Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:50:45 GMT

The legal profession were not daft enough to allow non-solicitor owned companies!!!

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Iain Richards — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:01:57 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Don't quite understand your post Iain Richards.[/quote]

That if the college come to the wrong decision the outcome will be worse. Like the decision to allow non-vet owned companies rather than inisting on LLP.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Jo Dyer — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:46:47 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

One thing I wondered, and perhaps Jo Dyer might help us out here, is whether this part of the College statement betrays intent:

"This, it says, would help to ensure any decision to treat different groups differently, in relation to 'under care' and 'out-of-hours', is both reasoned and justified."

Sounds to me like a treating different groups (ie online services) differently is a bit of a foregone conclusion. Which would make remote prescribing a bit of a foregone conclusion too.

[/quote]

Well yes, I've just seen this and am a bit bemused as well. As far as I'm concerned, we have agreed to review all aspects of 'Under Care' and 24/7, in case the wording needs a bit of clarifying, which seems reasonable.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:29:11 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]Be careful what you wish for could be applied here. Legal advice apparently. [/quote]

Don't quite understand your post Iain Richards.

But I agree, I'd bet a lot of money that this wasn't the question:

[quote user="Iain Richards"]"we believe that medicines need to be controlled by vets, how do we keep it that way"[/quote]

One thing I wondered, and perhaps Jo Dyer might help us out here, is whether this part of the College statement betrays intent:

"This, it says, would help to ensure any decision to treat different groups differently, in relation to 'under care' and 'out-of-hours', is both reasoned and justified."

Sounds to me like a treating different groups (ie online services) differently is a bit of a foregone conclusion. Which would make remote prescribing a bit of a foregone conclusion too.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Iain Richards — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:17:22 GMT

Be careful what you wish for could be applied here. Legal advice apparently. Have the college done the classic college thing and asked for an opinion on rather than the question, "we believe that medicines need to be controlled by vets, how do we keep it that way"

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:05:23 GMT

Breaking news just in here at VetSurgeon Towers: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2019/06/14/rcvs-council-to-review-definition-of-39-under-care-39-of-a-vet.aspx

That caught me by surprise.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:54:43 GMT

When did you last buy wormers at a supermarket or pet shop? They are often more heavily packaged and expensive.

Flea products are available pretty much like for like prices for the same ingredients.

The price differential between practices and the internet takes more explaining (actually I would appreciate someone explaining to me why it can be cheaper to buy on-line than through the wholesaler).

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Anthony Todd — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:11:28 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Not so sure about that. I mean you are already in the supermarket, who wants to make a special trip to the vet for a flea/worm treatment?[/quote]

Probably vets would only sell the more/most effective wormers and flea preps apart from any extra advice which customers would expect?

Existing sales,even as POMs, indicate that pet owners do consider vets are the right place to buy the products already?

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:45:25 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]If vets made their POM wormers the same price as the supermarkets they would probably gain clients as the ancillary advice, and other services advised plus PR would more than cover the possible reduction in price?[/quote]

Not so sure about that. I mean you are already in the supermarket, who wants to make a special trip to the vet for a flea/worm treatment?

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Anthony Todd — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:11:50 GMT

Doesn't the solution lie in the licensing of "drugs"?

Aren't the same drugs in VPOMs as are in pet shop wormers in supermarkets etc.?

If vets made their POM wormers the same price as the supermarkets they would probably gain clients as the ancillary advice, and other services advised plus PR would more than cover the possible reduction in price?

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:39:43 GMT

I did a news story on BVU/Shams' petition: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2019/06/13/new-petition-calls-on-the-rcvs-not-to-allow-remote-prescription-of-pom-vs.aspx.

Do share with colleagues if you think they should sign!

Meanwhile, a point raised by a vetnurse member.

If anyone can set themselves up offering remote consultations and prescriptions, then what is to stop anyone setting themselves up and offering remote consultations and prescriptions.

In other words, we've seen a few fraudsters passing themselves off as vets in the real world. But it is quite rare.

It would be much easier to pass oneself off as a veterinary surgeon online. Hell, I could do it in minutes!

