RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

John Davies — Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:37:10 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

Sorry to disect Chris, but this caught my eye in terms of trust: "The perception that the College distrusts the profession may well be driven by the same factors that create the fear of the RCVS that I am so keen to end. I can assure you that at no time in the business that I am involved in at Belgravia House is there disrespect or distrust shown."

I've previously posted that I've had discussion, both privately and in committee with council members whose view on a subject has been altered by their time on PIC/DC. Thankfully that won't be the case any more, but it is a reasonable explanation of part of the fear culture. Others include the lack of practitioners (on whom the bulk of the RCVS falls) and the third needs to be retained. We should be in slight fear of the RCVS. While all of us like to think that vets always do the right thing as a professional, we are humans and humans get it wrong. Having the fear of losing a vocational career is no bad thing if you wonder about backdating a certificate to "help a client".

[/quote]

You are right, on the one hand we shouldn't be in fear of the RCVS or any other authorities on account of making innocent mistakes despite our best efforts and intentions. On the other, we should be in fear of them if we deliberately do things we know to be wrong, and to a lesser extent if we do such things negligently (as the distinction between murder and manslaughter recognises).

For me fear in the profession relates primarily to the fear of not being adequately protected by authorities such as the RCVS from workplace victimisation in the form of false accusations. This is one of the main reasons I'm standing for Council (another is the suppression of freedom of speech). An example of workplace victimisation (in regard to which the particular role of the employer needs further clarification) is given in my candidate statement:

I suddenly became the object of numerous bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations .....I raised concerns with the RCVS that two RVNs had made unfounded allegations against me. When I raised further detailed concerns about the adequacy of both RCVS investigations, they advised that my only recourse was a judicial review...the (case relating to one nurse, which is described in this candidate statement) was ruled out of time so never considered

In fact, it was already 3 months out of time when the RCVS belatedly informed me that a judicial review was the appropriate procedure.

Those wondering about the fact that this quote cannot be found in my candidate statement should refer to my recent post about the fact that the College have censored 85% of my candidate statement. The uncensored version can be found in this post. (This censorship is an example of my concern about freedom of speech).

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:00:57 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I'm very much aware this thread was set up so that Chris T could answer questions NOT me - I have after all given up veterinary politics [/quote]

Yes, perhaps I should have 'tangented' this thread. I'll do that now.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Bob Russell — Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:11:45 GMT

If there are 20000 practising UK vets and about 1000 complaints a year then there would appear to be quite a high risk that a vet is going to be complained about. This assumes that the same names do not keep reappearing time after time of course!

Again making statistics simplistic on paper each vet may be complained about once or twice in a career!

I would prefer any allegations to remain confidential for as long as possible (unless it is cascade related - those I would shout from the rooftops!).

I can see how people might be fearful with these numbers but sensible decisions (even if ultimately wrong) made sensibly should leave nobody fearful if the system is demonstrably fair and speedy!

Chikosi was a long time ago but the mishandling of the case by the DC and the stupidity of the defendant did long term damage to the profession in my opinion. I genuinely do not remember anyone expressing fear of the RCVS/DC before that case. I have noticed a very clear attempt to make sure that similarly daft comments do not reach the final decision notifications as did then.

I was a little concerned by the statement in the recent Dr Backhouse case:

“The Committee finds that this is an exceptional case in which it can take an exceptional course. In the course of this decision it has sought to emphasise what should already be clear: that it is completely unacceptable for a veterinary surgeon to hit or frighten or attempt to cow his or her patients into obedience; and that it is not acceptable for a veterinary surgeon to lose his or her temper with a patient in any circumstances."

It is extremely undesirable to strike a patient but not completely unacceptable. It is also extremely undesirable to lose ones temper but not automatically unacceptable.

I believe these comments were probably correct in the context of this particular case but in effect the DC is making it 'illegal' to strike a dog and 'illegal' to lose your temper.

I have distracted a patient with a firm tap on one or two occasions and lost my temper more than a few times over the years. At no time would I consider I have affected the patients welfare but losing my temper always ends up with me looking the fool!

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Richard Stephenson — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:49:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I can equally see how others might feel quite differently, though, so my next question is:

Veterinary surgeons have the right to confidentiality. Do they have the right to the opposite: publicity?

