Ouch!

RE: Ouch!

Cool — Wed, 09 May 2018 18:06:13 GMT

In response to Clare Tapsfield-Wright's comments -

I agree with you but that i think is a price we have to pay to have control of our profession and our fate. It is only fair to assume that vets working for corporates on the rcvs council are most likely to make decisions in favour of the organisation they work for however it is possible that all will not.

RE: Ouch!

Iain Richards — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 16:14:02 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]That should be enough for RCVS to get stuck into some of the more difficult stuff, rather than run according to their own agenda.[/quote]

And, of course, for us, as members, to get stuck into the RCVS!

RE: Ouch!

J G Wray — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 15:33:17 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]As for a response from Corporate representatives then there may a natural reticence and or employment contracts with modern rules about how to behave on social media[/quote]

And the RCVS is hampered by similar constraints, so everyone is in the same boat.

[/quote]

Oooh that's a jump in respect of RCVS. Albeit that their current Strategic Plan is light on commitments to MsRCVS and transparency, it is supposed to be Our Royal College, and we pay for it. That should be enough for RCVS to get stuck into some of the more difficult stuff, rather than run according to their own agenda.

RE: Ouch!

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 14:08:29 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I've come across this before and don't quite get it. You have choice about how you handle the situation, your daughter doesn't.[/quote]

We're going a bit off piste here, but it is reasonably straightforward. Emily's condition causes a substantial reduction in her cognitive function (which varies between very impaired and unconscious). At her most conscious, she seems to have no awareness of her predicament, no sadness, fear, pain or however else you want to define suffering. At worst, it's limited to 'I don't like funny turns'.

As her parents, on the other hand, we suffer from lack of sleep (and I am not just talking a few lost hours here and there, but a regular part of our lives); the anguish of seeing our child having seizures, often reduced to a dribbling wreck, or intubated in hospital; the sadness of knowing that she will never have a good quality of life by our standards (and may have an awful one, depending on where she winds up after we die); the frustration at never (and I do mean never) being able to make plans to do anything at all; at having to live our lives under virtual house arrest; at having to live as a divided family (for example, taking it in turns to take the other child on holiday) and so on and so on ...

It's easy for you to write that we have a choice about how we handle the situation. But in real life, there is actually very little choice other than to get on with it, and try and make the most of the very mixed set of cards we've been dealt (which does include a few aces).

I haven't written that to engender any sympathy (which I find uncomfortable and unproductive). Just to explain.

[quote user="J G Wray"]As for a response from Corporate representatives then there may a natural reticence and or employment contracts with modern rules about how to behave on social media[/quote]

And the RCVS is hampered by similar constraints, so everyone is in the same boat.

RE: Ouch!

Bob Russell — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 13:10:48 GMT

I fully accept the corporates are here to stay. Not sure they will be the corporates we have at the moment!

There are more practices than the workload really justifies especially in some areas. practices are opened where there is little or no clinical need.

They will fight it out and some will fail. Not sure whether it will be individual branches that will fail or a whole group that over-extends itself when the days of cheap borrowing come to an end.

It is a bubble, it will burst and there will be casualties!

(Amazes me that there has been little bubble bursting so far!)

RE: Ouch!

J G Wray — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:56:29 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]although according to the doctors, it's her situation and our suffering, rather than the other way around.[/quote]

I've come across this before and don't quite get it. You have choice about how you handle the situation, your daughter doesn't. She's the one experiencing the disease and as my Father was told by his Medicine professor - "Disease is never so personal as for the patient.."

As for a response from Corporate representatives then there may a natural reticence and or employment contracts with modern rules about how to behave on social media

RE: Ouch!

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:08:01 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]You have all our sympathies here, for your situation and your daughter's suffering.[/quote]

Thank you, although according to the doctors, it's her situation and our suffering, rather than the other way around. You're right, I don't really 'do' self-pity (other than very, very occasionally and then in private!) and find sympathy slightly uncomfortable.

[quote user="J G Wray"]The Corporates have no opportunity to respond.[/quote]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Really? Why on earth not?[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]They have no representation on this list.[/quote]

Yes they do. Lots of corporate members here, at varying difficult levels of seniority. And there are no barriers to others joining and representing themselves!

RE: Ouch!

J G Wray — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 10:43:23 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Back at my post again ... actually, I didn't desert it completely, it's just very rare that I ever get time off caring for my daughter, still less get to spend time alone with the other one, so I resolved not to let anything intrude on that for a few days unless it was a nuclear emergency![/quote]

There is no equivalence between family and being on this list.

You have all our sympathies here, for your situation and your daughter's suffering. You have it also because you don't really do self-pity over this.

