False advertising by another practice

Re: False advertising by another practice

grumpyoldman — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:21:34 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]As for Dr, remember the old joke,[/quote]

We are in the process of adding a junior director onto the practice billboards , She is quire keen on it ,the Dr thing , I was one of the 11% who said no ,mainly because I felt it was cheating people with PhDs. But at the end of the day you have to square the circle . She can have what she wants and i will stay with what I have . I am not bothered because I sincerely doubt that 99% of the public have a cue what any of it means anyway.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:03:38 GMT

Grumpyoldman. After 35 years (beat you there!) Miss is fine by me - I've resisted being turned into a manuscript!

As for Dr, remember the old joke, " Someone who's been vetted has been thoroughly scrutinised, and found totally free of all fault. Something that's been doctored has either been falsified, or has bits missing. "

Maybe a reflection on the "honesty" of most medical certification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: False advertising by another practice

grumpyoldman — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:46:23 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Grumpyoldman. Was the family concerned by any chance called Ingham? There seems to be a certain "economy with the truth"

Wynne

[/quote]

I have no idea ,could not possibly comment etc......they own a substantial portfolio of practices by all accounts in a variety of locations in the midlands and elsewhere , all pretending to be the cuddly friendly local vets ....... retaining original names etc.

Re: False advertising by another practice

grumpyoldman — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:36:41 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Why not call him Dr[/quote] After 30 years Mr was just fine , thanks , your right about dancing on a pinhead ,after all vetsnow have been calling themselves the emergency specialists for 15 years . All you need to work there is an MRCVS and a pulse. No one minded because they were taking away a pain in the arse from a lot of peoples family lives ,they could spend pleasant summer evenings like this one in the garden drinking chateau neuf without fear of disturbance ,so those "specialists" were useful and the misappropriation of title ignored. RCVS has know about this and ignored it for years,

Re: False advertising by another practice

J G Wray — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:43:50 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]Why not call him Dr Curry?[/quote]

Because he didn't ask to be called that?

[/quote]

Funny Old World

Anyway, from RCVS

".."We recognise this represents a significant change ."

That word "significant" - really, for whom as in just how many?

How do you spell hyperbole?

Re: False advertising by another practice

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:27:35 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Why not call him Dr Curry?[/quote]

Because he didn't ask to be called that?

RCVS has just made the official announcement on use of the word specialist: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2015/06/30/139323.aspx

Re: False advertising by another practice

J G Wray — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:47:49 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Grumpyoldman.[/quote]

Why not call him Dr Curry?

Re: False advertising by another practice

J G Wray — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:47:07 GMT

[quote user="Glen McIntosh"]Well, this is policy created by council members elected by us. It is policy that is clearly being driven from within the profession.[/quote]

This is not at all clear. As you have pointed out yourself there is a conformity in RCVS' behaviours in respect of other regulators, in my view rather aimlessly and slavishly, justified as the attributes of a FRR. This comes from the non-elected part of RCVS, the staff and non-elected representatives.

RCVS are apart from other regulators in that they are involved in a self-regulating profession. They are distinct, but are choosing to narrow this distinction for a profession that does not display the regulatory problems associated with other professions. We do not have money laundering issues. We do not have human life or death issues. We do not create hazardous structures or processes etc.

RCVS narrow this distinction, not based on evidence, but based on some nebulous metrocentric sense of fashion or fad and it's all rather strange. As for the representatives, they seem happy, to borrow a cliché, to follow the narrative rather than look for the necessity and are profoundly hamstrung by their rulebook from even persuading others of another view.

As for self funding, the RCVS is exempt from cross subsidisation. They don't live by rules which we observe.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:24:24 GMT

Grumpyoldman. Was the family concerned by any chance called Ingham? There seems to be a certain "economy with the truth"

Wynne

Re: False advertising by another practice

Glen McIntosh — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:16:19 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]RCVS is showing fewer and fewer signs of regulating the profession as it was set up, as a self-regulating profession.[/quote]

Well, this is policy created by council members elected by us. It is policy that is clearly being driven from within the profession. Nobody has put a gun to our heads, certainly not the government, who really don't care.

[quote user="J G Wray"]They are showing fewer signs of being distinctive.[/quote]

Distinct from who or what?

