BVA and RCVS new advice

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 13:15:56 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/222013"]i was off for two weeks[/quote]

I was just going to ask. Glad you're out the other side, and you too, Thomas Johnson

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Bob Russell — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:53:38 GMT

i was off for two weeks also but did do part of a day during the second week. I felt fairly well except for a really bad cough. I did know I was quite unwell when I tried to sit in the garden. Even this was tiring and left me quite breathless. Even now towards the end of a day I am easily running out of steam!!

Very poor that there was no possibility for testing.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:44:32 GMT

[quote userid="17944" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221946"]Hate to be pessimistic but from what people are saying fatigue can be really quite severe even if you just get it mildly. So if someone has been ill they may need significantly longer than government implies before they are really well enough to come back to work, or work full days.[/quote]

I was off for 2 weeks with it, the first week is was ill, mild pyrexia, coughing, achy, the second week those symptoms had resolved but I was exhausted. I went back to work the week after, but it as a real struggle to get through the week.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Jennifer Whybrow — Tue, 21 Apr 2020 23:21:26 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221637"]It will only take one member of staff contracting C-19 and you may lose your entire staff for 2 weeks.[/quote]

Hate to be pessimistic but from what people are saying fatigue can be really quite severe even if you just get it mildly. So if someone has been ill they may need significantly longer than government implies before they are really well enough to come back to work, or work full days. WHO guidelines differ from the governments. I have wondered if that is part of the reason so many of the nhs staff are going down with severe symptoms (the work ethic as well as the viral exposure)

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Roland Bulkyn-Rackowe — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:44:56 GMT

Roads must be bad round there ...

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Bob Russell — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:30:32 GMT

I cannot see what the problem is with doing some routine work as long as social distancing is enforced. The stay at home requirement just makes it easier to enforce the keeping distance bit.

We cannot do all the work done before as we cannot allow a full waiting room.

If we are professional enough to make sure clients behave safely then the problem is minimal. We cannot stay isolated for ever, probably not long enough for a vaccine. We will get the virus or not, we will become very ill or we won't.

It is a bad virus and is going to continue to kill. Of course fewer people will get killed on the roads!

The collateral damage of lockdown must not be underestimated .Depression and suicide will bring all too many victims amongst those losing jobs and businesses.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:53:29 GMT

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221750"]Arlo, with all due respect,[/quote]

Mark Hedberg And with the very greatest respect to you too ...

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221750"]when you posted it in Vet Voices you were quite rightly called out on a few things [/quote]

Curious to know what you thought I was called out on that was reasonable. I felt that the one thing I had got wrong was saying the BVA should be like an opposition party to the RCVS, because I did not mean it to be as adversarial as that. As someone else commented 'more house of lords'.

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221750"]You wrote it, and trying to wiggle around with definitions doesn't really help you.[/quote]

I genuinely don't know what you mean by that. I didn't try and wiggle around with definitions. I used a bad analogy and corrected it. Other than that???

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221750"] and your getting upset about it wasn't a good look for you.[/quote]

Where did I express being upset, or even sound upset??? I wasn't aware that I had! Between you and me, yes, I was rather stung by the person who questioned my ethics. But I stopped myself from saying so!

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221750"]Calling it the "Facebook echo chamber"[/quote]

But it is! I'm not talking specifically about Veterinary Voices. I'm talking about Facebook as a whole. It gathers people of the same opinion and quashes contrary views. That's just a fact!

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:40:23 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221740"]I have had some supportive messages following that article, so whilst it may not be the majority view in the Facebook echo chamber, I still maintain that the substance of my article, about the structure of the profession, is worthy of discussion, even if my attempt at humour gets up a few noses! [/quote]

Arlo, with all due respect, when you posted it in Vet Voices you were quite rightly called out on a few things on it and you got somewhat bothered by that. You wrote it, and trying to wiggle around with definitions doesn't really help you.

