RCVS futures 2016-2019

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bradley Viner — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:55:05 GMT

Fair cop Evelyn. If I manage to drop just one clanger a week for the rest of my Presidential year I reckon I'll be doing pretty well. Perhaps I should stop sending emails at 1am!

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:09:24 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"] I am well aware that AP status does not equate to the status of Specialist as recognised by the RCVS, which is why I put the word in lower case and enclosed in inverted commas.[/quote]

You can't get away with it that easily, Mr. President. Belgravia House made it absolutely plain that they intend a rigid enforcement of a rigid rule, that no veterinary surgeon can be "specialist", or specialise, or be specialised, or have a special interest, or do anything special, unless they are a RCVS-Recognised Specialist. (Of course, a non-veterinary-surgeon, like for instance a director of a corporate practice, can claim specialism whenever they like . ) But you know in your heart that the word "specialist" is in common parlance and simply means one who specialises, and cannot be made a protected title without an Act of Parliament, which is why you made what a journalist would call a "gaffe".

Not a bad recovery, though, I'll give you that.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:05:05 GMT

Bradley Viner any comment from RCVS on homoeopathy?

Or are you going to keep burying your heads in the sand?

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

J G Wray — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:42:31 GMT

The Vet Futures thing reminds me of the sort of speculation you get in a pub wiv yer mates after a couple of pints. It'll fill a whole evening, be very enjoyable, lead to some profound revelations, especially when the beer goggles are on and be worth, well, absolutely nothing.

It also reminds me of the material Al Murray has turned into a popular comedy act - enjoy this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGAn_T0fXHY

I reckon serious sober folk are concerned with the next three years, but maybe that's just me.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bradley Viner — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:55:56 GMT

I was referring to Advanced Practitioner and Specialist status. I am well aware that AP status does not equate to the status of Specialist as recognised by the RCVS, which is why I put the word in lower case and enclosed in inverted commas. It would be good to think of APs as on the route to Specialist status, and making that progression easier and more structured was one of the objectives of introducing the AP status. The fact that we now have two RCVS-accredited statuses means a change in language – as, of course, does the recent change to the Code – so I will ensure I am more careful in the future about use of the word ‘specialist’, with or without caps, with our without inverted commas!

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bob Russell — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:33:36 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]

And most importantly - a profession to be proud of. The most recent survey
shows that we are one of the most trusted professions, well above medics.

.[/quote]

Not at all sure this is because of the RCVS. More likely because there are thousands of genuinely committed professionals, working hard, often feeling it is despite the RCVS not because of it!

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

J G Wray — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:13:19 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

Tell us more.

Gordon Hockey was emphatic last week in telling some of us that there was only one.

[/quote]

You know how you spend so much time in practice preventing the conversation with the client which starts with

"But, your receptionist/nurse/other vet said it was this......." because you just hate unpicking misunderstandings and you just wish everyone was on message? It inevitably ends up with someone looking stoopid and/or eating humble pie.

This is probably just another one of those

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:07:27 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Guidance, both written and verbal, to help vet professionals deal with the
challenges they face[/quote]

But Belgravia House chose to turn The Guide into The Code. A subtle but very significant difference. Its significance has probably been lost upon the majority of the profession, but Belgravia House must have been well aware of it or they would not have made the change.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Two levels of "specialist" status[/quote]

I'm sorry? Belgravia House have recently made it explicitly clear that they intend to enforce a state where there is just one level.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]A practice standards scheme to recognise all your efforts[/quote]

Our efforts to accumulate pointless bits of paper?

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:14:28 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Two levels of "specialist" status[/quote]

Tell us more.

Gordon Hockey was emphatic last week in telling some of us that there was only one.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

J G Wray — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:33:00 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]OK Jon, you obviously don't like carrots. Think of them as a metaphorical
form of encouragement. Visualise chocolates if you prefer. We offer lots of
them at the RCVS, such as;[/quote]

There is a misunderstanding here, which most obviously manifested itself at RCVS with their bafflement over why so many wanted the honorary title. The profession doesn't need carrots, chocolates or any other form of bribe because it has a set of intrinsic motivators hinted at in Page-Jones VR paper a short time ago. If only RCVS chose to find out then they could change their tune.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Guidance, both written and verbal, to help vet professionals deal with the
challenges they face[/quote]

I would most humbly suggest that guidance is most often sought in order to avoid falling foul of RCVS when presented with circumstances, e.g. eccentric client behaviour, rather than aiming to enhance the care of a patient or client. RCVS are asked for advice to avoid trouble, err, with RCVS.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Qualifications as a reward for postgraduate study[/quote]

Reward? It's an award isn't it?

