Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Alastair Welch — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:07:43 GMT

Chris,

Earlier when you offered 'some facts' what I really was after was the month-by-month numerical data -real facts not your opinion that I should feel myself lucky I'm not a Doctor or your view that the targets weren't changed to make them easier to hit, but real facts that we couldn't disagree about.

Anyway I went back through the last few lots of minutes to see what I could gleam. The figures are not presented in a consistent way but looking at 2019 illustrates my point quite well. If we remind ourselves that the target for stage 1 is 90% then we have (Dec18)+Jan and Feb average of 75%, March 71%, April 67%, May 85%, Jun, July and Aug no clear data but in the October minutes the figure of 92% is given without a time period, Sep 88%, October 82%, Nov 80% and De 60%. Even if they hit the target in each of Jun, July and August we are still looking at the situation where in 3 out of every 4 months in 2019 the target was missed. To miss this by so far is lamentably poor performance and one which the college should be ashamed of. You say that Council "fully understand the stress that unnecessary delay can create" but talk is cheap and the figures tell me that they like to appear like they care but not quite enough to actually sort the problems. It is important to remember that almost all VS who have a concern reported to the college are not guilty of misconduct. It is therefore most important that stage 1 is completed in a timely manner so that these entirely blameless VS can quickly return to their normal lives.

To me that the Council thought it appropriate to secretly discuss altering the standard of proof whilst the performance is so poor is scandalous.

I see today from the RCVS website that we can attend the 'marketing masterclass' which is for anyone from the practice team and suitable 'at all stages of their innovation journey", seriously who writes this guff.

Stop the peripheral nonsense get the important stuff right.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:53:26 GMT

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219863"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
Better still, why not live stream. It’s so easy to set up.

Not with the acoustics in the Council chamber - they are so bad we cannot hear each other without microphones

[/quote]

You could live stream with the audio being fed directly from the microphones.

I have to say, when in comms, Lizzie Lockett was always very open and forward-thinking about new ways of engaging with the electorate. I think live streaming would be GREAT. I struggle to think of a better demonstration of openness and transparency. That said, I'll bet there are those on Council who probably could think of nothing worse than being televised. But then I'm sure lots of MPs felt the same about the decision to televise parliament.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Richard Stephenson — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:43:03 GMT

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219863"] Only within the last eighteen months have we allowed for the recording of individual votes person by person, but this has to be decided upon at the time item by item, and even then records are deleted after a set time (1 months I believe) though anyone can apply for a copy of the voting record within this time. [/quote]

The excuse that used to be given for not recording how members voted was that members of the Disciplinary Committee sat on Council and it could undermine their decisions if it could be demonstrated that they had voted for a particular position in Council (tail docking being the example used). I always thought this was a somewhat contrived argument. There are no members of the DC on Council now and yet nothing has really changed which I think proves my point. The truth is that (some) Council members do not wish to be accountable for their actions on Council and don't want to be challenged on how they voted.

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219863"] access them at the time of future Council elections[/quote]

My first contribution to RCVS Council 12 years ago was to support recording of votes in Council meetings - what surprises me is that a body that repeatedly says it subscribes to the Nolan principles could have any debate about this issue at all!!

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 07:51:57 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219854"]Do RCVS routinely video Council open session[/quote]

This would need a change of culture Other than those presenting a paper names are not recorded in Council minutes - journalists can highlight those who made particular points during discussion in open sessions but the minutes do not. Only within the last eighteen months have we allowed for the recording of individual votes person by person, but this has to be decided upon at the time item by item, and even then records are deleted after a set time (1 months I believe) though anyone can apply for a copy of the voting record within this time. Madness when it comes to openness, and several of us pushed for voting records to be maintained for far longer periods (so one might access them at the time of future Council elections) but the majority judged thus a step too far.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219856"]Better still, why not live stream. It’s so easy to set up.[/quote]

