RCVS Election 2020

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Julian Earl — Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:26:29 GMT

Congratulations Richard. Weexpect great things from you now!

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:57:31 GMT

Many Thanks to all those who voted for me in the RCVS Election - I am pleased to say I have (with your help) been successful. I hope that all of you will know that just as before when I was on Council I am always willing to listen to your views - and please feel free to contact me direct if you want to - richard739@btinternet.com

RE: RCVS Election 2020

George Cooper — Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:33:35 GMT

The results are in and it is a hearty congratulations to Richard, of whom we expect great things!! Well done.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Anthony Todd — Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:14:25 GMT

Perhaps it's the same as a High Street?

Costs a lot to sell something in a shop but not nearly as much from a shed in a cheap industrial park..... even deliver straight from the manufacturer and just take a cut....??

Why not eliminate staff and vets premises all together and, with a fancy algor-rythmn [deliberate misspelling] eliminate expensive vet premises and staff .?

Just have dedicated "hospitals" for surgery with all the bells and whistles and fees to go with them.

As was suggested; owner swipes the credit card, swabs the ear, passes it into the "hole in the wall", and a tube of the appropriate ear prep drops into the box below......

Much more profit!!

PS [forgot] PLEASE WATCH THE SCREEN FOR INSTRUCTIONS OF USE...........

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Eamon McAllister — Sun, 29 Mar 2020 09:45:56 GMT

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Iain Richards — Thu, 26 Mar 2020 21:57:13 GMT

A reminder to get your votes in, unless already done.

This has been about the hardest one to vote in that I can recall. With no-one new standing for council (ignoring the single issue candidates) I’ve actually started to think, who do I NOT want to see on council. I’ve looked at the statements and, very specifically, on the responses to a question that I posted to all the candidates on the loaded phrase, “remote prescribing”.

It was telling that those not currently on council were unequivocal in opposing prescribing without any knowledge or responsibility. Those on council prevaricated in such a way that I felt they have forgotten what it is to be a vet, a professional with responsibilities. And that is really important.

So I’ve voted for Richard Stephenson

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 23:07:14 GMT

Dear Iain

thanks for your support which is much appreciated- I agree with your comments re Chris.! He has been very vocal in giving a voice to vets in practice and has also been a very loyal Council member always explaining decisions even those I suspect he disagreed with. Not an easy balance to get right!

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Iain Richards — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:29:30 GMT

So I'd like to thank Chris for his efforts, he's been a good, honest proper vet on council. We need more like him.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Iain Richards — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:37:19 GMT

Richard gets my vote. I have two more. I will probably vote for Stephen May, my hesitation is that he's not a new voice, but then none of the candidates are. Ok two are, but their statments are single, highly personal issues, so they don't count in my reckoning.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Richard Stephenson — Sun, 15 Mar 2020 16:32:48 GMT

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Bob Russell — Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:31:59 GMT

Sorry I do not hold to the idea that committee members should necessarily be representative of the profession as a whole. A grey haired over 60 year old man may well be exactly what the profession needs to keep it on track.

Us 60 yr old grey haired members of the profession are likely to have been there, seen it, got the T shirt. We are quite likely to have the confidence to shout out when things are not going how they should do.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Chris Barker — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:00:51 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28938/rcvs-election-2020/220231"]I do have to ask why are you leaving? [/quote]

Because after eight years on Council, trying my best to represent the concerns of the practitioner, with occasional success and regular frustration, it is time for others to pick up the baton. My father, a GP dentist who worked his way up to President of the Central Counties Branch of the BDA, always said that there is a point beyond which you should stop shouting from the sidelines and get involved. Good advice for the many social media warriors who see the problems with such clarity but are apparently unwilling to commit their own time to creating the solutions.

Because I am a grey haired man, beyond 60 years of age, and consequently hardly typical of the current membership of the profession. And there comes a time when you recognise that the profession has changed in ways that render your ingrained attitudes no longer representative of the majority.