[quote user="J G Wray"]The time and resources i.e. RFPs money spent on deciding on RCVS Recognised Specialsit status is at a level of micro management out of all proportion to the requirement for management at the level of the commonest interaction with the public at GPVet level.[/quote]

Surely this would all be self funding from the application fees etc that prospective RCVS Recognised Specialists pay. If not then it should be. And if it is, then explain to me, even if it is "at a level of micro management out of all proportion to the requirement for management at the level of the commonest interaction with the public at GPVet level", how this regulation negatively impacts Joe Average GPvet.

Re: False advertising by another practice

J G Wray — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:21:40 GMT

[quote user="Glen McIntosh"]The RCVS is only catching up with most of the rest of the western world by introducing this regulation.[/quote]

A stand alone sentence in your response.

RCVS is showing fewer and fewer signs of regulating the profession as it was set up, as a self-regulating profession. They are showing fewer signs of being distinctive.The time and resources i.e. RFPs money spent on deciding on RCVS Recognised Specialsit status is at a level of micro management out of all proportion to the requirement for management at the level of the commonest interaction with the public at GPVet level.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Glen McIntosh — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:32:26 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I think the general public neither know nor care. I think the RCVS should be spending less time, in other words less of RFPs' subscription funding on matters that are this esoteric.[/quote]

I agree that the general public don't know anything about veterinary specialisation, but they do care, or at least they would care if they were to have a bad experience involving an under skilled "specialist". Most people care little about most things until they affect them personally.

The same can be said of almost every area of regulation - from buildings regulations, to weights and measures, to electrical inspections and so on and so forth. As a member of the general public I give very little thought to any of these things, mainly because, in most 1st world countries there are stringent regulatory processes in place so that I don't have to care about these things.

I am certain that I would be asking why if something did go wrong. But they rarely do go wrong, if the regulatory process is working properly.

[quote user="J G Wray"]Anyone else unaffected by this "angels dancing on a pinhead" stuff? Where would the man on the Clapham omnibus or Joe Average GPvet have this on their list of interests/prioritiy?[/quote]

I think you are wrong about Joe Average GPvet not prioritising this issue, mainly because this whole thread was started by a GPvet having problems with this very issue! His regulatory body is not toothless with respect to this issue, and a word to the wise was all that was needed to get the offending practice to pull their head in.

I think that this area of regulation is driven much less by a need to protect specialists' interest and much more in an attempt to protect GPvets from other GPvets who have decided to unfairly gain an edge over other practices by using misleading advertising, (as well as providing a safety net for the general public with regard to specialist veterinary services).

The RCVS is only catching up with most of the rest of the western world by introducing this regulation.

There are also strict regulations regarding the use of the term "specialist" here in Hong Kong. At the practice I work in there are a number of highly skilled and experienced vets in who are not qualified specialists (although some are doing residencies in their areas of expertise). These vets certainly do "specialise" in their respective area's of expertise, but in order to avoid falling foul of the HKVSB, rather than saying that, they call themselves "residency trained veterinarian, practice limited to surgery", or "academy qualified veterinarian (for RCVS certs or MACVS's) limited to the practice of opthalmology", for example.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Braden Collins — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:16:49 GMT

Update: the other clinic has changed their ad, so problem resolved. Hopefully it's enough just to get them to pull their heads in and play by the rules. Karma has come and got them though - the text on their website has been replaced by computer code (I promise no foul play on our behalf). Previously we probably would have done the right thing and called them to let them know, but now I reckon I'll just see how long it takes them ti figure it out themselves.

I think the terms "specalising in" or "special interest in" can be quite misleading. I saw another vet promoting one of their new graduates as having a "special interest in ophthalmology". I think for someone in the general public, if they read this they wouldn't like someone with 3 months experience dealing with their dogs eyes when they may have expected someone with a lot of experience and extra training.

My personal feeling is we need to set clients expectations at the right level. I think as soon as we use the terms specialist/specialising in, we mayu be giving an impression that isn't entirely accurate. I much prefer the term "interest in" as it shows you have a particular interest without setting dangerously high expectations.

Re: False advertising by another practice

grumpyoldman — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:58:35 GMT

we had part of a large corporate group calling itself the "family run vets for all the families pets" in the yellow pages a few years ago ,think they maybe doing it on FB now . It was managed by a manager and everyone there was an employee ,but it turned out that the parent company was owned by a family who lived 250 miles away , so the RCVS and the ASA both thought it was ok . I always felt the take home message was its not very nice to mislead the public like this so please do not ,but if you do it anyway we are not going to raise an eyebrow .