In other words, do they have the right, upon there being a complaint to the RCVS, to demand the College publishes the fact that there has been a complaint against them, what the complaint was, by whom, and when?

[/quote]

Dear Arlo,

I'm very much aware this thread was set up so that Chris T could answer questions NOT me - I have after all given up veterinary politics :)

But since you've asked

a) You must remember that the range of concerns made against veterinary surgeons is enormous. my case files included allegations of sexual misconduct with animals, convictions for murder, mass insurance fraud, bullying in the workplace, physical assault, theft of drugs, alcoholism, drug addiction, as well as more mundane topics such as refusal to attend OOHs, bleeding to death post castration, anaesthetic death (of a mouse), over charging and 'fee gouging'. I think you can see that it would be very inappropriate to be disclosing all these allegations to the public at large. Some of the allegations made fall firmly into the category of negligence (which is not unless gross or reckless an RCVS matter) or are simply service matters or genuine error.

b) the complainant has rights too! Things like the data protection act means that personal information cannot simply be announced to the wider world.

c) Within the normal rules of client confidentiality Respondent Vets can (and from comments made frequently on this forum DO) give any publicity they so want to, regarding complaints against them. They can write to forums, put it on FB or their own web page - but who in their right mind would want 'Mr X has made an allegation that I am an incompetence dishonest vet' on the internet???I suspect that the VDS would strongly advise against public viewing of dirty washing! I saw a number of PIC cases where Vets had indeed engaged in social media spats with complainants and on not one occasion did the vet or their practice come out of it looking professional OR having won the argument.

d) Unfortunately there is a very strong human tendency to believe that there is no smoke without fire. A published list of vets who are complained against would in no time result in a league table - 'y the most complained about vet in Derbyshire' - and what I have observed is that when it becomes known after a DC hearing that a vet has been disciplined there can be a rush of 'me too' complaints. I suspect that if the PIC published named data then some members of the profession would be facing increased numbers of complaints for the same reason.

e) There are only around 1,000 (ball park) concerns registered per year against vets. All but 1 - 2 % end up being closed. Thus 98% have not committed SPMC. What purpose would it serve for around 990 vets to be named as having complaints made against them? In fact as there are 16,000 (ball park) vets practising in the UK the chances of having to respond to an RCVS concern is fairly slim.

f) Following on from above I have to say that complaints are NOT evenly distributed around the profession. There are a small number of members and practices that attract disproportionality high numbers of complaints and other practices (some substantial ones) that NEVER get RCVS complaints. Some members names appeared on virtually EVERY PIC agenda of meetings that I attended and sometimes more than once on the same agenda. Perhaps publishing their names and details might have the benefit of offering some useful information to the public - BUT given that although frequently complained about they never cross the threshold into SPMC territory (at the end of the day) would a system that publically shamed them without adverse findings by an independent tribunal (such as the DC) really be fair???

g) I do have to comment that if vets are finding they are having to fend off RCVS concerns on a regular basis - given the statistics above - they should perhaps reflect on the question 'why me?, why do other practices never get RCVS complaints?' The experience of the PIC is that some vets have very poor communication skills, and rub clients up the wrong way regularly and needlessly. I recall one vet who seemed to believe that his clients were 'the enemy'. The PIC regularly used to ask members to attend the VDS communications course (I have to say with mixed results). I had a striking conversation with a past PIC member who recently judged the 'Vet of the Year' competition. His insight was that the stories he read in the nominations for Vet of the Year were amazingly similar tales to those he read as a PIC member - the difference was that good communication had turned disasters into triumphs.

So in short I think there are a number of serious problems with your suggestion - sorry!!!