Because I have never had any interest in scaling the ladder of power; indeed I have a natural distrust of the motives of those who do seek high office. But sadly one’s ability to influence policy is limited unless you are prepared to seek a seat at top table from where initiatives emerge.

Because as the size of RCVS Council shrinks, the personal involvement of each individual Councillor in its varied committees grows. As my enthusiasm dims, and my cynicism grows, it would be far better for those with greater ‘drive’ to replace me.

The profession has been good to me, but being a vet no longer ‘defines’ me. So in many ways I look forward to the release of disconnecting from social media; I’ve done my bit and have already spent far too long agonising on the direction of the profession.

So to quote Douglas Adams….goodbye and thanks for all the fish

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Alastair Welch — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 18:45:28 GMT

Chris,

I do understand the process I just don't think that it is a very good one. Getting on a committee is not an open process and I fear that if your face does not fit you just get sent to Coventry. In any event if it is such a good system, I do have to ask why are you leaving?

I would have more trust in the system if it could admit its errors but (at the risk of labouring the point) the concerns department is a poorly performing department. On a regular basis it fails to meet its targets. Elsewhere you offered 'facts' (which were really just your opinions) but when I offer real facts (the number of concerns being closed within the allotted time as gleamed from Council papers) you have no answer. Someone form the college should publicly acknowledge that the concerns department is performing poorly, they should apologise (on behalf of the college) to the wider profession for this long-standing poor performance, they should detail what remedy is in place and what action will be taken if this remedy does not work.

I do not think it unreasonable for the profession to expect their regulator to meet the standards it sets itself (I realise that it might not happen every month but currently the performance is just dreadful and it needs months and months of hitting the target without fail to convince me that the rot has gone) but instead of fixing the broken bits the college looks to increase the workload of this underperforming department by softening the standard of proof. It smacks of an out-of-touch arrogant organisation that sees itself beyond reproach.

So you're right, I'm not convinced.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Chris Barker — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:21:20 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28938/rcvs-election-2020/220197"]Contentious issues are hidden on committees, Council rubber stamps the outcome[/quote]

It all depends on your point of view, and you have a particular view from a particular stance.

But it does reveal your misunderstanding of current RCVS process. Council had become unwieldy in size and certainly not an efficient forum for productive discussion of what at times can be quite nuanced proposals. So a delegation scheme was developed which devolved initial discussion of certain matters to the relevant Committee, which holds detailed discussions before bringing a proposal forward to Council for final decision. In most cases Council respects the considered conclusions reached by the Committee and accepts their proposal. But to you this smacks of issues being 'hidden on committee' and Council simply 'rubber stamping' their proposals...

However there is no obstruction to any Council member bringing their reservations on any particular proposal to the Council meeting, thereby prompting a broader discussion before any decision is made. For myself, the three hurdles that any proposal has to clear are: 1. Is there a genuine problem which need to be addressed and is the proposal justified? 2. Is the response to the identified 'need' proportionate? and finally 3. Is the 'solution' proposed deliverable by those in practice? If a proposal fails any of these tests, I will speak up...

In this way the delegation scheme provides the means by which Council members can interrogate the various committee minutes /decisions to identify issues with which they have concerns. But it does depend on Council members taking the time to plough through a great deal of paperwork and gratefully most of my fellow Council members clearly take the time so to do. For example, at the January Council meeting three of us were troubled by decisions made in Education Committee regarding the approval/accreditation of European vet schools, and the matter has been referred back for further consideration. And at the same meeting, and with regard to the paper submitted to Council concerning the standard of proof used at DC, sufficient Council members expressed their resistance to such profound change that the proposals have been knocked back to await further consideration of their potential consequences

But I'm not going to convince you about 'rubber stamping' am I...?

