In other news RCVS re defines complaints

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Anthony Todd — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:01:09 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The jury is still very much out on this one but IMO it is worth some effort to try and find out if ADR might be a better way to deal with at least some of the 98% of cases passing through the professional conduct system at present.[/quote]

Maybe the problem needs a new name? ADR, and/or Mediation, is well recognised, has a legal entity, or it does in the County Court system, even if it is not a Court and the results have no "legal" enforcement step AFAIK. The "complainant" can say "not happy" continuing to the County Court where the judge gets very very cross if you haven't gone to mediation first.

ADR is applied where money is the usual remedy either way, which isn't the idea here I assume?

Trouble is if the RC is involved it will be branded as a all-stick-together, vets don't do anything wrong, sort of set-up so it's got to be obviously separate.

Actually the nearest thing might be the London Parking Adjudication appeals org. [or whatever the title is] where the "complainant" goes and sits before a solicitor, separate from the Local Authority who hears the evidence and gives a ruling, [usually against the motorist!]

You'd need a few "trial cases" to see how the mechanics worked.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Sarah Keir — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:28:48 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]

Deep Sigh. I spoke to the RVC 4th years on the 9th of May, although it's possible that this particular student was 3rd year then. We are discussing internally visiting students earlier in their course as well, although there is obviously a resource implication as it has to be done for every school. I know for a fact that information about the RCVS and the Code is passed on in some depth as part of their professional studies course. It is depressing that JGW's survey of n=1 is so uninspiring. We also talk to every cohort as part of the VDS reunion about a year after they qualify.

I have travelled around the country extensively as part of the VetFutures project, regional meetings and for many other reasons I could list if I went back through my diary. The fact that Council was to be held in Cardiff was announced in RCVS News and in the Veterinary Record, and as always it is an open meeting for anyone that applies to attend.

I try to be approachable, and the vast majority of members I have met during my year have been refreshingly positive about the RCVS and the wide range of exciting projects that we are driving forwards. I know that there are some that believe we should be a pure regulator and nothing more, and they are entitled to their opinion, but that did not come out of the major consultation that preceeded our new Royal Charter and I do not believe would be welcomed by the majority of the profession.

Come along to RCVS Day on the 15th July at the RIBA in London and meet us face to face. There is such a thing as a free lunch, and Adam Little, the speaker I have invited from across the pond to talk to us about the effect that technology may have on the shape of veterinary practice promises to be fascinating. Tickets are available via the RCVS website.

[/quote]

I read the RCVS News as soon as I received it on the 22nd June. I found an interesting article on page 22 on the EBVM conference and that bursaries were available. I went to the website directly - the closing date for bursaries was the 8th June. http://www.veterinaryevidencetoday.org/bursary-applications-closed/

Very disappointing and from my experience, totally typical of RCVS communication with membership.

A (little) sad vet. xxx

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Jo Dyer — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:38:22 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]they see a direct approach to the RCVS as an instant way to damage the practice. [/quote]

Which is exactly why they should have to exhaust the internal procedure first.

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]True does that include the ones that are bipolar ,suffer with PND, or are just expecting a cuddle of Noel with some TV cameras and soft background music?. Then get upset when someone normal deals with them instead?.[/quote]

Rachel Jennings (barrister on Council) made a really good point at the June meeting when she said that both sides should have been given realistic expectations before they go into the process. Realistic expectations are, after all, the key to satisfaction in most areas of life

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

grumpyoldman — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:09:30 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]complainants/concernants would have to exhaust the practice's own complaints procedures first before being allowed to go to ADR,[/quote]

That is a very good idea on the face of it although some people know they are not going to get anywhere with that particularly if there is no management structure and the vets are not employees, they see a direct approach to the RCVS as an instant way to damage the practice.

[quote user="Jo Dyer"] However, as has been said, many are so emotional that only a public flogging will do,[/quote]

True does that include the ones that are bipolar ,suffer with PND, or are just expecting a cuddle of Noel with some TV cameras and soft background music?. Then get upset when someone normal deals with them instead?.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Bob Russell — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:40:57 GMT

One of our staff has been caught up in a complaint with Vodafone. They did not cancel a contract (twice) and refuse to do anything about it. As the direct debit was cancelled, they have charged penalties as well. They will not listen to her at all so I will be formulating a letter.

For ADR the complainant has to get a deadlock letter. That is our next step.

How are these people going to train to pick out the serious misconduct cases? Pay vets to give an opinion or just guess?