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Incidentally, these two things seem rather contradictory to me:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]In the Davies case the Judge found that the case examiners HAD NOT followed these rules and made a determination that Mr Davies allegations against two nurses were not valid when in fact they should have given Mr Davies version of events equal weight.[/quote]

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"] I never encountered a case in which all the RCVS staff involved had not tried their hardest to be scrupulously even handed and fair.[/quote]

[/quote]

NO! that is not contradictory. In all walks of life people try very hard to be scrupulously even handed. However no one is perfect and even when people try very hard they remain human and prone to error. In the Davies case (and incidentally Mr Davies was a complainant who chose to give full publicity to the case including sending me a copy of substantial amounts of the paper work) the case examiners appear to have made an incorrect judgement as to the whether Mr Davies allegations against two nurses were 'arguable' - they decided not, the learned judge thought differently pointing out that the case examiners could only reach such a decision by preferring the nurses evidence over that of Mr Davies. The 'arguable' threshold is very low and as previously pointed out is crossed on the basis of accepting the complainants evidence unless fanciful or incredible. The effect of the Judge's decision was for the case to move to the next test 'potential for success / public interest' and I would guess will fail at that stage - but we shall have to wait and see if it ever comes to a VNDC hearing.

Arlo - these are somewhat complex legal concepts and although I have received extensive training in regulatory law whilst serving on the DC or PIC I'm most certainly not a lawyer however I think what I am saying is correct. I hope that informs the discussion - but would suggest any questions are directed to the actual CANDIDATE which (thank heavens) isn't me :) :)

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Nicola Cole — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:57:42 GMT

[quote user="Silvia Maldonado"]

I've got a whatsapp colleagues group that we use to give to each other when discussing options or approaching issues. The most shared advice is "do X to cover your back", "act to cover your back". Ethically, I would like to see more of "act as if the animal were your own", "treat the pet the way you would treat your best friend's", "do what you feel it is correct".

[/quote]

To be honest I think only you and your colleagues can change the theme of the advice you give. Personally I look at things more as 'what would I do if this was my own pet'. That's not to say that I don't discuss the options, I do, (and note in the clinical notes that I've discussed the options!)-but we have to act in the best interest of the pet and I think as long as you can show things have been discussed and a logical path taken then 'covering your back' shouldn't really be necessary.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Silvia Maldonado — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:43:25 GMT

Conflicts of interest as a private or corporation business, the pharmacology industry, etc... We do act out of fear more than we morally wished. Not accusing anyone, for I myself don't have an answer, or a solution, to that problem. Any thoughts?

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Bob Russell — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:14:57 GMT

How much of the problem (ie stress, distrust, fear) is because of the delays involved?

To the best of my knowledge I have never been involved in a complaint but if I were the key thing would be a speedy resolution.

If the RCVS was not suitable for involvement (such as the sale of a practice group) then this could and should have been relayed to the practice and client without delay. Everything sorted in a fortnight perhaps.

Stress builds with time, resentment builds with time as does fear!

It should be up to the 'defendant' to decide if a case should be confidential or not. They are the innocent party until 'convicted'.

The one thing I have to say is that the cases that end up publicised following DC 'trials' do seem to be fair and balanced IMO.

I doubt the fear factor relates to the eventual fairness of the decisions but more the limbo people are placed in.

I am more than concerned to hear that senior staff have left following arguments with the CEO. He clearly has a job to do at the RCVS but also a longer term agenda that is unlikely to involve the RCVS.

I assume council discussions of this matter are in the reports we are not able to see on the website.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:34:00 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Arlo I hope that helps!!![/quote]

Enormously, yes, thank you!

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The right of those being investigated to confidentiality means that the RCVS is always on the ‘back foot’ when it comes to defending its actions.[/quote]

Yes, and not just putting the RCVS on the back foot, but also fostering the fear of the RCVS that so many people do seem to want to eliminate.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Unfortunately what never seems to be fully understood is that the PIC works according to LEGAL criteria which are not always ‘common sense’.[/quote]

I wonder whether this too is becoming more and more of a problem. I wonder (stress wonder) if, as society has become (or is perceived to have become) increasingly litigious, so the RCVS and its lawyers have become increasingly legally precise / defensive (something which people outside the legal system, self-included, often struggle to understand).

Anyway, if you broadly agree that lack of transparency fosters fear and mistrust, and there is a genuine (and broadly held) desire to tackle fear and mistrust, SURELY it's time to review confidentiality?

Your post does raise a few further questions:

What do you think of the idea of a published list of complainants and respondents and dates of PIC-stage complaints in process? The list does not in any way infer guilt or innocence, just the fact of a complaint and the date it was made.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who has been on the receiving end of a vexatious and groundless complaint. Personally, I think I would WANT that to be on record; it would give me the confidence that others can see how long it is taking to deal with the complaint, and hasten the process.