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Alastair Welch — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:33:54 GMT

Arlo,

You make my point well. Contentious issues are hidden on committees, Council rubber stamps the outcome.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:30:58 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28938/rcvs-election-2020/220178"]Could I encourage you to review the papers published in association with Council meetings. They are formatted in a fairly unfriendly manner making it hard to be sure that you have picked up all the details but I have had a quick look through the last few sets of papers (back to those published in Sep). During that period there have been (as far as I can tell) 15 votes taken at RCVS council. Of the 15 votes 12 have been passed unanimously, 3 have had a small number of abstentions (either 1 or 2) and nobody has voted against any of the proposals. Over 15 votes the aggregate votes are as follows: For 451, Against 0, Abstentions 4. It is the sort of voting record that would make Brezhnev blush. [/quote]

Alastair, I will when I get a moment (I am working very hard behind the scenes to get the new expert forums going). My instinctive reaction is to ask what the votes were for. Perhaps they were all for things which genuinely deserved to be voted through unanimously???

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Anthony Todd — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 14:47:17 GMT

Mmmmm, just like our gardening committee then...............

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Alastair Welch — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 14:30:03 GMT

Arlo,

Could I encourage you to review the papers published in association with Council meetings. They are formatted in a fairly unfriendly manner making it hard to be sure that you have picked up all the details but I have had a quick look through the last few sets of papers (back to those published in Sep). During that period there have been (as far as I can tell) 15 votes taken at RCVS council. Of the 15 votes 12 have been passed unanimously, 3 have had a small number of abstentions (either 1 or 2) and nobody has voted against any of the proposals. Over 15 votes the aggregate votes are as follows: For 451, Against 0, Abstentions 4. It is the sort of voting record that would make Brezhnev blush.

The reality is that all actual decisions are taken in the committee stage, often shrouded in secrecy because of their confidential nature. This might be a good system were the composition of the committees a bit more democratic but as Council member Chris Barker puts it 'committee membership is in the annual gift of the President'. The system is one of patronage rather than transparency. And if you keep your head down and play the game maybe one day you'll get your turn in the big chair.

We should expect decisions at council to be contested, and disagreed upon this will produce better policy. Instead we seem to have a talking shop. It does of course come down to definitions but it looks like a rubber stamp to me.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Anthony Todd — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:15:28 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28938/rcvs-election-2020/220171"] my perception[/quote]

I've had experience of meetings [non-veterinary] where what is discussed, and apparently agreed, is not what is published as agreed, nor what is acted on.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 09 Mar 2020 08:59:50 GMT

[quote userid="8182" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28938/rcvs-election-2020/220170"]That was a somewhat inelegant response contributing little to the discourse from a sitting councillor to an ordinary member. I make it a matter of principle and a rule of thumb not to post anything online that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. Disregarding the implication of your remark I suggest that you peruse the utterances of Jane Hern, one of our erstwhile Registrars, and you will find that I quoted her almost verbatim. [/quote]

Inelegant? Seemed to me like he was just calling a spade a spade, and usefully sharing his perspective.

Either way ...

I'm not sure which specific utterances you're talking about, but presume she has said something along the lines of the fact that Council is not there to represent.

That's true, but it doesn't mean Council is just a rubber stamping exercise. Council is there to be "representative of". That may sound like semantics, but I understand the difference to mean that council members are not there to represent the interests of specific groups or individuals in the profession, but to be representative of, for example, general practitioners.

As such, it DOES object to stuff.

Eamon McAllister Have you been to a Council meeting? I must confess, I have only been to one - the first one to consider remote prescribing. It was certainly not my perception that this was just a group of people sitting there rubber stamping. On the contrary, a lively and passionate debate.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Eamon McAllister — Sun, 08 Mar 2020 15:52:23 GMT

That was a somewhat inelegant response contributing little to the discourse from a sitting councillor to an ordinary member. I make it a matter of principle and a rule of thumb not to post anything online that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. Disregarding the implication of your remark I suggest that you peruse the utterances of Jane Hern, one of our erstwhile Registrars, and you will find that I quoted her almost verbatim.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 07 Mar 2020 19:27:42 GMT

On a similar theme to 'Standard of Proof' I've received the list of questions to candidates from the RCVS - I will be answering two on the RCVS forum but the question below also merits an answer!!

