RCVS and Trust

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:23:26 GMT

"..

So instead of chasing new business or creating a new act shouldn’t the priority be ensuring that existing machinery is working or could work better?.."

This is odd given the increase in head count, which RFPs are paying for.

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:21:55 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I accept that a veterinary forum may not be the ideal place for RCVS councillors to discuss issues and interact but generally once voted in the silence from our representatives is deafening![/quote]

I believe there are two reasons for this:

1. They are inhibited by their conditioning at RCVS, including the way their Code of Conduct operates

2. They can leave their electorate behind and pursue their own agenda, their personal narrative.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Iain Richards — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:38 GMT

One of the concerns about RCVS, one that certainly erodes our trust in them and makes one more cynical about expansion, is the time it takes to resolve complaints. I wrote to professional conduct with a complaint about a web-site for a practice on 15^thMarch. On 20^th March I had an acknowledgement say an advice office would respond in 7 days. I’ve since heard nothing and, on ringing just now, find there is no record.

So instead of chasing new business or creating a new act shouldn’t the priority be ensuring that existing machinery is working or could work better?

RE: RCVS and Trust

Bob Russell — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:31:53 GMT

I accept that a veterinary forum may not be the ideal place for RCVS councillors to discuss issues and interact but generally once voted in the silence from our representatives is deafening!

RE: RCVS and Trust

Iain Richards — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:59:42 GMT

This issue has changed since the separation of Council from Disciplinary.

Has changed? Or will change? There's still quite a lot of councillors who've been on PIC/DC left. And as there is no limit to how long they stay on council this could be a long time coming.

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:30:37 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"] For most of the vets, there is the desire to either maintain the good name of the profession or enhance it. This is a fine aim and one I agree with[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with this ideal.[quote user="Iain Richards"]However, I'd say that many of those with good intent develop a bias as a result of having served on PIC/DC and their decisions are coloured by the "bad" they see, especially the crap vets that can't be held to account.[/quote]

This issue has changed since the separation of Council from Disciplinary. Now Council has the reports of the PIC and DC, distilled and changed into easy to understand numbers. This is a pigeonholing process which loses the personal, the nuance, the fine qualifying detail of the cases presented. This creates the lens through which Council views the world and it is not balanced, but it has numbers, which can be called evidence.........

[quote user="Iain Richards"]This, combined with a degree of institutionalisation, gets caught up with the RCVS body corporate, whose interests rest in keeping their jobs[/quote]

The institutionalising of Council members, elected and appointed begins immediately with the readjustment required for those who are there. There is a compulsory set of behaviours covered in general terms by the Council Code of Conduct and operated in a ruthless manner, for the purpose of maintaining the body corporate. You might, for instance, be elected with the largest vote ever, but no one has to accept you on a Committee.

There is another rather peculiar method of control of Councillor behaviours. There is a completely untested belief that Councillors might be personally financially liable for redress should any successful civil action be brought against the RCVS. This is a point so esoteric as to be beyond theoretical.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Bob Russell — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:19:09 GMT

I suppose we should be asking ourselves how many crap vets are out there?

I can only think of one and that is in an area covering a lot of Hampshire, Dorset and parts of Wiltshire. Not even sure if that vet is genuinely bad or just highly irritating.

That person is so many miles from here that I never have direct interactions at a clinical level!

I have nothing but respect for all my colleagues in every practice within a wide radius. My golden rule is 'would I take my pet to this vet?'. A few would be ruled out because I disagree with the way some of the more corporate practices work.

I would avoid the one afternoon a week 'practice' like the plague unless I was just after a cheap booster!

RE: RCVS and Trust

Iain Richards — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:40:22 GMT

In "my time" in SPVS, BVA etc I've talked many vets who've been and are on RCVS council, and having been on several committees/working parties I concur with Arlo's view. For most of the vets, there is the desire to either maintain the good name of the profession or enhance it. This is a fine aim and one I agree with. However, I'd say that many of those with good intent develop a bias as a result of having served on PIC/DC and their decisions are coloured by the "bad" they see, especially the crap vets that can't be held to account. This, combined with a degree of institutionalisation, gets caught up with the RCVS body corporate, whose interests rest in keeping their jobs. If they are in a position where they may want to move jobs, it helps to have overseen change. I've had a few interviews for large bodies, public and private, where a standard question is, "What changes have you overseen?"

