Paying doesn't prove that you're getting anything out of it.

Sorry but I cannot figure out the stand RFP... What does it mean?

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

J G Wray — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:07:33 GMT

[quote user="Luca Poddighe"]I don't agree with the hypothesis at all, because if you cannot trust me for the 10 hours undocumented cpd record, you cannot trust me for the hours that I record as webinars because I might have set up the computer and left with speakers off and be watching sports on the telly (just to say one) and you cannot even trust the cpd I attend in person because you can't force to learn someone who doesn't want to.[/quote]

RCVS doesn't trust RFPs. I haven't the faintest idea why given that the public have 94% trust level. I think RCVS is out of step here.

[quote user="Luca Poddighe"] The only way to verify for sure would be periodical examinations, but that would require programs and a lot of administrative work they don't want to do. [/quote]

Aaaahh that's what you think. This is the re accreditation discussion. Having this would further validate RCVS' existence, so why wouldn't they want it? Cost is no problem , RFPs would pay for it. The justification would be that is a feature of First Rate Regulators and the public deserves the best protection from "bad" vets the Regulator can require... and vets cannot be trusted.

[quote user="Luca Poddighe"]A degree of trust is required and it give me the shivers that they don't trust us on such a matter. [/quote]

Quite

I've mentioned this already but the Vet Record has a paper in a few weeks ago which provides an insight into what we already know about ourselves articulated for those who don't get what vets are about. The level of self-motivation is high in this profession and , in my view, the key to setting personal standards. Amplifying this intrinsic stuff is the way forward. Punishing it isn't. Punishment is the RCVS way, with the twice reiterated threat from the Head of Education at RCVS to report those who keep poor CPD records to Professional Conduct.

RCVS really are nice people to do business with.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Luca Poddighe — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:28:37 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

When did RCVS decide it was going to communicate with the members via Vet Times?

I see nothing on this on the RCVS site, or on their Facebook page.

[/quote]

I think it was an article evaluating an hypothesis. I don't agree with the hypothesis at all, because if you cannot trust me for the 10 hours undocumented cpd record, you cannot trust me for the hours that I record as webinars because I might have set up the computer and left with speakers off and be watching sports on the telly (just to say one) and you cannot even trust the cpd I attend in person because you can't force to learn someone who doesn't want to. The only way to verify for sure would be periodical examinations, but that would require programs and a lot of administrative work they don't want to do. A degree of trust is required and it give me the shivers that they don't trust us on such a matter.

We have two possibilities A) we believe that the CPD constitute a cutting edge and therefore keeping up to date is uniquely in our interest and then whoever doesn't want to keep up to date will eventually pay for their lack of interest; B) we believe it's only hours that we need to cover without any link with our professional skills then no one cares and you need to punish to avoid that people will not do CPDs. I prefer to believe the first one.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Anthony Dennison — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:57:58 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]Lovely, I'm clear they're tested on subjects relevant to acquiring the qualification in a manner which suits the faculty and/or the awarding body.[/quote]

How true! Colour of the corpus luteum anyone?

Name and insertions of all the muscles in the foreleg of a dog?

Really necessary for a veterinary nurse?

Necessary for the exam though.

[/quote]

My understandin was learning all the basic anatomy and what everything is like when it's normal makes it easier to get your head around when things are going wrong.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 21:27:59 GMT

When did RCVS decide it was going to communicate with the members via Vet Times?

I see nothing on this on the RCVS site, or on their Facebook page.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

ruths — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:42:34 GMT

Ok- if you were to be in charge of the situation... If you wanted to make sure that we are educating vets and nurse graduates capable of a job.. How would you assess them? I'm asking from a real point of interest, as opposed to an adversarial stance. -)) but I do want to know what you mean by 'guess'. Is that you guessing or me guessing or the students guessing? ( sorry - is this a tangent?)

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Anthony Todd — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:37:34 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Lovely, I'm clear they're tested on subjects relevant to acquiring the qualification in a manner which suits the faculty and/or the awarding body.[/quote]

How true! Colour of the corpus luteum anyone?

Name and insertions of all the muscles in the foreleg of a dog?

Really necessary for a veterinary nurse?

Necessary for the exam though.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

J G Wray — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:27:24 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]Do you know what sort of exams the vet and nursing students sit[/quote]

Guess. I am a vet and I have worked with RANAs VNs and RVNs throughout my time as a vet, in training practices. I have also lost count of the vet students that have passed through the practices

[quote user="ruths"]Have you see the mark schemes for any of their assignments? [/quote]

Guess. Given the level of neurosis vet students go in for there's been a trickle of this stuff from them over the years and being in a TP there's nurse stuff as well.

[quote user="ruths"]I'm interested in what you think the students are tested on and how it's done....[/quote]

Lovely, I'm clear they're tested on subjects relevant to acquiring the qualification in a manner which suits the faculty and/or the awarding body. It may or may not be effective teaching or learning or testing for an individual. It is affected by cost, organisational limitation, politics and educational theory.

Re: RCVS not accepting ad-hoc CPD

Glenn Hodgson — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:50:27 GMT

I record all my CPD. on an excel. It is my record, not the rcvs'

It includes single lines like

80 hours, reading journals

30 house, casereview

50 hours, online cpd misc (aka reading posts on this forum for 10 minutes every day)

Time is better spent playing with kids, working or even doing more cpd rather than sitting at a computer recording it.

They were satisfied with my excel when they reviewed it.:-)