I can equally see how others might feel quite differently, though, so my next question is:

Veterinary surgeons have the right to confidentiality. Do they have the right to the opposite: publicity?

My point here is that you might well argue that a published list of complainants / respondents is not appropriate, but equally, shouldn't those who have a complaint against them equally have the right to transparency if they want it?

Again, I think that if there had been a vexatious and groundless complaint against me, I'd want the protection that transparency would give me. And yes, it would give me protection. The protection that public scrutiny provides. Think Chikosi!

Perhaps there would be all sorts of unintended consequences. But my underlying point remains. Doesn't confidentiality belong to a bygone era? Isn't it time to have a think about how the system could be made more transparent in a way that doesn't unfairly impugn the good name of those who have been the victim of an unfair complaint? Surely that's a prerequisite for reducing fear and building trust that the system is fair?

Incidentally, these two things seem rather contradictory to me:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"] I never encountered a case in which all the RCVS staff involved had not tried their hardest to be scrupulously even handed and fair.[/quote]

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Malcolm Ness — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:47:03 GMT

A significant problem is that the College doesn't always play by the rules.

Implicit is that they should only react to complaints and not go looking for or creating complaints where none exist. Similarly, the rules (they were always pretty obvious to the sensible and fair-minded who didn't have an axe to grind, but the Davies Judicial review restated the obvious) imply that if there isn't an arguable case or, even if proven the matter would not amount to serious professional misconduct then the College should not involve itself. Additionally, the same Judicial review indicated that when a case has been fully and properly exposed to due process and closed then it should remain so and not be made available, for example, for anyone to pick over and see if they can implicate another vet.

Finally, it is essential that all involved on the College side fully understand the limits of their own power and responsibility in these matters. For example, it would be entirely inappropriate for members of the case examination group or PIC to assume guilt before DC has determined and it would be similarly inappropriate for members of these groups to discuss, speculate about or advise on a possible sanction before a case has been heard and determined.

Finally, it should be a given that those involved with such regulatory activities act honestly and with integrity.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"] it is bad for the vet who has done nothing disgraceful[/quote]

It is worse still when vets who have done nothing wrong (despite the arrogant certainty of various College insiders) becomes embroiled in a very unpleasant dispute with the College in a (thus far) vain attempt to clear their name. My experience indicates that DrsTufnell and Stephenson are a significant part of the problem and certainly no harbingers of a solution.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Richard Stephenson — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 23:42:30 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I'm probably just exposing a lack of knowledge. Someone enlighten me. Where's Richard Stephenson?![/quote]

Dear Arlo,

I think you have a very good grasp of the PIC / DC processes. I am not (thankfully) a candidate for RCVS Council and I think its really the job of those who are to present their case – as Chris T is doing very ably.

In very broad terms I certainly agree that 6 months is FAR too long for ‘routine’ (or even serious) complaints to be taking to process, when I was a case examiner I made it my own personal service standard never to have a file waiting longer than 48 hours and I more often dealt with everything the same day even if I had to work until the small hours of the morning.

So I completely agree with criticisms regarding delay in case determination and I vociferously made that point when a member of the PIC. Justice delayed is justice denied – it is bad for the vet who has done nothing disgraceful and it is equally bad IF a vet guilty of SPMC is left to continue practicing month after month.

Unfortunately what never seems to be fully understood is that the PIC works according to LEGAL criteria which are not always ‘common sense’.

1) The RCVS has a duty to investigate any complaint that could amount to SPMC.

2) The PIC cannot determine between conflicting factual evidence i.e. if a complaint says one thing and a respondent says something else the PIC cannot in law decide to believe one over the other (unless one person’s version is utterly fanciful or ‘incredible’). Only the DC can decide who’s evidence stands up to ‘test’ by cross examining witnesses under oath.