"..Self-pity does not command sympathy. It's when you stop self-pity that you earn sympathy.." Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]The Corporates have no opportunity to respond.[/quote]

Really? Why on earth not?

[/quote]

They have no representation on this list.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Besides which, I would be very surprised if, having lobbed that hand grenade in the room, Simon Innes wasn't expecting people to talk about it![/quote]

Yes about his concerns and the way the RCVS performed, but not the other stuff.

RE: Ouch!

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:55:04 GMT

Back at my post again ... actually, I didn't desert it completely, it's just very rare that I ever get time off caring for my daughter, still less get to spend time alone with the other one, so I resolved not to let anything intrude on that for a few days unless it was a nuclear emergency!

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]As I say, I think that sort of remark is corrosive and needs a better evidence base or it is not acceptable for a forum.[/quote]

Ooooh I think my comments stand comparison with the misanthropic, nihilistic postings here about Corporates and their allegedly nefarious behaviours for instance.[/quote]

J G Wray to be clear, the difference between the other posts in this thread and yours is that they are expressing their own opinions, where you are recounting, very vaguely, something you claim was said to you by some unknown source.

As was shown in your previous post, it is not unknown for you to post fake news:

[quote user="J G Wray"]The Major Employers Group was set up by RCVS under Mr Stace. At that point there was some recognition of reality and the practicality of having some form of relationship with large group employers. With a plethora of independents discussion just doesn't happen. [/quote]

[quote user="Huw Stacey"]For clarity, the MEG was set up independently by the clinical directors or equivalent of the larger veterinary employers (both commercial organisations and charities). The RCVS were not involved in setting it up although we do have regular and constructive dialogue with them.[/quote]

So I think it's quite fair and reasonable to ask you to reference the second-hand, uncorroborated, cheap chinese whispers you publish here, or don't publish them at all.

[quote user="J G Wray"]The Corporates have no opportunity to respond.[/quote]

Really? Why on earth not? Besides which, I would be very surprised if, having lobbed that hand grenade in the room, Simon Innes wasn't expecting people to talk about it!

RE: Ouch!

J G Wray — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:41:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I didn't say you should give up these details or sources. What I said was that if you don't, your remarks become just cheap tittle tattle. Worthless. Worse than worthless. Worthlessthanless. [/quote]

Nothing new there then. As you may recall, I have often said I am clear my opinion is worth the square root of very little.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]As I say, I think that sort of remark is corrosive and needs a better evidence base or it is not acceptable for a forum.[/quote]

Ooooh I think my comments stand comparison with the misanthropic, nihilistic postings here about Corporates and their allegedly nefarious behaviours for instance. The Corporates have no opportunity to respond. A representative of MEG has had that privilege and the worst that I've said is that one of the organisations it purports to represent, in non-commercial matters, is baffled by the RCVS and took matters into their own hands and that the MEG is not effective in anything of consequence.

RE: Ouch!

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 07:28:46 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]whatever the truth, I think it's really unhelpful, misleading and corrosive to make remarks like 'that's not what I'm told', unless you're able to support your remark with facts, like WHO tells you this, and on what grounds. I mean, I could tell you that what you've written is not what I'm told, but unless I tell you who by, it's meaningless. Just cheap tittle tattle. [/quote]

You are joking aren't you, giving up these details, sources if you like, on a site as porous as this, never mind doing so with or without consent, as others have done, curiously without receiving your opprobrium?[/quote]

I didn't say you should give up these details or sources. What I said was that if you don't, your remarks become just cheap tittle tattle. Worthless. Worse than worthless. Worthlessthanless.

eg. you say that 'that's not what I am told', yes, but by who? The dustman? Someone with a vested interest? And what exactly did they say? ('not what I am told' could mean anything). And what grounds did they have for saying it.

As I say, I think that sort of remark is corrosive and needs a better evidence base or it is not acceptable for a forum.

RE: Ouch!

Iain Richards — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:53:12 GMT

As I recall, Andy Adler's letter did mention that there were differences in recruitment between XL members and used his practice as an example where they've not had problems. It's an excellent practice, one I'd be happy to work at, as, I suspect, I would be at yours.

Happy to state I was one of the original practices for XL and served as a director for 3 years.

India - interesting take. It would help solve the potential certification issues if we lose all the EU vets in a mass deportation and we have to follow WTO rules.

RE: Ouch!

J G Wray — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 18:08:41 GMT

Blimey, I go away for a few days and the Corporate haters come out in force and I get castigated to boot - nothing new there ho ho.

The MEG was given access to RCVS with Mr Stace's purview, something he could hardly refuse because two Councillors were amongst the group that originated the idea, Dr Boag (Vets Now) and Dr Catlow (Blue Cross, I think). As has been pointed out Dr Stacey (Companion Care) wasn't elected to Council or there would have been three.