Another reason why I think remote consultations and prescribing should remain the preserve of bricks and mortar practices.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Cool — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:07:01 GMT

[quote user="Shams Mir"]The types of animals, patients or cases referred to here not needing an examination, some may well not need one, are all more likely to be taken care of by telemedicine providers, potentially at a much reduced price - a thought provoking scenario indeed.[/quote]

We cannot completely seperate the science from the economics or the economics from the science. Or can we? Animal welfare however remains a very important matter. I have read your comments after the initial one above.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:02:46 GMT

With 800 practices and a self-calculated value of £1.5billion why are they going to worry too much? They are well represented on council so really they have it all sown up (or think they have).

Hardly a day goes by without a new client and a complaint!

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Iain Richards — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:52:30 GMT

Indeed. Two web sites. INteresting that the My Family Vets has the RCVS accredited practce logo on its site. As it's not a practice, how cna it be awarded anything?

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:15:45 GMT

My Family Vets

'Find your nearest My Family Vet' and then a 'Find a Vet' box.

A little like the RCVS 'Find a Vet' don't you think? More than a little confusing for pet owners?

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Iain Richards — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:59:52 GMT

My apologies, it's "myfamilypet"

Clever

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:23:20 GMT

This sort of name would have been considered disgraceful conduct not that many years ago. It was considered unacceptable to make any claims that might mislead clients. Anything that looks like a register of practices should clearly state it is not a complete list. Similar to the 'other products are available' comments you hear on TV.

IVC is using a general term 'MyFamiyVet' without making it clear it is a trade name rather than an independent agency.

I doubt IVC give a monkeys, they just want a stranglehold on the market which they are well on their way to having.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Iain Richards — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:09:18 GMT

Myfamilyvet? IVC? Are they now owned by an Italian-American "family"?

Anyone who is part of the IVC management care to comment on how they can keep using independent in their name?

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:16:52 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]

Interestingly the IVC backed on-line portal 'My Family Pet' advises that in an emergency you should go to a vet and conveniently has a 'Find your nearest vet' facility.

Funnily enough only IVC owned practices appear in the search! [/quote]

If you look at the terms and conditions of that website, or the privacy policy, you will see they refer to IVC, so your description of the site as an 'IVC backed on-line portal' is not quite true. It's IVC-owned (to me, backed suggests something owned by another organisation, but funded by the backer).

So, the two questions are: is it hoodwinking the public into thinking it is making independent recommendations, or recommending all the options in the area. I would say the answer to that is yes. It is somewhat misleading.

The second question is: Why? Do they think it would lead to fewer enquiries if they were transparent about the site being published by IVC? I personally think the reverse would be true. In fact, looking at all those well-presented advice sheets on the website, I would be more, not less likely to enquire if I thought they had a decent provenance (ie provided by a leading veterinary group).

So personally, I think they are bonkers not to have more overt IVC branding on that website. Missing a trick!

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

An On MRCVS — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:04:29 GMT

Interestingly the IVC backed on-line portal 'My Family Pet' advises that in an emergency you should go to a vet and conveniently has a 'Find your nearest vet' facility.

Funnily enough only IVC owned practices appear in the search!

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:18:44 GMT

Very much better wording! Good job! Thanks.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Shams Mir — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:27:17 GMT

The petition will remain restricted to veterinary forums only as for a BVU efforts are concerned. Valid points were raised here and they have all been considered within reason. The Petition is ready for you to sign, please. Thanks.

https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-do-not-authorise-prescription-of-pom-v-without-physical-examination-of-the-patient-or-herd-in-a-time-bound-manner

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:23:47 GMT

You carry the risk of this debate being more about the wording than the essence. As a fellow foreign speaker, I'd recommend someone with English as their first language to proofread your petition. Perhaps the guys above could get together with you for this to be moved forward.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Iain Richards — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:50:45 GMT

I'd also prefer this not to be public. There's enough folk in the profession with an eye to the main chance without getting the public involved.

RE: Stop authorising prescription of POM-V without physical examination of the patient.

Bob Russell — Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:50:23 GMT

It is the change to the definition of under their care which is particularly concerning. If a more liberal approach is thought appropriate for some products then reclassification is the correct way to go.

I still cannot believe the RCVS would be stupid enough to allow this but if it does then I would want a proper investigation to identify where the pressure for it is coming from. I can only suspect money is talking. The profession as a whole does not appear to approve.