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Two levels of "specialist" status[/quote]

Sorry, this is lost on me

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]A practice standards scheme to recognise all your efforts[/quote]

As has so often been said before, you don't need PSS to do the things this management tool provides.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]And most importantly - a profession to be proud of. The most recent survey
shows that we are one of the most trusted professions, well above medics.[/quote]

This is astonishing. The RCVS doesn't provide the thing the public trusts, MsRCVS and particularly GPVets do. The FA doesn't provide what the public want , football clubs and players do. It beggars belief that RCVS think they are the profession.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Alternatively you can just keep your head down, behave professionally, pay
your subs and tick the boxes on your annual return, and have minimal
contact with the RCVS. That's fine too.[/quote]

It might be if RCVS were not becoming more intrusive in our lives, more acquisitive a of straijacketing behaviours and showing poor judgement ( e.g. "Blanketgate") and lack of comprehension from afar ("Dr" stuff).

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]As a Prez who runs and works in five practices, I am a little puzzled as to
how you can accuse the College of not having the foggiest about what goes
on in general practice.[/quote]

Well, here's a simple test you can try at RCVS

" What is a GPVets value?" and see how far you get.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]I'm also not sure what re-accreditation has to do with the
discussion, as it is simply not on the table at the moment.[/quote]

The thread is a speculation about the next three years at RCVS. It's more realistic than a speculation about what RCVS might be regulating in 2030. It's an opportunity, in a public forum to debate an organisation's behaviours and policies. It's fair enough because we pay for the organisation and the organisation doesn't inherently encourage debate, or engagement..........

Have a Good Year

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bradley Viner — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:14:24 GMT

OK Jon, you obviously don't like carrots. Think of them as a metaphorical
form of encouragement. Visualise chocolates if you prefer. We offer lots of
them at the RCVS, such as;

Guidance, both written and verbal, to help vet professionals deal with the
challenges they face
Qualifications as a reward for postgraduate study
Two levels of "specialist" status
A practice standards scheme to recognise all your efforts
And most importantly - a profession to be proud of. The most recent survey
shows that we are one of the most trusted professions, well above medics.

I'm sure there are more, but it's getting late.

Alternatively you can just keep your head down, behave professionally, pay
your subs and tick the boxes on your annual return, and have minimal
contact with the RCVS. That's fine too.

As a Prez who runs and works in five practices, I am a little puzzled as to
how you can accuse the College of not having the foggiest about what goes
on in general practice. I am by no means the only working practitioner
involved. I'm also not sure what re-accreditation has to do with the
discussion, as it is simply not on the table at the moment.

Have a good week.

Bradley

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

J G Wray — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:11:49 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]...We have a bag full of carrots as well as a stick, and prefer to use the former whenever possible.[/quote]

It's disappointing to learn that RFPs are regarded like donkeys to be fed carrots or beaten with a stick.

Can anyone think of a RCVS carrot? Has anyone been fed a RCVS carrot? How was it for you Eeyore?

Re-accreditation is probably not going to meet much resistance as a concept in the profession, but I would suggest it will be much easier to implement if there were a clearer understanding of the purpose of re accreditation, not for RCVS, but for vets and I mean beyond the bleedin' obvious need to go on practising or come back from a break.

If a system were thought through to the level where the acquisition of re accredited status were attuned to those things which act as intrinsic motivators for vets and are familiar and part of the everyday experience, the acquisition of re accredited status would become a natural outcome, a profit if you like. To become re accredited would be desirable, because there would be purpose which would be aligned with how vets are motivated and it would become, naturally, the right thing to do. To reach this state the task would also need a degree of challenge and variety to make it less routine than simply proving something arbitrary with meaning and purpose for someone else.

RCVS will struggle with this because they haven't the foggiest what goes on in general practice and why it happens so successfully so often and are showing absolutely no signs of interest. RCVS only know bad stuff and academic stuff.

Instead they will go for a dull solution, devoid of creative thinking or interest and use rewards and sanctions. They will reduce us to donkeys in need of carrots, as in "If you (donkey) do this then you can have licence to go on working and putting food infront of your children" . They are already talking this language. This form of implementation will be met with hostility caused by the dull thinking of RCVS, not the recalcitrance of RFPs

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

grumpyoldman — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 23:39:26 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I do 'feel' more listened to by RCVS now than ever before[/quote]

I am not sure the attitudes are any different but the PC department does tend to speak to you as though you were ringing the Mercedes Garage instead of a paper boy collecting his christmas tips. So that probably is an improvement, I do remember contacting them about the RSA business and initially they were polite but distant and came back and said actually nothing we can do. The tune changed when high profile figures got involved. I guess it depends who you know ,and who's toes have been trodden on. So from that point of view same old same old .