Re: False advertising by another practice

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:52:59 GMT

By the way, when I said "Dr. Z heads up this department" I was mocking.

I detest the redundant, extraneous, pointless "up".

He heads the department, or is the head of it, or leads it.

This irritates me beyond reason. It drives me mad.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:43:59 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]All convey your time, investment and commitment but avoid the 's' word.[/quote]

Well, OK, if you feel anything using the letters s p e c i a l is misleading, we can agree to differ. You speak a lot of sense even though we differ.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Hey, I've just thought of something else. If ZMRCVS worked for a corporate, or indeed any practice where the owner or directors are not vets: there is nothing to stop the practice advertising that "our caring compassionate practice specialises in treatment of skin diseases, and Dr. Z heads up this specialist department...."[/quote]

Then RCVS can come after the vet. We would likely all agree that RCVS has no control over practices and this is not ideal. It should not be acceptable letting a 3rd party claim you are a specialist when you are not.

[/quote]

I'm not so sure RCVS can come after Dr. Z. . But all right, suppose the practice ad just says "our caring compassionate [ have you noticed, big advertisers are always caring and compassionate ] practice specialises in skin diseases". Who's going to do anything about that? Maybe you could complain to the Advertising Standards Authority, but I'd guess that the ASA would use the common-parlance normal vague meaning of "specialises" and not be too swayed by representations that the practice had no RCVS Approved Specialist.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:51:49 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Do you have answers for the questions I asked in a previous post?[/quote]

OK, if you insist.

I find this rather difficult because I have a lot of respect for you, and this will inevitably seem personal.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I disagree with your second sentence, but let me concede the word "specialist". Let us, for now, allow "specialist" to be a protected title. Answer my questions.

It is misconduct to make deliberately misleading or false claims as to your abilities, experience, training or equipment. Bearing that in mind:

– if XMRCVS is specialised in a field for which there are no specific qualifications (game birds, for instance.......), why should he be forbidden to say so?

– if YMRCVS has a special interest in a field, has special equipment for it, has specially studied and has long experience in it, what is so disgraceful about his stating so, both truthfully and honestly...... and even, shock horror, employing the word "specialised", in common parlance and readily understood?

[/quote]

I think for absolute clarity that if we are calling the highest level of veterinary qualification a 'specialist' then to claim speciality in a discipline is confusing. I have given examples where my own clients have become confused by the similarity of the two terms.

How hard is it claiming you are '"particularly interested in veterinary dentistry"? Put on your website "considerable experience in game bird veterinary medicine". Avoiding the 's' word but conveying the same meaning. Tell people you are equipped to perform the highest level of veterinary dentistry. Claim to can offer treatment as human standards. All convey your time, investment and commitment but avoid the 's' word.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Using the terms "special interest" or "specialised' are not remotely confusing. The first-opinion vet, looking for somebody to refer to, is an intelligent professional and perfectly capable of reading through any postnominals and noting any Specialist or AVP status and taking them into account. They will recommend someone to their client taking into account many many factors (as I wrote in reply to Anon, but I expect that will be deleted on Monday (and I betcha the client will go home and tell his friends that he's taking Binky to a specialist next week).[/quote]

You may be right. If I refer anything I try to make this explicitly clear, although I didn't always. The guy we send eyes to is 'only' a certificate holder and I only found out a couple of years ago. [quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Yes, and if I feel like it I may one day PM you with the complex reasons why in the end I did not go down that path. As I have already said, I accept that I am thus somewhat less than others and I am comfortable with it. However I'm not engaging in special pleading just for me; in fact I'm not doing special pleading for anyone. I'm concerned with principles and freedom and I'm against unnecessary restriction.[/quote]

I'm not sure you are the problem. Other vets really are. Unfortunately you have to make rules to the lowest common denominator.

I also don't particularly care why you didn't go down the further qualification route. I believe the route is there and available to practically everyone if they are prepared to put the work in. If they chose to follow their interest and not do associated qualifications I don't mind. I just think you need to keep the specialist word out of things in all derivations.

And in my own defence I absolutely meant no offence. I accept that some people are working at this level, but I'm sure more think they are than really are. That is the problem.

None of this is directed particularly at you, Evelyn. I want to make that clear.

Re: False advertising by another practice

J G Wray — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:40:45 GMT

[quote user="Tim Charlesworth"]

It's all a bit of a muddle.