Not with the acoustics in the Council chamber - they are so bad we cannot hear each other without microphones

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 07:43:43 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219853"]Tell me Chris, do these "experts" involve expert GPs or Specialists?[/quote]

David I'm not part of PIC and am not party to their papers or deliberations. All I can say is that both at PIC-DC liaison and at Council I have regularly made the point that those in practice wish that their clinical decisions be judged against the clinical behaviour of their peers, not against a Specialist's view of what general practice should be providing. And that there are those with a specialism in GP and it is these colleagues who's views should be sought when seeking 'expert' reports on GP work

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

David Mills — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 23:38:47 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219856"]Better still, why not live stream. It’s so easy to set up.[/quote]

Ockhams razor, or ignorance of.

I remember my idea of a petition based system of asking questions at Council a few years ago - deaf ears.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

David Mills — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 23:36:20 GMT

Anyone from any corporate, especially a specialist, should be nowhere near any disciplinary committee, even within their own godforsaken company, never mind RCVS

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Glen McIntosh — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 23:28:18 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219852"]Amanda Boag chair of PIC.[/quote]

To be accurate, she is chair of the PIC and DC liaison committee. The chair of the PIC is Bradley Viner.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:42:02 GMT

Better still, why not live stream. It’s so easy to set up.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

David Mills — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:49:48 GMT

Do RCVS routinely video Council open sessions, and if not, why not?

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

David Mills — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:48:15 GMT

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219838"]and 'in which the PIC decides to carry out further investigation in order to come to a considered and appropriate conclusion, in pursuit of which it requests expert reports and/or formal witness statements. Simple cases are all other cases referred to PIC'.[/quote]

Tell me Chris, do these "experts" involve expert GPs or Specialists? (mind the capitalisation)

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

David Mills — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 21:45:47 GMT

Amanda Boag chair of PIC.

Minimum databases and blood gases galore.

God help us all.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:07:12 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219822"]And I'd be really interested to know what you think, too, Chris about confidentiality, and whether there is a strong argument for the discussions about standards of evidence in council thus far being held in secret[/quote]

It's an odd one, for as you say the intention to consider changing the standard of proof has been signposted in previous meetings/in minutes of previous meetings. I have to say that the majority of our Privy Council appointees to Council think this is a direction of travel that we cannot resist, and they fear it may be imposed on us if we dig in our heels. And these members understand regulation by regulators.

But why were the papers marked 'confidential'? I really don't know - above my pay grade!! But probably because of the totality of the 'package' with other suggestions which related to differing ways of closing concerns and potential reorganisation of PIC-DC

There was an interesting discussion at the Legislation Working Party this week when we were considering how and when to release recommendations / proposals. A couple of us felt that there was great benefit to be had in having Council's frequently robust discussions of potentially controversial topics held in open session. As they have in the past However the benefit relies on journalists being present to hear the discussion (currently only the VR turns up) and the journalists being ready to report them accurately.

One problem we have is that papers have to be released and circulated a week before any meeting, to allow dissemination of the papers and to allow time for Committee/Council members to read and reflect on the contents. For in most cases the reading of the papers will be the first inkling Committee members may have that a particular subject is up for discussion. However if the journalist seeks a scoop/'goes off on one' on release of the papers, before the meeting has even taken place, then the Committee/Council can feel on the back foot before they have had a chance to debate the subject. And when the journalist seeks a comment from the RCVS on the released papers before the meeting has taken place, they may view a cagey comment as 'secrecy' when in truth the spokesman is simply trying not to preempt the discussion in Committee/Council which has yet to take place.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:38:27 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219820"]How many times over let us say the past 5 years has the KPI target for stage 1 been met? [/quote]