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 21:48:15 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I see no reason to think this will change and therefore believe RCVS/BVA premise that vets and whoever owns their practices will fail to respond as needed, is false. This is another exanple of more resources being spent on whimsy.[/quote]

I think you are most likely correct.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

In turn I think it's possible to be more clear in the short term about RCVS' futures

RCVS Futures 2015-2018

Re accreditation

Outcome focused regulation

Major capital expenditure in London

Increased head count

CEO moves on

Anyone got any others or disagree with this?

[/quote]

I do 'feel' more listened to by RCVS now than ever before. They did listen to concerns and clarify the requirements OOH. They gave vets back their postnonials on the register. They gave us 'Doctor'. I responded to the PSS consultation and some of the changes made are in line with my suggestions (and I imagine others). Little 'podcasts' on Facebook mean I have a much better idea of what is happening now than ever before.

I'm not saying they are by any means perfect, but I feel that we are being listened to. I think that is reflected by the increase in turnout in the elections.

Personally I have no issues with re-accreditation. I would actually be supportive of the concept. My understanding in most other professions is that most is done by declarations of the individual.

I have been to the vet futures site a number of times and I find it rather dull. I can't be bothered to engage on discussion over issues of fees and whether we should offer bloody hospice care to knackered old pets. I don't give a damn what colour, creed or sexuality vets are, but I do know we shouldn't try and artificially manipulate the numbers.

What would I like to see in the next 3 years?

The prohibition of vets practising 'quack' homeopathic treatments - with those continuing to promote such 'therapy' as professional misconduct.
Clearer guidance of what is acceptable from the profession regarding advertising and approaching other practices' clients. Behaviour against the guidance treated very strictly by PIC/DC. (I don't actually care if RCVS declare gloves are off and we can do as we please, just don't put rules in the code and then ignore others blatantly flouting them, examples available on request!).
I would like to see the reintroduction of an RCVS Diploma qualification - perhaps building onto the CertAVP system. The European certificates are a very different beast and vastly less accessible to general practitioners. The RCVS simultaneously made it easier and more practice friendly to get a certificate, but much more difficult to gain a diploma. Maybe we need a petition....

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:16:09 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]What makes us unique is that we are a Royal College that regulates, and that has recently been re-affirmed by our Charter. So our remit goes much further than pure regulation. We have a bag full of carrots as well as a stick, and prefer to use the former whenever possible. [/quote]

Sure, but who precisely do you mean by "we" ?

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

grumpyoldman — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:33:19 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]In 27 cases, Ombudsman Services has determined that the veterinary surgeon need take no further action and, in one case, has recommended that the client pay the outstanding fees..."[/quote]

The only bits of this that really interest me are , 1.did the client cough up? 2. In the other 27 cases who had been through the ringer wasting god knows how much time money and angst as well as possible VDS involvement for no good reason, was there any award for costs against the client ? And if not why not?.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

grumpyoldman — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:20:05 GMT

[quote user="Paul Stevens"]"and that, ABOVE ALL, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care."[/quote],

What that needs in brackets afterwards is "as long as it fits in with the corporate business model".

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bradley Viner — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:19:55 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]It is a great shame that this loss of management responsibility is now accepted at RCVS. Perhaps it is time for the RCVS to rename itself the Veterinary Regulatory Authority (VRA) as in "VRA trading as the RCVS". It sound so much more, well, honest.[/quote]

What makes us unique is that we are a Royal College that regulates, and that has recently been re-affirmed by our Charter. So our remit goes much further than pure regulation. We have a bag full of carrots as well as a stick, and prefer to use the former whenever possible.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bradley Viner — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:15:56 GMT

[quote user="Paul Stevens"]

Good to talk to you.
You are quoting from the charter which is the legal basis of regulation. But as you know, legal dictats still need to be interpreted.
This is what I am referring to. My conversation with the Reg. was in relation to the approach he would expect the PIC (Preliminary Investigation Committee) to take in relation to a 'concern', and how best to determine appropriate weightings of any issues raised.
This is what I meant by cascade of responsibility. Sorry for not being clearer.