3) At the initial phase of an investigation the PIC merely considers ‘arguable case’ which basically means that if you accept the complainant’s version of events can SPMC be argued . This is a very low threshold but it has recently been confirmed as correct in Judicial review case John Davies V the RCVS 2015 the learned judge in finding against the RCVS expressed this concept very clearly:- A complaint could be said to disclose an 'arguable case' if (a) it involves allegations which, if proved, might be found to amount to serious professional misconduct and (b) there is an arguable case that the factual allegations are true. In the Davies case the Judge found that the case examiners HAD NOT followed these rules and made a determination that Mr Davies allegations against two nurses were not valid when in fact they should have given Mr Davies version of events equal weight. I suspect that some of the increased delay in resolving cases stems from this judicial review, as it severely limits the ability of case examiners to close any case with contested facts. I don’t think that is what John Davies intended but it is the inevitable consequence.

4) If SPMC can be argued then the next step is referral to the PIC who consider the tests of ‘potential for success’ and ‘public interest’. These are higher tests than ‘arguable case’. In reaching its decision the PIC will often call in expert opinion, send independent solicitors to interview witnesses and , of course in every case, ask the respondent vet for their explanation of what has occurred.

5) An investigation process must always begin with the assumption that the complainant is a genuine person who should be taken seriously – at the DC this is counterbalanced by the need to ‘prove so as to be sure’. Thus you could imagine the PIC / DC being opposite sides of a set of scales. The PIC must give credence to complainants – the DC must make the presumption that the respondent is innocent and has nothing to prove. This is the balance up on which all Justice is based – the assumption of innocence – set against a willingness to investigate.

6) Given the very low threshold for investigation I think it is important that such matters are kept as confidential as possible. Further publicity to investigations might fuel speculation and cause respondents even more harm.

7) I also think that when respondent vets are exonerated at a DC hearing they should have a choice as to whether the case is published on the RCVS website.

The right of those being investigated to confidentiality means that the RCVS is always on the ‘back foot’ when it comes to defending its actions. There is always two sides to every case. I had the opportunity to visit some ‘complainants’ in their homes to discuss why they weren’t happy with how the RCVS had dealt with their cases some years back. On each occasion these were tearful, emotionally draining visits. People who rightly or wrongly had been traumatised by experiences with their vets and really simply needed someone to care enough to listen and explain.

Overall it’s a totally thankless task being a PIC member – usually being accused of bias by both sides simultaneously – but I can honestly say that I never encountered a case in which all the RCVS staff involved had not tried their hardest to be scrupulously even handed and fair.

Arlo I hope that helps!!!

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Iain Richards — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:34:11 GMT

Regardless of the other side to Malcolm's complaint, it took 6 months to sort a matter that was not misconduct. The VDS give us a series of tales, altered enough to not know who they are (unless it's you - been there) but still giving us an insight into the process. The college could do the same, without breaking confidentiality, but don't. I have suggested it.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:19:20 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]At last, an actual example. I often think the discussion is lacking in facts. So when exactly did this happen? And is that precisely what the complaint was? (or was the client complaining about some consequence of the change of ownership?). It's hard to imagine someone contacting the College to complain of a change of ownership, and hard to imagine why, in those circumstances, the response wouldn't be a very rapid rejection of the complaint (delivered on the front of a steel-toed boot).[/quote][/quote]

I only realised after reading your reply how futile my original question was. I mean, because of the confidential nature of the process, we can only hear your side of the story. We can't know exactly what the wording of the complaint was. And because the College is bound by confidentiality, it presumably cannot explain publicly what reason there might have been for a delay.

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]have first hand experience of several other examples. [/quote]

Same again.

And isn't that the real problem here: a (necessary?) lack of transparency in the early stages of the complaints process?

As I understand it, complaints remain confidential until and if they reach DC. After DC, they're publicly documented. Everyone can then form their own opinion about the fairness of the judgement, based on the documented facts. Occasionally, there's a case that sparks outcry, but they are relatively few and far between.

Again, as I understand it, the reason anything prior to DC remains confidential is largely to protect the veterinary surgeon against whom a complaint has been made.

But does it actually have the reverse effect? It means there is no explanation / accountability for the length of time it takes to process a complaint. Would it not be better if the process was completely transparent from the word go? Or maybe just a little bit more transparent? In the first instance, perhaps just a public list of those who have had a complaint made against them, by whom, and when.