You are an enormously experienced marketer and author and I very respectfully can't believe that you would be so careless with your wording to mean something you didn't intend to convey. Calling it the "Facebook echo chamber" in this particular instance isn't really accurate - they responded to what you wrote but not in the way you expected, and your getting upset about it wasn't a good look for you.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Julie Innes — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:18:25 GMT

I have decided to "use my judgement" and postpone routine vaccinations for now, unless they will go over the 3 month mark. I will vaccinate puppies now of clients already registered, because I know people won't keep them in. I wont be registering any new clients, and any clients who want to flounce to other practices that will pander to their wishes are welcome to do so!

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

vetbl.locum — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:18:12 GMT

Is the RCVS our governing body or our regulator ? Is there a difference?

Does RCVS have any power to tell practices to close , indeed it seems not, as lots have now restarted vaccines.

RGds

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

ell — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:17:37 GMT

I think realistically that some practices will now be doing boosters and first vaccs to help them from losing future clients after the lockdown is over and

more urgently to keep themselves afloat during this period of reduced revenue. So practices which take the advice of keeping to the government advice of reducing non essential journeys and contact etc will be the losers at the end of this.

There doesn't seem to be much point in the RCVS saying essentially it is up to veterinary surgeons own discretion to decide what is non essential.

The RCVS is supposed to be the governing body, if everything ends up being left to the vet to decide what is the point of the RCVS?

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:09:25 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221737"]Some merit, but not quite right really.[/quote]

Iain Richards Well, your argument seems to rest on:

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221737"]I'm pretty sure that, under the VSA 1966, the RCVS cannot give specific clinical advice, except eg firing of horses. [/quote]

Which a) you are uncertain about, and b) I would argue that in any event, guidelines as to what work you can do during lockdown is not clinical advice (surely clinical advice would be the RCVS saying that you should use one type of anaesthetic over another, for example).

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221737"] not least as we are a small profession and it's better not to have confusion. [/quote]

Isn't there some irony in that statement . Strikes me that the RCVS issuing guidelines followed by the BVA is exactly that, a recipe for consfushion. Certainly the public seems confused!

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221737"]So coming back to your argument, while I would normally agree that the RCVS should be challenged, in this instance, one can't, as they've taken a legal stance, one that they cannot go against.[/quote]

I don't think there is any need for anyone to 'go against' the RCVS position, and that wasn't what I was suggesting in this case. The process that would have avoided this whole shooting match would have been: RCVS issues guidance. BVA canvasses members to see what needs clarifying. BVA asks RCVS to clarify situation with vaccines (which as I say is not clinical advice). RCVS clarifies. BVA gets pat on back for having got clarification.

I have had some supportive messages following that article, so whilst it may not be the majority view in the Facebook echo chamber, I still maintain that the substance of my article, about the structure of the profession, is worthy of discussion, even if my attempt at humour gets up a few noses!

I have removed the opposition party analogy, because I didn't actually mean anything that combative or adversarial.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Iain Richards — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:48:52 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221697"]What does everyone think of my comments ... balderdash? Some merit in some of it?[/quote]

Some merit, but not quite right really. RCVS regulates by law, BVA provides member services by subscription (one being representation).

In the current situation, the college have said, clearly, that we can work, almost as normal, because the government have said we are exempt from working.
BVA stepped in with some guidance as to what work could be considered, not least as many folk were asking for guidance. It would have been perfectly reasonable for every practice to have decided what to do, and be asking questions such as, "How long can I delay a booster?" BVA has, with input from the divisions, come up with something that is workable for most practices. It's advice, not regulation (the word recommend doesn't appear in the guidance). I'm pretty sure that, under the VSA 1966, the RCVS cannot give specific clinical advice, except eg firing of horses.