Question to candidates for the RCVS Council Election 2020

Question about the RCVS disciplinary process:-

In June 2019, the Registrar of the RCVS is quoted as saying that there is 'a wish and desire' to allow interim suspension of members of the RCVS. What is the evidence for a desire and wish, and is this a view you agree with. Please elucidate how interim suspension would work in relationship to employment law, especially in view of North West Anglian NHS Foundation Trust vs Dr Andrew Gregg ( Court of Appeal 2019 EWCA Civ 387, February 2019)?

My Answer:-

I’m not sure who the RCVS Registrar is referring as having this ‘wish and desire’ to allow interim suspension, but my belief is that, ‘interim suspension’ as a concept cannot easily be applied to veterinary practice, nor is it desirable or necessary.

Within the current circumstances of veterinary practice, I cannot see how, ‘interim orders’ would work, and from my experience of dealing with over a 1,000 cases for the RCVS at the investigation stage I would struggle to think of an example where an ‘interim suspension’ would have been sufficiently in the public interest, to offset the serious implications for the veterinary surgeon.

It is common in the human health care field for regulators to have powers of ‘interim suspension’, that is to suspend the license to practice of a doctor whilst they are being investigated or awaiting a fitness to practice hearing.

One can perhaps appreciate that it might be necessary to protect the public against a doctor accused of (for example) serial sexual abuse of patients pending an investigation, but it is harder to think of similar potential for such egregious behaviour by vets. The human Rights Act gives everyone a right for their case to be determined by an impartial tribunal (Article 6) therefore suspending someone before a hearing is a very serious matter only to be contemplated in the most heinous of circumstances, which as mentioned above are not likely to occur in veterinary practice.

Obviously the question arises as to whether a person who has had an interim suspension placed on them should receive full pay – the Andrew Gregg case quoted by the questioner, indicates that the answer to this question (from the Court of Appeal) will normally be YES.

In employment law when an employer suspects an employee of serious misconduct and suspends that employee pending a disciplinary meeting, the employer must pay full wages (and any other contractual benefits), also the employer is expected to hold the disciplinary meeting promptly (usually within days or a couple of weeks). Speed is unfortunately not a feature of the RCVS disciplinary process.

Many vets are self employed, work as locums or are directors of their own practices – for them, ‘interim suspension’ would be financially devastating – and given how long RCVS investigations currently take (4 months even for a simple case with no witness statements and at least 12 months to reach a disciplinary hearing) it is likely that we are not talking about a few days or weeks. For employed vets their employers would probably have to continue to pay them, but some may have contractual terms that would allow their dismissal. In either case an ‘interim suspension’ will impose considerable hardship and costs on both employee and employer.

What if after many months of ‘interim suspension’ the veterinary surgeon is exonerated? Would compensation be paid to the employer and / or employed vet? In the case of self-employed vets their business might have collapsed resulting enormous financial loss. In the case of employed vets what would happen if they had lost their job? Most importantly we should not forget the mental trauma and anguish, which a vet under an interim suspension order would suffer.

My opinion is that there are a number of means of mitigating the risk posed by a vet under investigation without resort to seeking yet more disciplinary powers. Firstly the investigation process in potentially serious cases needs to be pursued with some degree of urgency. If it is felt that a Veterinary Surgeon might constitute a serious risk to the public or animal welfare the aim should be to bring the matter before the disciplinary committee in a matter of weeks, a dedicated serious case team within the professional conduct department should be tasked to gather evidence speedily in these cases. Secondly we already have ‘health’ and ‘performance’ protocols, which were designed to deal with exactly these kinds of problems. My experience is that those extraordinarily rare vets that are a serious risk, generally have underlying mental / physical health issues or addiction problems. These vets need help not a disciplinary process and the tools to provide this are already there. Thirdly I would suggest that a new ‘conduct’ protocol could be introduced in a similar manner to the current ‘health’ and ‘performance’ ones. The aim being to get the respondent vet to agree to work within certain agree parameters whilst a fuller investigation is conducted, compliance with the protocol providing mitigation and evidence of good intent should the issue progress to a full hearing.