So I'm with the unconscious incompetence view of what happens in college. The problem is that decisions are not overseen by council as the size should act as a check to some of this. I'm not a trawler of RCVS minutes, but I have a feeling that the review of the VSA (in fact the proposal for a Vet SERVICES Act) was a bit of a blind-side move.

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:14:11 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Wouldn't it be good if the system rewarded for governing/regulating with the least amount of regulation/law. For example, if public servants got a bonus for achieving things with the least amount of bureaucracy/regulation/cost. [/quote]

This exists

https://cutting-red-tape.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/

You may recall that this was a Tory/LibDem Government initiative

You may recall that the CEO RCVS held a post in the Cabinet Office of the immediate predecessor to the Tory/LibDem administration, before he went to Australia, largely consequent upon being a victim of politicking in Cabinet. He is not naturally , emotionally or ideologically inclined toward reducing red tape.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:36:59 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I struggle with that one. I mean how is it in their interests?[/quote]

RCVS have an institutional paranoia that they are about to be disbanded as a Regulator, losing self-regulating status. This they see as emasculation

They are doing what they can to extend their reach to address this paranoia along the lines of trying to make any alternative expensive for all concerned.

More regulation is good for the Regulator. RCVS operates firstly for itself, then , maybe for the public and lastly for veterinary surgeons.[/quote]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Ambition. Empire-building. Satisfaction of the ego.[/quote]

I dunno, a lot of conjecture, it seems to me.

I think the reasons can or could be more benign; that there is a more general tendency for those in positions of power (be they government, local government or regulator) to have a belief that the more regulation/rules they bring in, the better the job they are doing (or perhaps it just demonstrates that they are doing something).

Wouldn't it be good if the system rewarded for governing/regulating with the least amount of regulation/law. For example, if public servants got a bonus for achieving things with the least amount of bureaucracy/regulation/cost.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:24:15 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]I can understand why a regulator might want more regulation. It is in their interests.[/quote]

I struggle with that one. I mean how is it in their interests?

[/quote]

Ambition. Empire-building. Satisfaction of the ego.

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:49:22 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I struggle with that one. I mean how is it in their interests?[/quote]

RCVS have an institutional paranoia that they are about to be disbanded as a Regulator, losing self-regulating status. This they see as emasculation

They are doing what they can to extend their reach to address this paranoia along the lines of trying to make any alternative expensive for all concerned.

More regulation is good for the Regulator. RCVS operates firstly for itself, then , maybe for the public and lastly for veterinary surgeons.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:23:07 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I can understand why a regulator might want more regulation. It is in their interests.[/quote]

I struggle with that one. I mean how is it in their interests?

I mean, the reason most organisations grow is for the individuals running them to get richer. That's not the case with the regulator. In fact, if I worked at a regulator, I think my interests would be best served by keeping the regulation to a minimum. Then I'd have to work less hard to enforce it

RE: RCVS and Trust

Richard Carter — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:24:54 GMT

Agree - just look over the shoulder of our medical colleagues and see what 'regulations' for 'protecting the public' (from the hoards of untrained?/inexperienced/non English speaking people we have pinched from across the world to prop up the service) does to the enthusiasm of those previously optimistic independent, intellegent professionals and how much improved care regulation hasn't brought about.

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:11:50 GMT

[quote user="Edward Jones"]I predict that any reformulation of the VS Act will be heavily lobbied by corporate interests to increase overbearing regulation, the likes of which can be much more easily carried by corporate bodies over the small independent.[/quote]

This would be a first. I'm struggling to understand why Corporates would vote for an increased regulatory burden.

I can understand why a regulator might want more regulation. It is in their interests.

I am also a bit baffled by those who argue Corporates want more regulation but not independents, then in the same breath say independents need to see more regulation of the Corporates.

For me, Regulation is not a way of advancing the profession's standards of care, whether a vet is part of a Corporate or Independent or Academic or Industry setup.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Bob Russell — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:56:32 GMT

However many stupid cartoons the RCVS produce the interest shown by the general public is limited with regard to protecting the title. They expect everyone to be able to do the job.

If they want to do something useful they should be looking for ways to make practice owners, corporate or not, answerable for clinical and non-clinical standards. Just saying they cannot regulate them is a cop out IMO!

RE: RCVS and Trust

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:23:02 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]An inexplicable obsession with making "veterinary nurse" a protected title.[/quote]

Gotta say, I think protecting 'veterinary nurse' would be a good thing, chiefly in terms of creating greater (self) respect for the role, but also to differentiate them to the public from those without qualifications.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:37:18 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"] Why do they want to be associated with a new act which will be a vet services act, and might dilute that trust by lumping in the fringe practitioners? [/quote]

For mad ambition.