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Jo Dyer — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:37:32 GMT

As I understand it, the current proposed ADR trial via Nockold's solicitors is going to be a bit different to the Ombudsman Services one. I was assured by the CEO at the June Council meeting that complainants/concernants would have to exhaust the practice's own complaints procedures first before being allowed to go to ADR, the same as everyone has to do for every other industry..... BT makes you wait 6 weeks and I think that is standard. You have to be seriously p*ssed off to persist for that long with a useless company like BT and then start all over again with ADR.

Then, concerns will go direct to ADR rather than going to RCVS first. They will be trained in picking the small number of cases that might potentially constitute SPMC, which will be referred to profcon/PIC, and the rest will be dealt with by Nockold's, with the help of veterinary advisers as necessary.

I think this sounds like a good system, with several advantages;

Reducing Profcon's workload so that once they have the current backlog under control, it should be much easier (and cheaper) to keep under control;
Reducing the number of 'vex and frizz' complaints by effectively making people have a cooling off period before they can contact ADR;
Allowing clients to have their say and a judgment from an independent body, who may advise the client to pay their bill or the practice to give an explanation or whatever, but it's not an 'all or nothing' situation as it was previously, so hopefully that should be better from the public's point of view. However, as has been said, many are so emotional that only a public flogging will do, so I'm not sure we are ever going to get above 16% public satisfaction; time will tell.

It is possible that I have completely misunderstood, I am still new to all this after all, but I'm sure someone will soon be along to correct me if so!

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:00:51 GMT

Can't afford the time.

Wynne

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:49:26 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]it's blindingly obvious to me that the most vocal on here should stand for Council.[/quote]

Couldn't agree more!

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:48:05 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Thanks to him for continuing to interact on a very important subject![/quote]

Dear Bob,

And thanks to you to. It is indeed an important subject - whilst nothing (other than trials) has been decided what is clear already is that a scheme administered by the RCVS would not appear sufficiently independent to the public nor sufficiently 'arms length' for the profession. Thus it does appear to be moving in the direction of an independently operated service funded by the RCVS, overseen by some kind of board (probably BVA /VDS/ Lay as with the current project group). The alternate would be a new body set up jointly by the VDS and the RCVS but ultimately funded by the College. Initial costings suggest that this would be more expensive than using an existing provider such as the OS or Nockolds and the perception might be of it being a 'vets club'. Failing that it might end up with each practice sorting out something for themselves & funding it themselves.

It is not proposed that the RCVS itself would be an ADR provider (that was an option but no one in Council other than Prof May was supportive of it). What is being proposed is a trial of using an independent body to provide ADR (the initial trial was via the ombudsman service - well known and trusted as being the ultimate in independence) to see if an ADR can work for the veterinary profession and its clients. I do think members are getting the wrong end of the stick here - this is not the RCVS saying we want to deal with all these complaints - rather its the RCVS saying we MIGHT fund an independent service which vets and clients can use to help resolve disputes in a less confrontational way.

The jury is still very much out on this one but IMO it is worth some effort to try and find out if ADR might be a better way to deal with at least some of the 98% of cases passing through the professional conduct system at present.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Anthony Todd — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:33:20 GMT

Jeepers, it's blindingly obvious to me that the most vocal on here should stand for Council.

Why we don't vote , [but their mates do], for silent anonymous candidates, supported by the great and the good, most whom have never been at the coal face, becomes more obvious each year.

No good being loud on a forum, gotta get elected to do any good.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

J G Wray — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:01:51 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Deep Sigh. I spoke to the RVC 4th years on the 9th of May, although it's possible that this particular student was 3rd year then.[/quote]

Nope, fourth year. Galling, but perhaps you were talking to them about the wrong thing i.e. RCVS when these students' mindset and I'll see if I can find the VR reference, was on other things. It's the paper AR refers to in his piece about veterinary identity. Give me a mo'

Just thought though, why not approach these lectures with an understandng of what makes the audience tick and where RCVS fits in rather than just RCVS?

[quote user="Bradley Viner"] The fact that Council was to be held in Cardiff was announced in RCVS News and in the Veterinary Record, and as always it is an open meeting for anyone that applies to attend. [/quote]

How many did, apart from the Press? Any ideas about how to appeal to RFPs who have to take time off from work to come? Why not ask RFPs?

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]I try to be approachable, and the vast majority of members I have met during my year have been refreshingly positive about the RCVS and the wide range of exciting projects that we are driving forwards.[/quote]

Those who are converts will find what you have to say is attractive. I know you know about Rogers Diffusion of Ideas model, and you understand that the problem with mixing with "Innovators" and "Early Adopters", is the rest. If you don't seek to "bridge the chasm" then you are stuck.