Yes, that would mean people who are innocent of anything having their name on a list of people who have been complained about, for a period of time. But by the same token, it would mean greater accountability in that if the list shows unacceptable levels of delay in reaching a conclusion (which as I understand it is one of the biggest causes of stress about the whole process), then questions can rightly be asked.

I'm probably just exposing a lack of knowledge. Someone enlighten me. Where's Richard Stephenson?!

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:31:57 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]At last, an actual example. I often think the discussion is lacking in facts. So when exactly did this happen? And is that precisely what the complaint was? (or was the client complaining about some consequence of the change of ownership?). It's hard to imagine someone contacting the College to complain of a change of ownership, and hard to imagine why, in those circumstances, the response wouldn't be a very rapid rejection of the complaint (delivered on the front of a steel-toed boot).[/quote]

"Lacking facts", in my experience, is exactly how some at the College prefer to make their decisions.

The incident involved a client who had "signed up" as a client of our practice having left their previous practice due to dissatisfaction. Due to a corporate purchase of both practices, plus some local re-organisation, the client found herself directed back to the place she had chosen to leave. The first we heard of her dissatisfaction was when a complaint she had made many months earlier was sent to my other half. As I said, there was nothing at all which even the most arch cynic might see as a matter for a professional regulator and no reason that any at this end could see for a delay of over half a year between client making a complaint and the College reacting.

You will recall that some time ago I was upbraided by a previous President for suggesting that the College's regulatory process was shambolic. I retain that opinion and have first hand experience of several other examples.

For balance, I think you should cross-reference Iain Richards concerns about the CEO cultivating interests outside his College role and wonder out loud why all in power are keeping quiet about the premature departure of several senior College folk. I don't know for sure (because the College keeps stumm about such things) but I understand that the Registrar left after a row with the CEO - he certainly left very abruptly and with a haste that is almost unprecedented. The loss of these folk seems inconsistent with the claim that the CEO is carrying the staff with him.

What annoys me more than anything is the fact that the College has some outstanding staff doing an excellent job that is very largely to the benefit of us, the members. They do this DESPITE the political nonsense and DESPITE some rather patchy leadership and DESPITE the fact that too many on Council are not fully engaged with their duty of oversight.

Dr Tufnell was right in stating during his inaugural speech that too many of our colleagues are fearful of the College as regulator but then didn't mention the failure that was implicit in his making such a statement five years into the tenure of a CEO whose aspiration was to lead a first rate regulator. The fear is not irrational, it is caused by the inadequacies and irregularities that currently appear too often in the regulatory process. On the other hand, perhaps the mark of a successful consumer champion is the ability to render the service provider scared witless.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:25:28 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Or even taken in context, by EBH or anybody at all.[/quote]

Yeah, that too.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:13:25 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]And on another note how do you feel about:

a) Discussing this, as reported, in a forum away from RCVS?[/quote]

Do you mean Nick Stace's comments in the forum of "Leading Change at Sheepdrove" from where he was quoted, or us discussing this here?!

Presuming the former, I don't think it was an especially good idea, not least because of the risk of one's words being taken out of context by JGW

[/quote]

Or even taken in context, by EBH or anybody at all.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:48:47 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Things have moved on since then. [/quote]

Have they? [/quote]

I didn't say by how much!

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]Much of what Dr Tufnell says, and which you seek to defend, is self-serving guff.[/quote]

And I am not sure I seek to defend. The problem is that the written word can be so polarising, and make things seem so much more black and white than they are in reality. I seek to provide balance.

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]we were recently asked to respond to a complaint made by a client upset that our practice had changed ownership!! - clearly not something that the regulator should have been involved with at all - for a multitude of very simple and obvious reasons. The matter was made much worse by the fact that the College sat on the matter doing nothing for much more than six months before contacting us.[/quote]

At last, an actual example. I often think the discussion is lacking in facts. So when exactly did this happen? And is that precisely what the complaint was? (or was the client complaining about some consequence of the change of ownership?). It's hard to imagine someone contacting the College to complain of a change of ownership, and hard to imagine why, in those circumstances, the response wouldn't be a very rapid rejection of the complaint (delivered on the front of a steel-toed boot).