An inexplicable obsession with making "veterinary nurse" a protected title.

To force upon us the Practice Standards Scheme which has been rejected by nearly half of veterinary practices.

It's rather like president Erdogan complaining that the Turkish constitution did not give him the powers to do the stuff he wanted to do. Still, the Turks did get a referendum.

RE: RCVS and Trust

grumpyoldman — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:32:32 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Aggressive growth, loss leaders to mislead the public and pretty awful working conditions for employees. I also believe the structured learning is structured to keep vets trapped within the corporate mentality.[/quote]

There is also some pretty sneaky and dishonest advertising. Our manager went to the management streams at the BSAVA where they were being coached on how to appear as a local family run vets on Facebook. It was quite ironic really there were management gurus trying to make us more like them while making them look more like us.

They will always fall down because employees will always be less committed than owner occupiers running their own business.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Bob Russell — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:19:51 GMT

I was happy for Mr Stace to come into the RCVS to sort the mess that was there. He and others seem to believe they have a mandate to 'sort out' the profession.

He is not a vet and it is not his place to do this. I am far from convinced that the individual vet needs any sorting out at all. I have found almost all to be incredibly committed to the job and caring for our patients.

I also am convinced that the corporate interests are sinister and there is significant pressure to push a non-veterinary agenda. I see little beyond self-interest.

Aggressive growth, loss leaders to mislead the public and pretty awful working conditions for employees. I also believe the structured learning is structured to keep vets trapped within the corporate mentality.

Thankfully I don't believe it will beat the independent sector. We do our job too well!

RE: RCVS and Trust

Edward Jones — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:04:51 GMT

I predict that any reformulation of the VS Act will be heavily lobbied by corporate interests to increase overbearing regulation, the likes of which can be much more easily carried by corporate bodies over the small independent.

RE: RCVS and Trust

Niall Taylor — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:04:21 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]What is good for the public is full referral standard veterinary surgeons, waiting to see the patient 24 hours a days for a fiver![/quote]

A FIVER? You fink I'm made of money, mate!

RE: RCVS and Trust

Bob Russell — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:29:37 GMT

What is good for the public is full referral standard veterinary surgeons, waiting to see the patient 24 hours a days for a fiver! Absolutely a recipe for bankruptcy for the profession so absolutely not true that what is good for the public is good for the profession.

I believe it is more realistic to say, look after the professionals so they can look after the public well!

Are the senior echelons at the RCVS living on a different planet to the rest of us?

I most certainly do not trust them to formulate an new VS Act without proper and widespread consultation (not just with those of similar opinions).

Hopefully I will be so close to retirement before this all happens not to be overly worried by it.

RE: RCVS and Trust

J G Wray — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:36:09 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]So why do the RCVS body corporate increasingly look and behave (or seem to, which is the same thing) as overbearing towards the practitioner - the ones who are the sources of that trust?[/quote]

Well, I've declared my theory. It is monumentally baffling.

[quote user="Iain Richards"]Why do they want to be associated with a new act which will be a vet services act, and might dilute that trust by lumping in the fringe practitioners? [/quote]

It's good for RCVS.

There's a mantra which has not been challenged:

"I strongly believe what's good for the public is good for the profession..." (N Stace)

..and the RCVS looks after the public interest, therefore what's good for the RCVS is good for the profession.

The slogan sounds good, but it is an example of casuistry. What it should say is something like:

" Some of what is good for the public interest is also good for the profession and, the profession, given its learning and practice has ideas, behaviours and processes which are absolutely in the public interest.

The public recognise the profession's ideas, behaviours and processes by conferring a remarkable level of trust."

But, what's in it for RCVS if RCVS allow more autonomy to develop these ideas, behaviours and processes further?

RE: RCVS and Trust

Richard Carter — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:22:53 GMT

or better yet can we go 'independent' of an organisation that has a monopoly and have various options as the registration body? Am prepared to move to Scotland

Or can we go back to what was meant when the law was drafted which was that the RCVS be made up of members of a learned qualification having reached a suitable level of competence to work in a protected profession, to be governed by members elected, to be trialled by your peers if things falling below accepted standards of behaviour and for the leadership of this organisation to protect and further the interests of the profession?

Or is is just me?