[/quote] And..............?

Re: False advertising by another practice

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:05:57 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]If your thinking along the lines of the bloke travelling home via Crewe Station . [/quote]

...."said the waiter, don't shout, and wave it about...." ??

Re: False advertising by another practice

grumpyoldman — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:01:59 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] You've forgotten passing an exam at the end![/quote]

good point well made but they will never really have to work alone because the other gurus will be standing behind them throughout their training and supervising them constantly .

Does polishing Wayne Rooneys boots for 3 years as an apprentice make one Wayne Rooney and automatically get you an England Shirt ? . If your thinking along the lines of the bloke travelling home via Crewe Station .

Re: False advertising by another practice

Tim Charlesworth — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:59:54 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"] BUT the recognised specialist has proved they were AND proven they are keeping up to date with CPD, publication etc. It's all about quality control.[/quote]

Not sure about that ? : its possible to graduate, do 1or 2 internships then a 3 year residency and become a recognised specialist without proving anything.

[/quote]

I agree that this is a problem. At the risk of being controversial, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to call themselves a specialist in surgery without working "in the field" and coping with a haemoperitoneum etc on their own/at night etc etc. What I would say, is that the RCVS are talking about the RCVS recognised list of specialists. The university-intern-residency route will (usually) lead to an European diploma which automatically confers the "European recognised specialist" title. It does not automatically enable the vet to become an RCVS recognised specialist. Most new surgeons would have to wait a year or so after gaining European specialist status before applying for RCVS specialist status. Whether or not this will change with the proposed "simplification" of the application process, I don't know.

It's all a bit of a muddle.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:26:30 GMT

You've forgotten passing an exam at the end!

Wynne

Re: False advertising by another practice

grumpyoldman — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:23:24 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"] BUT the recognised specialist has proved they were AND proven they are keeping up to date with CPD, publication etc. It's all about quality control.[/quote]

Not sure about that ? : its possible to graduate, do 1or 2 internships then a 3 year residency and become a recognised specialist without proving anything.

Re: False advertising by another practice

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:23:01 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]To my mind the problem with 'specialist' as a term is used commonly. I take my car to a Landrover specialist. The local agricultural merchant have a dairy hygiene 'specialist'[/quote]

Absolutely agree... there are I believe footballers described as left wing specialists (no, not Francisco) , racehorses described as two-furlong specialists.... my butcher has a sign saying "Cooked Meats Our Speciality" ....

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]There are other 'empire' building practices who are quite happy to say they have a 'lameness specialists' a 'mastitis specialist' a 'fertility specialist' etc - when they blatantly don't[/quote]

So what you are saying is that "specialist" has been too much used, deliberately to mislead, by unscrupulous veterinary surgeons. Yes, I guess you are right, but I've already conceded to you all the need to protect "specialist' as a title or description for a veterinary surgeon.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]EBH or anyone else in the profession has the opportunity to do certificates or diplomas.[/quote]

Yes, and if I feel like it I may one day PM you with the complex reasons why in the end I did not go down that path. As I have already said, I accept that I am thus somewhat less than others and I am comfortable with it. However I'm not engaging in special pleading just for me; in fact I'm not doing special pleading for anyone. I'm concerned with principles and freedom and I'm against unnecessary restriction.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"] There is flexibility in the system to allow a group of individuals to get together and create new modules for the CertAVP structure and get a new designation as advanced practitioners. I'm sure there is scope in the European specialist colleges to start one in a unique area and grant immediate status on existing practitioners (like happened with the foundation of all the current colleges).[/quote]

Well, theoretical possibilities, but it's not quite that simple. Nothing like.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Imagine you need brain surgery. Do you want the qualified consultant brain surgeon to do your operation or the GP who's leant a bit over the years and by the fallacy of human memory thinks he's rather good at it? I'm not saying that a non specialists isn't working at that level[/quote]

To be honest, I find that a little offensive, although knowing you I don't think it was intended to be so. But never mind, the vast majority of specialisms to which veterinary referrals take place are not on the level of human intra-cerebral surgery anyway.

Do you have answers for the questions I asked in a previous post?

Re: False advertising by another practice

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:16:10 GMT

A few years ago, the practice website of a former President of RCVS stated that they gad a dermatology specialist. They actually had a certificate holder! It's really bad when the term is misused by someone who has zero excuse for not knowing better!

Wynne