The MEG declared no Commercial interest originally in 2016 and it's difficult to see what, if anything they have achieved. This is especially evident because of Mr Innes' approach to RCVS took place even though Dr Davies (CVS) was originally in the MEG. It plainly isn't the engine for change and hasn't achieved a coherent view for those in MEG.

Mr Innes is not the Devil incarnate

Corporate practice is not a soulless, dead end existence for large numbers of our colleagues.

Corporate practice is here to stay.

Corporate practice is growing.

The face of practice is changing.

The roar of mice, the insinuations and nihilism about the motivation of Corporate practices are rubbish.

Corporates are interested in profit

I am also interested in profit and have said so many times.

I am interested in profit because it brings reward and freedom.

Who doesn't want that?

I am in independent practice.

What makes me so different from a Corporate therefore?

I don't think Corporate practice is a bogey. I think it should be respected because co-existence is here to stay.

[quote user="Iain Richards"]It's been interesting to be away and then read all three chapters (original interview, RCVS and BVA response, Andy Adler's letter) at one sitting. I'd have taken more heed of Simon Innes' complaints if the statement was from the MEG, rather than one individual. I felt Andy Adler's letter was good, not least that it isn't really RCVS/BVA to blame. [/quote]

Hmmmm. Were you ever part of XLVets?

Ref the MEG being the organ for contact, see earlier.

As for Dr Adler's response in respect of retention, then one practice, ahem, n=1

And this business about RCVS not having some input into graduate acquisition and retention; has everyone forgotten who went to India last year to see if there were a source of veterinary surgeons there and the message our EU colleagues took from that little sojourn?

RE: Ouch!

grumpyoldman — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 12:44:07 GMT

I think the infiltration of the RCVS council was inevitable as fewer and fewer practices of any size were owned by individuals, so far its not affected anything other than a few OOH howlers not going perhaps as far as they would have done had individuals been involved. Since CVS et al bought everything around us we have doubled in size every 4-5 years, so I am quite happy to watch from the boundary and let them get on with it. Its easier to look at their operations from the outside and see where they are going wrong, maybe that would help them retain and attract staff more than whinging to the RCVS?.

RE: Ouch!

grumpyoldman — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 12:31:29 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Do you mean you think vets will vote for them purely because they are their ‘boss‘and not for any other reason? Many vets maybe have little choice but to work for a corporate. Doesn’t mean to say they are restricted in their choices and can’t decide to vote otherwise for whatever reasons they choose?[/quote]

There is always a choice of sorts ,you just have to take chance and go for it .

RE: Ouch!

Mark Hedberg — Sat, 31 Mar 2018 09:19:35 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]

[quote user="rhmrcvs"]rcvs council is becoming full of vets working for a corporate paymaster eg vets now , cvs , pets at home[/quote]

To be expected really. As so many vets working for them will vote for them.

[/quote]

It's not automatic - Huw Stacey is the clinical director of vets4pets and he stood in 2016; he didn't get in.

RE: Ouch!

Dinu Catilina — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 23:39:45 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Do you mean you think vets will vote for them purely because they are their ‘boss‘and not for any other reason?[/quote]

No, I never said that but it does play a part and it's a good chunk of voters.

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Many vets maybe have little choice but to work for a corporate.[/quote]

I worked for two and there is always a choice. Who knows, I may work for one in the future again but this doesn't mean that there is little choice.

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Doesn’t mean to say they are restricted in their choices and can’t decide to vote otherwise for whatever reasons they choose?[/quote]

I also did not say that either. Many may feel that their rights and needs are better served by their boss which may or may not be the best thing for the profession.

RE: Ouch!

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:29:43 GMT

It is also a big time commitment for a practice to release a vet to attend RCVS meetings. I was very lucky to have the backing of my veterinary partner and it certainly came at a cost to our practice. It is much easier for a large company to bear that cost. I had to balance the demands of my practice with that of the college and it was a challenge, not to mention being away from home and the time needed for background reading of papers etc. Not easy for an independent practitioner, much easier if part of your job.

RE: Ouch!

Kate Richardson — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:03:12 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]

[quote user="rhmrcvs"]rcvs council is becoming full of vets working for a corporate paymaster eg vets now , cvs , pets at home[/quote]

To be expected really. As so many vets working for them will vote for them.

[/quote]

Do you mean you think vets will vote for them purely because they are their ‘boss‘and not for any other reason? Many vets maybe have little choice but to work for a corporate. Doesn’t mean to say they are restricted in their choices and can’t decide to vote otherwise for whatever reasons they choose?

RE: Ouch!

Dinu Catilina — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 21:26:12 GMT

[quote user="rhmrcvs"]rcvs council is becoming full of vets working for a corporate paymaster eg vets now , cvs , pets at home[/quote]

To be expected really. As so many vets working for them will vote for them.