So coming back to your argument, while I would normally agree that the RCVS should be challenged, in this instance, one can't, as they've taken a legal stance, one that they cannot go against. So it's better, at present, to have some degree of agreement, not least as we are a small profession and it's better not to have confusion.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Iain Richards — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:16:08 GMT

But at least you had a shoe box in middle o't road

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 21:33:28 GMT

[quote userid="5904" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221725"]

The receptionist replied " we have nothing on the computer but if it was a vaccination Mr X just put the money in a tin"..................

Golden days!!

[/quote]

Golden days they were, and we didn't have computers.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 21:30:56 GMT

[quote userid="5726" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221728"]For my part, I’ve so far declined to see non-urgent cases from neighbouring practices. Just doesn’t seem right to take them at the moment. I’d like to think they would act similarly but maybe not. [/quote]

Well put. My feelings too.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

KMurphy — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:48:54 GMT

I don’t need any examples, thank you. For my part, I’ve so far declined to see non-urgent cases from neighbouring practices. Just doesn’t seem right to take them at the moment. I’d like to think they would act similarly but maybe not.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Peter Faulkner — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:04:17 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221718"]just don't judge me if I chose to and think they are both safe and necessary.[/quote]

Sorry Michael, I must have missed something. It's your decision and yours alone. Where exactly was I judging you?

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Anthony Todd — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:02:57 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221723"]I could give many examples of poaching and underhand behaviour if you want them.[/quote]

Many years ago MS, MRCVS, relayed this story: when he was presented with a new client, so obviously he went through the usual history request and rang the previous VS:

The receptionist replied " we have nothing on the computer but if it was a vaccination Mr X just put the money in a tin"..................

Golden days!!

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:29:33 GMT

[quote userid="5726" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221720"]It was suggested that other practices "poaching" clients from practices that weren't ready to increase routine work would be looked upon unfavourably but I'm not sure what consequences there would be to this in real life.[/quote]

To my mind poaching is actively encouraging people to use your practice by devious means. If someone chooses to move at any time because their needs are not been met by their own practice then they are very welcome. Everything done properly, history obtained etc.

I could give many examples of poaching and underhand behaviour if you want them.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

KMurphy — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:36:42 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221718"].If you chose not to do boosters that's your call, just don't judge me if I chose to and think they are both safe and necessary.[/quote]

This was mentioned in the webinar on Sunday. Veterinary surgeons were advised to take on work as they felt appropriate and if they could do so safely. It was suggested that other practices "poaching" clients from practices that weren't ready to increase routine work would be looked upon unfavourably but I'm not sure what consequences there would be to this in real life.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:06:33 GMT

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221716"]Thanks, sorry, wasn't doubting you, I[/quote]

i didn't read it that way ;) And likewise, I don't really 'get' twitter, though I do use it to tout my gadget videos!

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:55:08 GMT

[quote userid="2985" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221705"]Reply. "Thank you for coming back to me. I have managed to get them booked in at another vets. Luckily the RVCS and BVA have amended their recommendations from tomorrow so most vets are doing them now. Thanks again."[/quote]

Realistically what do you expect? If my preferred garage can't fit me in, I ring a different one.If you chose not to do boosters that's your call, just don't judge me if I chose to and think they are both safe and necessary.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:57:42 GMT

Thanks, sorry, wasn't doubting you, I haven't been on twitter in probably two years now. Just surprised, that's all.

RE: BVA and RCVS new advice

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:25:31 GMT

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221712"]Did Robin really quit BSAVA?[/quote]

I have today, after over 30 years of membership resigned from @thebsava There is more to leadership than putting a political finger in the air and saying what people want to hear. I think when you know the details you will understand why I feel this way.
— Robin Hargreaves (@HargreavesRobin) April 11, 2020

[quote userid="2985" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29027/bva-and-rcvs-new-advice/221713"]Arlo, yesterday was bank holiday Monday.[/quote]

Was it really? Days all seem to roll into one at the moment

Anyway, I haven't yet seen any sign that this is a widespread issue.

But even it was, it doesn't mean the recommendation to vaccinate is wrong (as I commented under the news story).