This is interesting I think

ttp://timkastelle.org/blog/2012/04/three-hidden-factors-that-make-innovation-diffusion-hard/

I am not a "laggard", by the way.

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]Come along to RCVS Day on the 15th July at the RIBA in London and meet us face to face.[/quote]

Sorry, moving my parents into their new bungalow. Why's it being held at the RIBA?

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:03:39 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I have been very clear throughout that this is my opinion. I represent no one. I have frequently said that my opinion is worth the square root of something or other.[/quote]

Ah - well I think I see the problem. You post frequently, and think of your posts collectively. I moderate forum threads individually, because a) I have the memory of a single cell organism, and b) because that's how less frequent visitors will read them.

You have to remember that your posts are not just going to be read by those of us who are acquainted with your previous body, but those who have never read anything else you've written.

So there is a need to qualify things better in each and every thread.

[quote user="J G Wray"]In being a vet I have not heard many ringing endorsements of RCVS as approachable, friendly, helpful (profcon), or welcoming, therefore I consider them remote.[/quote]

Sample size=1

[quote user="J G Wray"]They are vexatious when trying, for instance, to communicate with them and supercilious when you succeed. These are not the attributes of a Royal College, they are the attributes of a distant organisation. If the RCVS wishes to style itself as a First rate Regulator, then , in my opinion, it should drop the pretence of being a Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and rename and behave as VERRA, the Veterinary Education, Registration and Regulation Authority. That would lend itself to their current characteristics, in my opinion.[/quote]

Laughed out loud. Whilst I don't think you need to use 'in my opinion' in every sentence, that paragraph does demonstrate what a difference those three words make.

[quote user="J G Wray"]Now, you are setting about me here on this forum[/quote]

I wouldn't use those words. I'm not trying to 'get at you' for the hell of it. I'm trying to raise the standard of discussion to make it more balanced, more inclusive and more constructive.

To be clear, I am also not arguing whether the RCVS is or is not remote, or that you are not entitled to that opinion. It may be, and you are (of course you are).

What I am arguing is that repeated, unqualified accusations and criticisms against an easy target with a limited ability to respond does not achieve anything except alienate the target and give the forum a bad name.

I have a suggestion. How about an independent VetSurgeon survey of members about some of the issues you raise. That way, we could have the basis for a much more constructive debate in the forum, and any suggested solutions would carry more weight.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Bradley Viner — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:02:30 GMT

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

J G Wray — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:06:32 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But we need to go back a step. You still haven't answered the first question. Where is your evidence that the RCVS is perceived as remote by a significant percentage of the profession and not just a vociferous minority, and that being remote (if it is) in some way detracts from the College's role.[/quote]

I have been very clear throughout that this is my opinion. I represent no one. I have frequently said that my opinion is worth the square root of something or other.

In being a vet I have not heard many ringing endorsements of RCVS as approachable, friendly, helpful (profcon), or welcoming, therefore I consider them remote.

[Aside, I have a 4th Year at RVC sitting next to me and I have just asked them who the RCVS is:

".. It's difficult to describe who they are, they oversee what the veterinary profession does.."

Q. "Where is the RCVS?" A. "Not too sure, I've no idea, I'm assuming London"

(I've just told them)

Q. "Have you ever met anyone from the RCVS?" A "I can't remember, someone came to give us a lecture once I think."

This Future Vets words 1300 20/06/2016]

They are vexatious when trying, for instance, to communicate with them and supercilious when you succeed. These are not the attributes of a Royal College, they are the attributes of a distant organisation. If the RCVS wishes to style itself as a First rate Regulator, then , in my opinion, it should drop the pretence of being a Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and rename and behave as VERRA, the Veterinary Education, Registration and Regulation Authority. That would lend itself to their current characteristics, in my opinion.

Now, you are setting about me here on this forum, and I don't mind. I'm answering your questions as I see themSCVR eth gnithemos ton si sihT .

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Bob Russell — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:13:04 GMT

I have binned the latest Vet Times but my impression was that the £250K related to ADR. either it was badly worded or badly read!

Richard Stephenson has clarified this in an earlier post. Thanks to him for continuing to interact on a very important subject!