No idea - not the sort of statistic I keep to hand; in truth you are asking the wrong person. But to see if there is any way I can help I went back to the papers of the last PIC-DC liaison meeting in which I was involved (April 2019) Unsurprisingly they are 'confidential', which is not unexpected considering the amount of case handling information that they contain. So I am unable to release any figures from them to you. When the full minutes of this meeting were passed to Council (a standing item on the agenda for each Council meeting) they too were 'confidential'; however the distilled account of this report which subsequently ended up in the published minutes of the Council meeting holds a few of the statistics, but not sufficient to make it worth your while trawling through back copies of Council meetings, meeting by meeting. So if this statistic is of real value to you then I suggest you approach Amanda Boag, who is Chair of the PIC-PC liaison committee, and use those magic letters...FOI The College loves those requests. I'm sure they can detail when the target percentages were established, when they were varied, and when/if they have been met

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219820"]I have been unable to find a definition of a 'complex' case and the cynic might suggest it is one that you can't close within the target time! [/quote]

Complex cases are defined as those cases referred on from CMG to the PIC and 'in which the PIC decides to carry out further investigation in order to come to a considered and appropriate conclusion, in pursuit of which it requests expert reports and/or formal witness statements. Simple cases are all other cases referred to PIC'.

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219820"]I have read the excuse of staff resignations/illness/mat leave many times in council minutes over the past few years. It would be fair enough the first time but after a while it means there is a systemic problem with the management of that department. Hire more people and pay them better so that they stay longer and the department can weather changes in personnel. [/quote]

At that April meeting we heard that the CMG group was a man down for all of the previous December due to two separate Case Managers each having two weeks of jury service in the same month... Difficult for anyone to predict that one.

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219820"]It concerns me greatly that there are members of the RCVS council who feel it appropriate to discuss altering the standard of proof in secret.[/quote]

Sadly one thing lost in the furore over the discussion of the standard of proof is that it was but one of a package of proposals. Within this package was a review of the structure of the CMG and PIC, a proposed reorganisation with the express intent of bringing more resources to bear on the first stage of the complaints process Hopefully this will not be lost as it could do what you wish, which is to expedite the processing of concerns

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:48:46 GMT

[quote userid="3880" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219817"]We can't discuss issues that take place in confidential sessions[/quote]

I'd be really interested to know whether, of what you've seen of confidential sessions, you think it is right they are confidential. I mean, sure, I think everyone can understand why things with a commercial sensitivity may need to remain confidential, but changing standards of evidence in DC hearings?

I mean, confidentiality was an easy thing in Dickens' day, when 10 old farts sat around a candlelit table. None of them would have been able to leak information very far. But these days, confidentiality is that much harder to achieve. Not forgetting of course that in this case, the RCVS itself published the proposal to change the standards of evidence, albeit buried.

[quote userid="3880" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219817"]Additionally, I'd hope that as a first opinion practitioner who is a trustee of Vetlife, most people would assume that I'm not actively involved in some conspiracy to make life more stressful for vets.[/quote]

I do not think you can allow yourself the luxury of that belief. I really don't.

Particularly when things are shrouded in secrecy.

People assume the worst. In an information vacuum, people assume that even the best people have crossed over to the dark side, or are incompetent.

And even if 'most' people know you well enough to assume the best, with the Internet giving everyone a platform, it only takes one person to think you have 'turned' or are incompetent, to do your reputation harm.

I know you well enough to assume the best (!), but even I'm sitting here thinking HOW ON EARTH did people like Danny, Niall, Jo, etc. allow this issue to run away like this? There should have been more information about it from the very start, when the recommendation was first made (in 2012?). But failing that, a full explanation the moment the issue went bang (something rather more solid than 'all the other regulators do it).

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219814"]And as for secret meetings to discuss the standard of proof Let's just say that there were enough voices raised at Council at that meeting for the proposals to be set to one side while more evidence is gathered regarding the potential effect of any change. Indeed other ongoing initiatives may yet take this proposal in quite different directions But believe it or not these are currently 'confidential' and you will just have to wait for them to be published Which they will, quite soon and quite openly Perhaps have a little patience And a little faith in those elected to Council who do speak up in defence of practice as and when required [/quote]

Again, I think 'perhaps have a little patience' is a sentiment that the RCVS cannot afford. Or 'have faith', for that matter.

