RCVS hang your head in shame

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Clive Ansell — Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:40:27 GMT

Can't see what the fuss is about regarding retention fees. It is a relatively small amount of money, 50% needs paying now anyway, there is a fair chance they will cock up direct debits - get it paid and be done with it.

Same with CPD. 35 hours annually is not that arduous, I typically log 50-60 hours anyway. Why on earth the more flexible 105 hours over 3 years was removed I cannot imagine - definite retrograde step in my opinion.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Peter Faulkner — Thu, 02 Apr 2020 19:35:40 GMT

Cheers Neil. Thank god for that. Not reading any more emails tonight. Goodnight all.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 02 Apr 2020 19:31:54 GMT

[quote userid="2985" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221363"]If I leave the direct debit in place, will this work?[/quote]

Yes, which is what I'm going to do as I have the Corporation tax put aside so in effect it'll come out of that. Given that 50% needs paying within 2 months anyway, it isn't going to make a great deal of difference as it still all needs paying

Neil

From the RCVS E Mail (In effect you need to be pro-active to change anything)

If you wish to switch to the payment-by-instalments system, you must cancel the existing Direct Debit by 9am on the 14th April. This can be done by logging on to the My Account area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/myaccount). The first 50% payment can be made through the My Account area by selecting 50% on the payment page. Payment can be made by debit or credit cards. Alternatively you can pay 50% of the fee due (£182 for a UK practising member) via internet banking or BACS.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Peter Faulkner — Thu, 02 Apr 2020 19:27:24 GMT

I have to admit, I've tried reading the RCVS email on fees twice now and I can't get my head round it, I'd rather just pay it all in one go as my focus is all over the place and I'm almost certain to forget one of those installments. If I leave the direct debit in place, will this work?

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 02 Apr 2020 14:51:45 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221288"]And neither that Act nor any other forbade the RCVS to also represent the profession, promote it or defend it.[/quote]

Yes, I know that, but I think the College feels that is a role which incompatible with being a regulator in the 21st Century, and I can understand why. I mean it does seem slightly counter intuitive to have the organisation championing a profession also responsible for policing it.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221288"] public seem pretty happy with it (as much as the animal-owning public are ever happy with anything). [/quote]

I am not sure whether you can absolutely take that as a given. I mean sure, for the most part. But you reminded me I was approached by a man who asked me to post something in here about his ongoing gripe with the profession (I think he might be well known to the College). The thrust of his argument being that the bar for someone to be struck off for misconduct is (rightly) very high, but there is no recourse for the public for lesser crimes and misdemeanours, particularly on the question of fees. My point is that I am not sure whether the quite simplistic surveys I have seen prove that the public is so deliriously happy that nothing needs improving.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221288"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
If I were the King, or Prime Minister, or something, I think I'd split out the regulatory function and make it totally separate to the College.

Aaargh. In other words, we cease to be a self-regulating profession. We become subject to the whims of an equivalent to the GMC or whatever it's called now.

Arlo Guthrie said:
Merge the College with the BVA and keep all vets Ms of a properly representative College.

Sorry, that makes no sense. Every veterinary surgeon has to be a member of the College (if you aren't MRCVS (or FRCVS) you aren't a veterinary surgeon.

While BVA is an entirely voluntary association.

Arlo Guthrie said:
Everyone would know what's what.

[/quote]

Probably didn't express myself well. I meant I would split out the regulatory / disciplinary stuff to be administered by a new organisation that was part of the profession and staffed by veterinary professionals, but it would not be the college of which everyone is an M.

Every VS would still have to be an M of the RCVS which would assume the role that its members seem to want it to be: to champion the profession and provide lots of additional M (member) benefits. If it were doing that, the BVA would be surplus to requirements, so I would amalgamate the two.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 18:45:37 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221285"]Situations change, organisations evolve ... just because the Victorians did something ...[/quote]

The point was that the RCVS was founded – granted its Charter – when the government of the day had been convinced that the veterinary profession was a real one and should sort out its own standards.

Of course it was a much later twentieth-century post-war Act that made RCVS the statutory regulator of veterinary surgeons. And neither that Act nor any other forbade the RCVS to also represent the profession, promote it or defend it. Every one of us is a Member of RCVS – RCVS is us.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221285"]In the modern age, do you think the public would have confidence in an organisation that promoted and defended itself AND was responsible for regulating itself? How well do you think it would sit with the public that the same organisation that is responsible for championing the profession and telling the world how good it is, is also responsible for regulating and reprimanding the bad apples.[/quote]

But Arlo, that is exactly what we have now, and the public seem pretty happy with it (as much as the animal-owning public are ever happy with anything). We are a self-regulating profession. I believe we may be the only one, not sure about that. It works. It's good.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221285"]And if the RCVS is there to represent the profession, to promote it and defend it, then what is the point of the BVA?[/quote]

The BVA is just that, an association, which a veterinary surgeon may join or not as they please. Like any veterinary association, it's for the promotion of study and for the political stuff (representing, promoting, defending).. With the rise of specialist associations, that take on much of the educational stuff, of course the political stuff dominates its activities. But its leaders should not forget, as they seem often to do, that it is a voluntary association of ordinary veterinary surgeons and should be representing them against RCVS when necessary. It's not an original thought that the relationship between BVA and RCVS is far too cosy.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221285"]If I were the King, or Prime Minister, or something, I think I'd split out the regulatory function and make it totally separate to the College.[/quote]

Aaargh. In other words, we cease to be a self-regulating profession. We become subject to the whims of an equivalent to the GMC or whatever it's called now.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221285"] Merge the College with the BVA and keep all vets Ms of a properly representative College.[/quote]

Sorry, that makes no sense. Every veterinary surgeon has to be a member of the College (if you aren't MRCVS (or FRCVS) you aren't a veterinary surgeon.