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Kate Richardson — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:53:56 GMT

I also think that the questions posed by people such as Mr Wray, David Mills, Alistair Welch et al are probing and promote discussions that I enjoy reading, but I agree they need to be constructive and polite - the more participation from the RCVS council the better- more people will read it if there is involvement from both sides, and more people will engage and the better the chance that we the practitioners and the RCVS can work together to promote and protect both the interests of the the public and ourselves.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:39:35 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm not sure, we'd have to have a trial.........[/quote]

But we need to go back a step. You still haven't answered the first question. Where is your evidence that the RCVS is perceived as remote by a significant percentage of the profession and not just a vociferous minority, and that being remote (if it is) in some way detracts from the College's role.

Without that, what would be the point in a trial? Quite an expensive one, too (moving the College to Nottingham).

Asides which, the RCVS is already less than 4 miles from the Royal Veterinary College.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:03:18 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]my job isn't to understand or have an opinion about these things.[/quote]

...... but you seem happy to imply that Richard Stephenson is a "good guy" while JGW is a bit dodgy. [/quote]

Malcolm Ness ... If that is the impression I've given you, I haven't expressed myself well enough. I don't know whether Richard is a 'good guy'. For all I know, he's got a string of convictions dating back decades. Nor do I know if JGW is 'dodgy'.

I'm concerned with only one thing, and that is the quality of people's posts.

In that regard, I ask myself one question: Is this person helping make this forum as appealing and inclusive to others in the profession as it can be? Or are they marginalising us; giving the forum a bad name?

Posts that give the forum a good name are:

Polite
Helpful
Kind
Accurate
Recognisant of the author's limitations (i.e. include qualifiers like 'I think' or 'in my opinion', rather than presenting opinion as a statement of fact)
Clearly expressed

That's not to say every post should be polite, kind, helpful, accurate, self-deprecating and clear.

But posts which are:

critical without qualification or balance
overly analytical of others (ie to the point that they seem critical)
repetitive
sarcastic/hurtful

make me groan.

And that's the point, really. I can only be concerned only with:

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]While I am often unsettled by JGW's presentation[/quote]

and not:

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]I believe that he is writing with integrity.[/quote]

(which is for you to make your mind up about, as you have).

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]In contrast, some in RCVS have become over-inflated with their self-importance.[/quote]

Opinion presented as fact without qualification! And I think without saying who you mean, and why, it's a corrosive remark.

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]It will be a great shame if vet surgeon becomes the College's "Patsy"[/quote]

Certainly not. What on earth would be my motive for making it that way? I am fiercely proud of and protective of the independence of this site.

Don't mistake my striving for balance, accuracy and inclusiveness as being anyone's patsy!

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:23:49 GMT

I can't believe it's 8 years since Richard was elected. Well done, by the way.

The role of elected RCVS members was always meant to be to represent the rank and file membership, ie practitioners.

Sadly very few bother to vote, and then may vote for academics.

Wynne

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

J G Wray — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:34:29 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

As I said earlier, not my place to have an opinion regarding the RCVS per se. But communication is an area I have a bit of experience in.

1. Moving to a central part of the country
In terms of addressing 'remoteness', I think moving is a complete red herring. I mean, how often does the average MRCVs have cause to visit the College?

[/quote]

I'm not sure, we'd have to have a trial.........My suggestion is to put the RCVS very close to the Nottingham school. This would be a statement of intent to associate the RCVS with

a) An Educational role. The RCVS has a jewel in what used to be known as its Library, is trying to lead on Evidence Based Medicine and if manifestly close to a seat of higher education would facilitate both.

b) The accessibility to Future Vets. This would change attitudes both at the RCVS and amongst Vets in the Future.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]2. A good idea for any organisation to be able to listen effectively. Though again, you haven't substantiated the accusation.[/quote]

Where is the single point of contact, backed by guaranteed communication protocol at RCVS? Where is the guarantee that any COuncillor will listen and take on your point of view?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]3. Again, a good idea for any organisation to 'reach out' (hate that phrase, but says what I mean) to its audience. But again, haven't substantiated the accusation.[/quote]

Hands up those who knew the RCVS were going to Cardiff and how to get tickets?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]4. Not quite sure what your practitioner champions job description is. What exactly are they championing, to whom, when, and with what purpose? [/quote]

RCVS have blogs by people who have undertaken CPD. They tend to fizzle out once they've said their piece. It is an example of RCVS showing how their version of stuff can be undertaken as if that's the problem with how they deal with CPD concerns. You may have seen Professor May's conclusion that vets should be compelled to do CPD in a certain way.

If RCVS had champions for practitioners who would listen to practioners views on where they see CPD being of most value, and how it is best undertaken to deliver maximum value for the public then I believe progress would be made.