Paul

[/quote]

No problem Paul. I would imagine that what you are referring to is the decision making process at PIC rather than the priorities of the RCVS as a whole. I think it is is a general tenet within the legal system that a case will only be taken forward for further action if it is seen to be "in the public interest" to do so. How that is defined can be controversial, and has been criticised recently in the case against Lord Janner, but it is designed to prevent cases going to formal hearings where no public good is likely to result.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:10:39 GMT

[quote user="Paul Stevens"]Strangely, the declaration (or oath) a veterinary surgeon makes when they register with the RCVS begins with their acceptance of their "responsibilities to the public, (my) clients, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons…" [/quote]

Indeed. Not "...responsibilities to....... the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.... "

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

J G Wray — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:35:45 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]The 1966 VSA simply gives the RCVS the statutory role of "managing the veterinary profession", which would now be taken to mean "regulating the profession".[/quote]

Management is mostly about processes within a functioning entity. Regulation is only about control of process. Control throttles autonomy. Management can nurture it. Control straitjackets mastery. Management encourages mastery. Control directs purpose. Management and leadership develops purpose. If you accept the 21st Century paradigm that motvation thrives when an individual is granted autonomy, mastery and has purpose, then regulators are there to de-motivate. That's a dangerous thing in Our World

It is a great shame that this loss of management responsibility is now accepted at RCVS. Perhaps it is time for the RCVS to rename itself the Veterinary Regulatory Authority (VRA) as in "VRA trading as the RCVS". It sound so much more, well, honest.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

J G Wray — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:21:31 GMT

In June's RCVS News, facts have received a special treatment. In a small paragraph on page 6 there is the following relating to the ADR:

"..Recommendations have now been issued in relation to 44 of the 61 cases. Of these, Ombudsman Services has asked the veterinary surgeon about whom the concern has been raised to make goodwill payments in seven cases. In 27 cases, Ombudsman Services has determined that the veterinary surgeon need take no further action and, in one case, has recommended that the client pay the outstanding fees..."

So 27/44, that is 61% of cases vets have done all they need to do despite the RCVS receiving a complaint and only 7/44 that is 16% of cases required goodwill payments.

On pages 16 and 17 there's the full colour and photo treatment of 4 of those 44, which don't have the same balance at all. Furthermore, it illustrates how the Ombudsman directed the practice in one of these cases, not the individual.

Bias fools no one.

On P2 there is

"..Turnouts in both elections rose this year, with 4,838 veterinary surgeons (18.1%) and 1,379 veterinary nurses (11%) voting, which compares to 4,137 (16.1%) and 1,157 (10%) in 2014. These represent the highest numbers of vets and VNs ever to vote in RCVS elections, although there are increasing numbers of vets and veterinary nurses
on the Registers. Average turnouts over the past ten years are 17.4% (4,051 veterinary voters) and 9% (833 VN voters)...."

So, a 10 year average 17.4%, last year 16.1% and this year 18.1% - where's the surprise, where's there any reason to be impressed?

Perhaps more spin and practice regulation should be added to the list of RCVS Futures 2016-2019.

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Paul Stevens — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:46:31 GMT

Bradley

Good to talk to you.
You are quoting from the charter which is the legal basis of regulation. But as you know, legal dictats still need to be interpreted.
This is what I am referring to. My conversation with the Reg. was in relation to the approach he would expect the PIC (Preliminary Investigation Committee) to take in relation to a 'concern', and how best to determine appropriate weightings of any issues raised.
This is what I meant by cascade of responsibility. Sorry for not being clearer.

Paul

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Bradley Viner — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:49:55 GMT

Hi Paul

I've not had this discussion with the Registrar, but there is no "cascade of responsibility" laid down as you describe. The new Charter says:

The objects of the College shall be to set, uphold and advance veterinary standards, and to promote, encourage and advance the study and practice of the art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine, in the interests of the health and welfare of animals and in the wider public interest.

The 1966 VSA simply gives the RCVS the statutory role of "managing the veterinary profession", which would now be taken to mean "regulating the profession". The Charter was a new document drawn up last year, so is the most recent and clearest statement of the objects of the College.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Best wishes

Bradley

RE: RCVS futures 2016-2019

Paul Stevens — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:26:09 GMT

As with many of the Royal College's recent decrees, this one is bound to divide opinion within the practising profession: There are always at least two sides to an argument.
I am sure I am not alone, but it was only late last year during a conversation with the RCVS Registrar, that I fully came to understand the 'cascade of responsibility' the RCVS adheres to. Namely, its prime responsibility is to protect the public interest. Next down the order of concern is animal health and welfare.
Strangely, the declaration (or oath) a veterinary surgeon makes when they register with the RCVS begins with their acceptance of their "responsibilities to the public, (my) clients, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons…"
The next part of the declaration is "and that, ABOVE ALL, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care."

Reading the RCVS's own definition of its role, and comparing it to the declaration required to practise, it becomes evident that conflict between these two parties is inevitable: The professional governing body has the public interest as its primary concern, whilst it insists that the practising professional have animal health and welfare as their primary concern. This realisation perhaps goes somewhere towards an explanation of why practising vets feel disenfranchised from the RCVS. Why they often report they feel unheard and unsupported.