While BVA is an entirely voluntary association.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221285"] Everyone would know what's what.[/quote]

On the contrary.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Richard Carter — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 17:25:46 GMT

1. don't make the mistake of confusing the profession with practitioners. The educational standards, the university inspections and the code or guide and the register are the tools to ensure the profession is up to scratch.

Where individuals are not making the grade, the RCVS is obliged TO PROTECT THE PROFESSION AND THE PUBLIC to remove these individuals from the register. This is why the charge is 'bringing the profession into disrepute'.

2. The RCVS should be the official point the government and others consult on matters veterinary (other than DEFRA of course) who can then draw on experts in the field required hence supporting and promoting the profession.

The BVA has no legal standing - it is a group for enthusiasts who happen to be vets who are keen to further their knowledge in veterinary matters

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 16:39:43 GMT

[quote userid="2675" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221264"]and if we chant this together enough times it becomes the truth. - lalalalala. The truth is that the government of the day (Victorians) thought it would be better if the professionals (us) sorted out our own standards[/quote]

Situations change, organisations evolve ... just because the Victorians did something ...

[quote userid="2675" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221264"]they most definitely are there to represent the profession, to promote it and defend it[/quote]

In the modern age, do you think the public would have confidence in an organisation that promoted and defended itself AND was responsible for regulating itself? How well do you think it would sit with the public that the same organisation that is responsible for championing the profession and telling the world how good it is, is also responsible for regulating and reprimanding the bad apples.

And if the RCVS is there to represent the profession, to promote it and defend it, then what is the point of the BVA?

If I were the King, or Prime Minister, or something, I think I'd split out the regulatory function and make it totally separate to the College. Merge the College with the BVA and keep all vets Ms of a properly representative College. It would be so much simpler. Everyone would know what's what.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Richard Carter — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:20:48 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221231"]idespread misunderstanding about the role of the College / Councillors (the latter there to be representative of, but not to represent the profession)[/quote]

and if we chant this together enough times it becomes the truth. - lalalalala. The truth is that the government of the day (Victorians) thought it would be better if the professionals (us) sorted out our own standards so they most definitely are there to represent the profession, to promote it and defend it - just not necessarily the individual vet who is not making the grade needed to be that professional admitted to the hallowed ranks of MRCVS

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 11:08:43 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221240"]Ha - you know I was thinking of doing another one this year, but what with coronavirus and daughter in hospital, I'm not really in the necessarily silly frame of mind to come up with something. Back next year.[/quote]

Don't blame you for a second!

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 07:56:38 GMT

[quote userid="2987" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221239"]Thought for a minute that Arlo was rehashing last year’s April Fools ...[/quote]

Ha - you know I was thinking of doing another one this year, but what with coronavirus and daughter in hospital, I'm not really in the necessarily silly frame of mind to come up with something. Back next year.

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Liz w — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 07:53:26 GMT

Thought for a minute that Arlo was rehashing last year’s April Fools ...

RE: RCVS hang your head in shame

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 06:06:34 GMT

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hang-your-head-in-shame/221227"]I'm really not sure what BVA role is in all this?[/quote]

I think it was Dinu Catilina who said in another thread that he thought that the BVA and the RCVS should not be issuing press releases together, cosying up from the same bed, because as the representative member organisation, the BVA should be challenging the College, to some extent holding it to account. Whoever said it, I thought there was a LOT of sense in that.

I think there is also widespread misunderstanding about the role of the College / Councillors (the latter there to be representative of, but not to represent the profession). If the BVA were to strengthen its proposition that it IS there to represent, by challenging the College rather than cosying up, that would certainly help create a useful distinction between the two organisations.

'Challenging' does not mean representatives of BVA with pitchforks outside Belgravia House! 'Challenging' can be done constructively.

RE: RCVS hand your head in shame

Neil Wheadon — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 22:38:36 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hand-your-head-in-shame/221226"]Personally if you can't budget for your RCVS fees then I'm not sure you should be on the register.[/quote]

In normal times yes, but these aren't normal for many. The fee is for services in advance. I can't think of anything else i pay for now that cannot be split over the coming year, insurance, council tax even your TV licence. Monies will have been put away but if your income has suddenly dropped to zero then you may have another priority.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hand-your-head-in-shame/221226"]I actually feel RCVS is doing it's bit and making some consolations to try and help out and lift morale.[/quote]

Agreed, their advice has been pragmatic and left wriggle room

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29001/rcvs-hand-your-head-in-shame/221226"]Don't rate the BVA guidance one bit.[/quote]

I'm really not sure what BVA role is in all this? Brutally, they are a membership organisation not a regulatory one, so although can advise their members, all they are doing is muddying the water and adding confusion at a very stressful time. One voice, the RCVS please.

Neil

RE: RCVS hand your head in shame

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 22:26:18 GMT

I agree that I would have liked a slightly different response from the RCVS, but generally I think the guidance is perfectly reasonable. Allows sensible continuation of practice for the sick, injured and in-pain and allows a reasoned view on things like puppy vaccs.

Personally if you can't budget for your RCVS fees then I'm not sure you should be on the register. We know it's coming. We know how much. It's about a day rate for a locum.

I don't see why they reduced CPD allowance - many people in the profession have a lot of time on their hands.

I actually feel RCVS is doing it's bit and making some consolations to try and help out and lift morale.

Don't rate the BVA guidance one bit.