CPD is just one example of the virtue of practitioner champions at RCVS

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

J G Wray — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:18:07 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]You're being naughty again, Dr. Wray (J G Wray). You didn't say the C, the V or the S in this thread.[/quote]

[sigh] Have you started a tangent? I've been saying this stuff and presenting alterative proposals for years guv'. The [R]emoteness sits in the context of the others.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Richard Stephenson — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:22:13 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]I have to say that Richard's input here has been fabulous on this thread, I have learnt a lot, and understand more, so communicating this way is effective IMO in reducing the 'remoteness'. [/quote]

Dear Kate,

That is very kind. I will certainly miss RCVS Council and I have always tried whilst being a member to explain the decisions the Council has made and why, even those decisions with which I have sometimes disagreed. I think I was on Council for about two years before I found myself on the majority side in any contested vote, and there have been times recently when I have been in a minority of one! That does not remove the duty of Council members to explain what is being done.

I know that in past times when Council members have engaged in discussion forums they have often been subject to criticism bordering on being abusive (and sometimes personal) which certainly has put them off participating. I have no idea whether the newly elected members will continue to post on vetsurgeon.org, but I do think there are relatively few major professions where the President / Chairman of the regulator would bother to do so as Bradley Viner has recently done. In my eight years on Council whilst there have been many disagreements and some very dark times indeed, I always felt that every member was trying to do what they thought best for the profession.

So I wish the new members the best of luck and hope that they do engage with the membership - I shall now return quietly to my practice!

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Malcolm Ness — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:39:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]my job isn't to understand or have an opinion about these things.[/quote]

...... but you seem happy to imply that Richard Stephenson is a "good guy" while JGW is a bit dodgy. While I am often unsettled by JGW's presentation I believe that he is writing with integrity. In contrast, some in RCVS have become over-inflated with their self-importance. Regrettably their posturing eclipses the excellent efforts of the majority.

It will be a great shame if vet surgeon becomes the College's "Patsy"

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Kate Richardson — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 19:34:58 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Where's the evidence that the RCVS is remote?[/quote] I have to say that Richard's input here has been fabulous on this thread, I have learnt a lot, and understand more, so communicating this way is effective IMO in reducing the 'remoteness'.

RE: In other news RCVS re defines complaints

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:52:01 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Old stuff, but to be accurate I said [R]emote, [C]ovetous, [V]exatious, [S]upercilious[/quote]

You're being naughty again, Dr. Wray (J G Wray). You didn't say the C, the V or the S in this thread.

The constructive suggestions for the 'R' are a huge improvement already. But they do highlight a weakness.

You haven't substantiated 'remote'. What does remote mean in this context? Geographically? Intellectually/emotionally?

Second, what is the evidence base? For the College to be guilty of being 'remote', you'll accept that a significant percentage of the profession would need to feel that the College is 'remote'. The fact that 'angry from Basingstoke' considers the College 'remote' is not reason for it to sell Belgravia House and move to the Midlands.

Thirdly, even if the consensus was that the College is 'remote', there's still a question of whether a) that's necessarily a bad thing in the grand scheme of things (I mean, should the regulator be coming to fluff your pillow before you go to bed at night?), and b), if it is, what the cost/benefit is for any initiative designed to address the issue.

As I said earlier, not my place to have an opinion regarding the RCVS per se. But communication is an area I have a bit of experience in.

1. Moving to a central part of the country
In terms of addressing 'remoteness', I think moving is a complete red herring. I mean, how often does the average MRCVs have cause to visit the College? Would an MRCVS from Cornwall, or Aberdeen, or indeed London feel the RCVS is less remote if it moved to the Midlands? And I'm not sure I understand how its transport policy is going to change perceptions of 'remoteness' (except I guess, if council members were currently being chauffeured around in a fleet of Rolls Royce Phantoms, and switched to bicycles in order to seem more 'with it').

There may be lots of reasons for moving from London, and equally a great many for staying. But I don't think addressing 'remoteness' is one of them, particularly in this digital age.

2. A good idea for any organisation to be able to listen effectively. Though again, you haven't substantiated the accusation.

3. Again, a good idea for any organisation to 'reach out' (hate that phrase, but says what I mean) to its audience. But again, haven't substantiated the accusation.

4. Not quite sure what your practitioner champions job description is. What exactly are they championing, to whom, when, and with what purpose?

Anyway, forget all that. Where's the evidence that the RCVS is remote?