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]I understand that you don't really like JGW[/quote]

I don't 'don't really like' JGW. We haven't met, so I can only like or dislike what he posts (a small but important distinction).

On that score, I have very mixed feelings. As moderator, I am exposed (in a way that I don't think anyone else is) to the very real hurt that has been caused by the way that he has framed some of his posts, and yes, I do dislike that. Very much. I think it is counter-productive. It alienates people.

On the other hand, when I can understand his point (which is by no means always), he can be very thought-provoking. And two of the best, most constructive ideas I've heard for the RCVS suggestion tin (were there such a thing), came from him.

That's exactly what I say to people when the subject of JGW's posts comes up offline (which is not infrequently).

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:03:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Things have moved on since then. [/quote]

Have they?

Much of what Dr Tufnell says, and which you seek to defend, is self-serving guff. The suggestion that the dysfunctional governance is a thing of the past is nonsense - we were recently asked to respond to a complaint made by a client upset that our practice had changed ownership!! - clearly not something that the regulator should have been involved with at all - for a multitude of very simple and obvious reasons. The matter was made much worse by the fact that the College sat on the matter doing nothing for much more than six months before contacting us. More significantly, the College as regulator has recently suffered critical Judicial reviews. Similarly, the implication that the distrust is historical is undermined utterly by Dr T's inauguration speech (2016) about removing fear from the regulatory process.

I understand that you don't really like JGW but he is relatively well informed on these matters and while I don't always agree with his views, he offers a foil to some of the overtly politically motivated BS.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:43:00 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Truth is he does none of these things. He is talking almost a year ago, in the past tense, about a situation he found 5 and a half years ago.[/quote]

Not so sure. It's less than a year and it's not clear about when in his term.[/quote]

When he made the speech doesn't matter. Less than a year ago or today, makes no odds. The point is he was talking in the past tense. And it is clear about when in his term: 'when he took up his post'. That was the 12th September 2012. Can't be much clearer than that!

[quote user="J G Wray"]And on another note how do you feel about:

a) Discussing this, as reported, in a forum away from RCVS?[/quote]

Do you mean Nick Stace's comments in the forum of "Leading Change at Sheepdrove" from where he was quoted, or us discussing this here?!

Presuming the former, I don't think it was an especially good idea, not least because of the risk of one's words being taken out of context by JGW

[quote user="J G Wray"]b) Those who were part of the ancien regime, pre 2016 or pre 2012, the dysfunctional regime, being best suited to take RCVS forward?[/quote]

I don't think it is possible to have an opinion about this without knowing exactly who, what their individual role was in the dysfunctional regime, and their openness to change.

I guess it's always tempting to make the populist call for a firing squad. But I don't think it is necessarily the wisest course of action.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

J G Wray — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:13:09 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Truth is he does none of these things. He is talking almost a year ago, in the past tense, about a situation he found 5 and a half years ago.[/quote]

Not so sure. It's less than a year and it's not clear about when in his term.

And on another note how do you feel about:

a) Discussing this, as reported, in a forum away from RCVS?

b) Those who were part of the ancien regime, pre 2016 or pre 2012, the dysfunctional regime, being best suited to take RCVS forward?

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:05:55 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Ok Mr President. If we believe what your CEO says then his characterisation of RCVS is accurate.

He is not complimentary about RCVS. He tells us how RCVS is (June 2016).[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]He tells us how RCVS is with those who have been there recently, some for a very long time.[/quote]

You're being a bit misleading here, J G Wray

Nick Stace took up his post as Chief Executive in September 2012. In his speech, he says he found (past tense) distrust, dysfunctional governance etc etc when he took up his post.

You have manipulated that to:

[quote user="J G Wray"]He is not complimentary about RCVS.[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]He tells us how RCVS is[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]He tells us how RCVS is with those who have been there recently, some for a very long time.[/quote]

Truth is he does none of these things. He is talking almost a year ago, in the past tense, about a situation he found 5 and a half years ago.

Things have moved on since then.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

J G Wray — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:07:18 GMT

[quote user="Chris Tufnell BSc(Hons) BVMS MRCVS"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Can we believe the CEO?