There does seem to be undue concern at Belgravia House about how to deal with that rare thing – a truly bad or dishonest vet. This is strange since the RCVS’s own public survey showed a very high level of ‘trust’ (94%) in vets with (predictably) fees being the only issue of lack of harmony with the public. Every vet / practice I speak to, gives me the same message – we need to find ways of retaining good vets in clinical practice – finding news means to ‘discipline’ errant colleagues is a distraction from the real issue – too few vets wanting to work in practice.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Alastair Welch — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:27:16 GMT

Bob,

Any increment in resources is to be welcomed but I don't agree with you that a move form 7 to 8 is likely to dramatically improve performance. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that until relatively recently you were a single-handed practitioner, but more recently you have added 1 more VS to the practice. This single extra person is a 100% increase in the vet workforce and I am sure that this has had a dramatic effect on your practice performance. If the college adds just one extra body to the case managers they increase the workforce by 14%. This is clearly better than no increase but it is hard to sell it as 'dramatic'. Time will of course tell and if in say a year they have knocked the KPI's out the park then I will happily concede it was good choice but I fear that this is not enough to turn the ship around.

Chris Barker was good enough to let us know about the extra manpower. I wonder if he is aware of how this increment is to be measured as successful. Did council indicate the point at which they expect the extra resources to have had an impact on the figures and what point will they revisit the issue if the KPI's are not met by the newly expanded team.

For most of us the decision as to whether to employ additional staff comes down to finances, but for a cash rich organisation such as the college this should not be an issue. With nearly £18M in reserves and a surplus of over £1M in the current year the college has plenty of cash to throw at the problem. I wonder whether Chris Barker can explain to us why an above inflation rise in retention fee is justified with such a lot of money sloshing around.

I don't agree with your suggestion for compromise. The proposed changes to the standard of proof should be resisted, anyone who has the opportunity should lobby members of council as hard as they can.

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Bob Russell — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 10:17:43 GMT

Going from 7 to 8 has the potential to improve performance dramatically assuming the additional person is of adequate calibre.

This would still appear to be a daft time to change the fundamental principles of justice as dished out by the DC. Presumably this will involve significant further training!

Why not compromise and prepare for the need to change but stick to the existing mechanism until such time as there is a problem?

RE: RCVS Election 2020

Alastair Welch — Thu, 05 Mar 2020 22:15:56 GMT

Dear Chris,

Yes I had noticed from the papers published online that the KPI's for January had been missed (yet) again. I don't want to sound like a stuck record but my view is that the performance of the concerns department (as measured by their own standards) is poor. I don't think it is unreasonable that the profession expect its regulator to meet these standards, and whilst I realise that won't happen all of the time, currently if the concerns department hits the KPI for stage 1 it is the exception.

I would prefer if I didn't feel the need to point out how poor the performance is (because it was good), but it remains below the standard that the profession should expect, and what you consider to be a 'tale of unremitting gloom' is simply a factual description of the department's performance.

I am yet to speak to/ communicate with any member of the college who seems willing to admit the performance of the concerns department is poor. Everyone tells me that things are getting better or things are being done but until someone speaks up and acknowledges that currently things are simply not good enough I do not think it unreasonable to keep pointing out the poor performance. We need months and months of KPI's being hit again and again not promises of jam tomorrow.

Any increment in the resources of the department is to be welcomed although I'm not sure if moving from 7 to 8 is a big enough change to solve the problem. Publicising the increment could potentially be a good thing but this publicity should acknowledge the reason behind the change (the poor performance) and not just be spun as 'good news'.

I'm sorry if this does not fit with your tale of everything being rosy in the garden but it is not.