I really do think it needs to get a lot snappier about the way it disseminates information. And I'd be really interested to know what you think, too, Chris about confidentiality, and whether there is a strong argument for the discussions about standards of evidence in council thus far being held in secret? But maybe you can't answer that!

Either way, once again your posts illustrate the immense value of communicating.

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219814"]Employ more staff... Yep, resources have been found for this, but my suspicion will be we'll be shot down for profligate use of retention fees the moment that the annual account show staff costs leaping [/quote]

Do you really think so!? I very much doubt any sane member of the profession would begrudge the use of retention fees to employ more staff in order to reduce the time taken for the disciplinary process.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Alastair Welch — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:46:35 GMT

Chris,

I don't think you actually answered my question. How many times over let us say the past 5 years has the KPI target for stage 1 been met? You would hopefully agree that 5 years is a long enough time frame so that we don't cherry pick the data to suit our ends. How many occasions out of the past 60 months did you meet or exceed the target (whatever that target was)? From memory (but I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong) the initial target was 100% within 16 weeks, this was then softened to 90%, then softened again to 90% of non-complex cases. I have been unable to find a definition of a 'complex' case and the cynic might suggest it is one that you can't close within the target time!

I have read the excuse of staff resignations/illness/mat leave many times in council minutes over the past few years. It would be fair enough the first time but after a while it means there is a systemic problem with the management of that department. Hire more people and pay them better so that they stay longer and the department can weather changes in personnel.

I view the processing of concerns as one of the college's core functions; something it should get right ahead of other activities. Devoting appropriate resources to meet the targets won't get criticism from me but spending money on the more peripheral things (whilst we don't meet our targets) will. In any event I suspect that any small rise is resources spent on the concerns department will be dwarfed by what ever you (we) splurge on the new building whenever the veil of secrecy is removed.

It concerns me greatly that there are members of the RCVS council who feel it appropriate to discuss altering the standard of proof in secret. Mr Connell's defence of needing a 'safe space' for some 'blue sky thinking' is frankly ridiculous. If you spoke from a position of strength (one where the concerns department was regularly meeting the targets) I would have some "faith" in the process but 'trust us and we will let you know' is hard to swallow whilst the performance is poor.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Danny Chambers — Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:17:34 GMT

Thanks for your comments Chris. Everything you say is completely correct. We can't discuss issues that take place in confidential sessions, However, that's not to say that we don't robustly debate issues or challenge proposals that have the potential to cause problems.

Additionally, I'd hope that as a first opinion practitioner who is a trustee of Vetlife, most people would assume that I'm not actively involved in some conspiracy to make life more stressful for vets.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:02:32 GMT

Ok Let's offer some facts Until 12 vmonths ago I was on PIC/DC liaison so I can speak first hand of my time on the Committee

First the KPIs You may think they are weak, but think yourself lucky that you are not a Doctor In comparison with their regulator our KPIs are stringent No reason for complacency I know, but just saying... During my time on PIC/DC the KPI performance improved, significantly so when another CMG team was created They fell back only with illness/resignations

Alteration to targets....? Only once in my time, and that was to split away 'complex' cases so that we had a real handle on the simpler cases which truly deserve to be closed (where possible) after the exchange of a couple of letters (...put the complaint to the vet....receive a reply....put the reply to the complainant...receive a reply...review....and if possible CLOSE) In complex cases, with multiple witnesses, the exchange of letters can get out of hand and go on for months All it takes is for one witness to be slow in replying and in a blink you are past the KPI point So these are now documented as a separate group, consequently their delays do not affect the KPIs of the more 'routine' cases Not an attempt to make 'targets...easier to hit' And other than that I recall no significant other changes being made