RE: Ouch!

rhmrcvs — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 18:07:55 GMT

Why cant the profession as a whole see / understand this ?

Also rcvs council is becoming full of vets working for a corporate paymaster eg vets now , cvs , pets at home etc.

RE: Ouch!

grumpyoldman — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:55:18 GMT

The other point revolves around the reliance on the hub and spoke system, where the 1st opinion outlets are supported by purchased referral outlets. When you suck all your good well paid work away from the underlings and turn them into consultation and minor surgery outlets ,you not only down skill the vets the knock on effect is to also down skill the nursing staff. So having spent five years doing that Mr Innes finds that not only is he short of staff but the ones he has retained are less able than those that have left or not been replaced.

RE: Ouch!

grumpyoldman — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:37:49 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I'd argue that yes, the role of nurses needs to change so they can do more. Not so that corporates can use a lower paid workforce,[/quote]

Hitting the nail on the head, as always. The corporates will be interested in maintaining their competitive edge with loss leading. Dental work and minor routine consults will be cheaper with nurses doing them, and most clients won't know the difference until and unless there is a problem and factors other than the initial cost suddenly become more important.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But to relieve pressure on veterinary surgeons, to give qualified veterinary nurses greater job satisfaction and to help reduce the cost of veterinary care for consumers.[/quote]

That rather depends upon the "level" the veterinarians are working at. My days are full of eye surgeries , orthopaedics and oncology cases ,so i am happy to delegate the dental work to senior nursing staff with extra certification in that area and just help with the surgical bits. Others who refer loads will find themselves trying to take the routine dental work back from the nursing staff because otherwise there is too much perceived overlap in function. If the nurses are cheaper and quicker at something than a new graduate, when things are being charged out properly in terms of time very very experienced able nurses can and do undermine new graduates.

The corporate loss leading with fees has itself created more pressure on vets than shortages of applicants so in a sense its hard to feel too sorry for them as I watch them fall into the hole that they have spent the last few years digging for themselves.

RE: Ouch!

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:35:56 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]It's been interesting to be away and then read all three chapters[/quote]

I've read the first two, not the last, and a few things occurred to me:

My very first thought was to question whether it is really the role of the regulator to sort out Simon Innes' recruitment problems (which, as you said Iain Richards, is the way the story came across). Surely not per se (that's for the market), although of course the regulator can take some actions that might have an impact on the issue.

Second thought is that it's all a bit: "he said, they said." Not helped by J G Wray adding some fake news of his own, and more hearsay and innuendo:

Fake news:

[quote user="J G Wray"]The Major Employers Group was set up by RCVS under Mr Stace.[/quote]

Nope.

'He said, they said':

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Huw Stacey"]The RCVS were not involved in setting it up although we do have regular and constructive dialogue with them.[/quote]

Funny old world, because that's not what I'm told. I hear there's occasional talk but that it's a bit like banging a head against a wall since Mr Stace's departure.[/quote]

J G Wray, whatever the truth, I think it's really unhelpful, misleading and corrosive to make remarks like 'that's not what I'm told', unless you're able to support your remark with facts, like WHO tells you this, and on what grounds. I mean, I could tell you that what you've written is not what I'm told, but unless I tell you who by, it's meaningless. Just cheap tittle tattle.

As you know, I have considerable sympathy for the College, which often has to sit there and listen to tittle tattle and cannot stoop to respond as, er, robustly as I would in the same circumstances, however wronged it (or rather the people there) may feel.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]People do get a bit miffed if what they think is a brilliant idea is politely rejected.[/quote]

Well, yes, precisely.

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

Then there was the bonus chapter of Simon Innes interview regarding nurses' roles.

Should the role of nurses change so that they can do more, a company, driven by the need to satisfy shareholders, might decide that they can utilise a lower paid workforce. I don't know.[/quote]

Haven't read it (yet). I think it's actually a good thing Simon Innes has got people thinking harder, though I'm completely unconvinced his criticism of the RCVS was fair. I also think the debate needs to stop being centred on him, or his particular interests.

I'd argue that yes, the role of nurses needs to change so they can do more. Not so that corporates can use a lower paid workforce, though that may be a consequence. But to relieve pressure on veterinary surgeons, to give qualified veterinary nurses greater job satisfaction and to help reduce the cost of veterinary care for consumers.

RE: Ouch!

Kate Richardson — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:20:21 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]A business, faced with massive demand, could, justifiably, increase their fees as a mean of reducing workload. I[/quote]

That’s fine in theory but in our profession where does the rest of the workload go? Someone else has to absorb it. I’m all in favour of charging appropriately and recognising our worth but I don’t think that’s the answer