[/quote] (I think it might just be the two of us now, Jonathan! ;-). Yes, he's one of the most credible people I've ever met..... [/quote]

Ok Mr President. If we believe what your CEO says then his characterisation of RCVS is accurate.

He is not complimentary about RCVS. He tells us how RCVS is (June 2016). He tells us how RCVS is with those who have been there recently, some for a very long time.

Yet, there seems to be no self-awareness amongst those he identifies as being part of the dysfunctional state.

The RCVS is the organisation which holds RFPs responsible, accountable for their actions, yet those who are there have no semblance of accountability themselves.

Looking to the future and expecting trust and acceptance of leadership based on what RCVS might become overlooks what even the CEO says RCVS is.

This is not a credible proposition.

I'm baffled why those who are there now and have been there for some time cannot bring themselves to recognise their complicity and responsibility in how RCVS is perceived even when their CEO can see it.

On another note, how does everyone at RCVS feel about their CEO promulgating this message on a forum outside the veterinary world?

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Chris Tufnell BSc(Hons) BVMS MRCVS — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:11:12 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Can we believe the CEO?

[/quote] (I think it might just be the two of us now, Jonathan! ;-). Yes, he's one of the most credible people I've ever met. He's worked with everybody to bring about invigorating and worthwhile change. Amongst other bits of the huge honour of being RCVS President getting feedback firsthand is one of the most rewarding. I'm repeatedly told that the RCVS is more approachable, responsive and relevant than it was in the past and this is largely down to the change that Nick has driven. Within the staff and Council he has shown exceptional leadership in bringing people with him. What happens is quite rightly scrutinised by the Board and Council but there can be no doubt that operating in this open and positive atmosphere is hugely constructive. There are no hidden agendas.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:32:09 GMT

Can we believe the CEO? He's accepted he needs to work with people who've been there a long time.

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:25:52 GMT

[quote user="Chris Tufnell BSc(Hons) BVMS MRCVS"]In the alternative reality that many correspondents appear to believe exists what motivates the staff at Belgravia House and Council Members to behave in the manner that you suggest? My experience is that we're all working together towards the same ideals and the staff are hugely appreciative on the rare occasions when a member of the profession acknowledges this. I've yet to meet anyone who is motivated to make life unpleasant for vets and nurses or to do battle with them.[/quote]

"..Another Nick, Nick Stace of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), found distrust, dysfunctional governance and little clarity of direction, coupled with low public confidence in the regulator judged out of touch when he arrived as CEO. What he didn’t do was blame anyone for the situation, he accepted it aware that many people he needed to work with had been part of what went on before..."

22nd June 2016

http://thesamewavelength.com/change-where-to-start/

RE: RCVS Election Candidate Chris Tufnell

Iain Richards — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:40:31 GMT

[quote user="Chris Tufnell BSc(Hons) BVMS MRCVS"]

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

[/quote]

I don't agree, Iain.

1) The motive for behaving professionally isn't driven by fear of the RCVS. Vets and nurses do an outstanding job because they are personally motivated to provide principled care to animals and their owners.

2) Most importantly vets and nurses should have NOTHING to fear from being human and getting it wrong. Making mistakes is not a professional conduct issue but a natural consequence of doing stuff. Unless people hide their mistakes or fail to act on mistakes by putting them right and taking measures to ensure that the chance of them happening again is reduced this is NOT a conduct matter.

3) The example that you give is NOT a mistake it is mis-certification which is a conduct issue.

[/quote]

Ah, the perils of the electronic forum. My post referred to conduct, not clinical error, but I can see how it can be misinterpreted. The certificate issue is deliberate, because it is a common situation in practice. Especially for horses where vaccination guidelines are rule driven rather than evidence based medicine driven.

For professional conduct, some folk just know, others need to be told. The code is nothing without sanction and the combination of a desire to do the right thing and fear of the consequences if you transgress is what maintains it. Hence I say that fear is a good thing. A person receiving an RCVS letter for conduct should say, "Oo Eck!" not "Meh".

I gave a talk to Dublin students recently after VCI and RCVS had spoken. I adapted a phrase on the VCI registrar's wall, "Leaving forceps in is a mistake, not checking is negligence, lying about not checking is professional misconduct, posting it on Facebook is serious professional misconduct.