Employ more staff... Yep, resources have been found for this, but my suspicion will be we'll be shot down for profligate use of retention fees the moment that the annual account show staff costs leaping

And as for secret meetings to discuss the standard of proof Let's just say that there were enough voices raised at Council at that meeting for the proposals to be set to one side while more evidence is gathered regarding the potential effect of any change. Indeed other ongoing initiatives may yet take this proposal in quite different directions But believe it or not these are currently 'confidential' and you will just have to wait for them to be published Which they will, quite soon and quite openly Perhaps have a little patience And a little faith in those elected to Council who do speak up in defence of practice as and when required

And if you don't trust us you have an option.... Ahh but I didn't see your name on the those seeking to be elected to Council did I?

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Alastair Welch — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:14:13 GMT

Chris,

Have a count back over the past few years and tell me how many months over that time the target has been hit. I can’t recall exactly when the KPIs were introduced (I think about 2014/15 ) but even with the the alteration of the targets to make them easier to hit the performance is still very poor. and it has been like that for ages. Things should have been done long ago, you are sitting on a big pile of gold so lack of resources is no excuse , hire too many people so that when someone goes on Mat leave or off for illness your not in the crap again - it’s not rocket science.
Having secret meetings to discuss reducing the standard of proof whilst this continues is outrageous.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:53:59 GMT

Because it is Council fully understands the stress that unnecessary delay can create The situation is reviewed at each meeting of the PIC/DC liaison committee; it is reviewed at Council each time the minutes of the PIC/DC Committee are presented. More staff have been recruited, but sometimes illness and maternity leave intrude, sometimes experienced, highly trained staff leave for personal reasons and it takes time to source replacements and bring them up to speed Currently the composition of the Case Management Group/the PIC is being reviewed in order to bring more personnel to bear on the issue and to reduce the time taken to assess cases. Things are being done and it is disappointing that these initiatives have yet to feed through into the KPIs But don't think for a moment that Council is not aware of the situation and the effect that delay can have on MsRCVS

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Alastair Welch — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:39:09 GMT

And yet you’re off before cynicism paralyses you. As a serving member of council perhaps you can answer a question for me: Why is the continued failure of the concerns department to reach their KPI’s not treated as the scandal that it is?

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:10:15 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219808"]As you say Arlo 'he might be fearful talking out of turn from the rest of Council'. Sounds a bit like the Stasi, No? [/quote]

No, it doesn’t! I can think of plenty of times in life when I have been fearful of talking out of turn from a group, because I am not sure I can speak on it’s behalf, without feeling like I was under Stasi control!

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Chris Barker — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:04:57 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219804"] I suspect (and Chris Barker's comments back this up) that the officer team (Lizzie Lockett and Eleanor Ferguson) want the public face of the college to be a united front without any room for dissenting voices.[/quote]

Sorry - that's a bad misread of 'wot I wrote'... I was expressly referring to the previous incarnation of Council under CEO Nick Stace. I offered absolutely no criticism of the current setup under Lizzie and Eleanor.

I'm afraid that your inference is incorrect. Both the aforementioned ladies are well used to this particular Cumbrian irritant raising his head above the parapet, both at Council and within Committee meetings, and neither has been anything other than tolerant of views expressed which may not match their own.

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Alastair Welch — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:43:41 GMT

As you say Arlo 'he might be fearful talking out of turn from the rest of Council'. Sounds a bit like the Stasi, No?

RE: Has anyone seen Danny Chambers?

Sarah Wheadon — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:30:32 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/28919/has-anyone-seen-danny-chambers/219781"]I gave my young daughter a set of rules for communicating online, whether by email or on social media. And one of them was: "Email and the internet are totally inappropriate ways to communicate with someone when you're angry, so don't do it, ever.[/quote]

That strikes me as particularly wise advice. If only everyone adhered to it!