Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 20 Apr 2021 15:10:36 GMT

Update. I have replied to the consultation representing VetSurgeon.org

Recommendation 5.1: Introduce provisions to allow limited/restricted licensure in principle

a) A different category of membership for a disabled person could prove discriminatory.
b) Limited licensure could be useful for people who have taken career breaks for health reasons, or lost competences due to injury or illness, or working part time.
b) Concern that 'limited licensure' could create less proficient vets, because all benefit from the widest possible knowledgebase at the outset of their career, both because things learned WRT to large animals can have relevance in small animal practice, and because it may make it significantly harder for 'limited MsRCVS' to change career paths later in life.
c) Question mark over how many members of the profession are disabled to the degree where limited licensure would be helpful. Has there been any research on this?

Recommendation 5.2: Empower the RCVS to introduce revalidation

No comments

Recommendation 5.3: Underpin mandatory continuing professional development (CPD)

A number of vets have expressed the opinion that registration will become more and more tied to CPD, perhaps even at the risk of steering MsRCVS in one clinical direction or another, with the potential for (yet more) deskilling and demoralisation in the profession. Also that it is to all intents and purposes a tax: You want to be an MRCVS, then take these approved TM courses.

Again the point is raised that all of this has an increasing impact on the cost of veterinary care, with one member remarking that 'Death-by-estimate' may eclipse 'death-by incompetence' by quite some way in many localities in the country.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Jill Butterworth — Mon, 01 Mar 2021 20:02:46 GMT

[quote userid="18277" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228696#228696"]I don't really understand the disability argument the more I think about it, Surely there could simply be dispensation within teaching to allow for altered physical abilities. We are all as professionals already bound by the code of conduct to only carry out practice that is within our skill set, doing anything else would be sanctionable as is regardless[/quote]

I can't see the point of different registration for disability, surely that's a job market issue, and one has to find or create a suitable position? A reduced fee to reflect part time earnings would be a nice thing though.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Simon Vogel — Mon, 01 Mar 2021 19:46:13 GMT

Can I just pick at something Clive mentioned, the annual CPD requirement, in opposition to a rolling average, and also the revalidation suggestion.
The RCVS introduced the former, and are suggesting the latter, by comparing us to our peers in Medicine and Dentistry. Neither of these professions have a annual requirement for CPD, but follow a rolling target averaged over 3 years. Medicine requires revalidation (with reflective statements) every 5 years, but this is not external, but performed by line managers or senior clinicians in department. Dentistry dismissed the idea on the basis that funding a national team of independent assessors would be prohibitively expensive, and as self employed professionals they could not be expected to assess each other’s performance.
Lawyers I believe, have the first, but not the second.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:57:41 GMT

[quote userid="7898" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228685#228685"] I have friends from vet school who were never going to do large animal work, for reasons of both interest & physical ability, who had to do the full course. Honestly, it seemed inequitable[/quote]

Not at all. It was good for them. And having a good knowledge of cattle or equine medicine might even have made them better small-animal veterinary surgeons.

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228689#228689"]Let us get on with our jobs. Guide by all means but don't destroy a profession just because you want to regulate.[/quote]

That should be prominently displayed, suitably decorated with floral embellishments and nicely framed, in every department of Belgravia House. And carved on the President's... er... gavel.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Sarah Keir — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:31:56 GMT

[quote userid="18277" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228753#228753"]desperation on behalf of the clinic[/quote]

Very common in the current recruitment crisis.

[quote userid="18277" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228753#228753"]misrepresentation from the professional.[/quote]

Also surprisingly common too! I was working in a practice that took in a locum but within a few days it was obvious that he didn't actually understand English, he just said 'yes' to every question so managed to get through a brief interview by answering yes to every question!

"Have you worked in the UK long? Yes. I see you're from x country. Yes. Can you speak English? Yes. Fabulous, can you operate? Yes. And do consultations? Yes. And we have a 1 in 4 out of rota, is this OK? Yes......"

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Bob Russell — Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:43:07 GMT

New graduates are rarely experienced in much (or were in my day!!). A practice had and has a responsibility to protect the patient and their employee. I had a calving the first weekend on duty. What went through my mind was 'shit I am the one they are looking at'!

Thankfully a good outcome in this instance.

If inexperienced vets are put in an impossible situation it is the practice that should take responsibility. I take responsibility for everything that happens in our practice even if I am not there.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Nick Jackson — Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:05:59 GMT

[quote userid="3094" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228750#228750"]Why would anyone trained in say Meat Hygioene apply for and then be considered as suitable for an intenaive SA- only placement?[/quote]

Sadly at present sometimes due to desperation on behalf of the clinic and potentially overconfidence/misrepresentation from the professional. I appreciate that may be a little judgemental but it does seem to be the reality of what happens. I dont however think that blanket limited licensure is the solution here. I do think that employers, particularly expansive corporates should be responsible for due diligence and if they do want to employ vets who arent experienced in their areas they should be open to training them fairly and openly.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Julian Earl — Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:22:19 GMT

Is this not controlled at the interview stage? Why would anyone trained in say Meat Hygioene apply for and then be considered as suitable for an intenaive SA- only placement? Etc...

I always thought it a good thing that the degree was so broad in its scope allowing further specialisation if and when suitable. Our broad knowledge is one reason why we are such a respected profession is it not?

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Nick Jackson — Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:45:01 GMT

Couldnt agree more - Ive worked in LA practice where farmers have requested the 5ft3 girl over the rugby player for PD sessions, and certainly for lambings!

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Sarah Keir — Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:21:26 GMT

[quote userid="7898" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228687#228687"]farm work requires more physical strength & it generally helps to be more than 5ft tall[/quote]

This where limited licensure makes me feel wholly uncomfortable. Who are the RCVS to set limits on what someone with a disability can achieve or be competent in?

Not disabled but 5ft3" woman who worked in almost completely large animal practice for over 5 years. Technique is more important than strength, like with dental surgery.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Julian Earl — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:20:31 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228689#228689"] believe that Arlo has a point in stating the uncomfortable truth that it is only a dog! Vets are generally a very good group of people, much respected because we don't actually treat a patient as if it is just a dog.[/quote]

Yes Thanks Bob. Just a dog?? That is a comment worthy of its own thread? So I have started one! Do we as vets, really believe that a most beloved pet canine is EVER "just a dog" People will risk their own life to save their pet and we should respect the intensity of their feelings that increases the emotional value beyond any token amount of cash! This is not an argument for ripping people off, and our own costs for something have to be covered for us to function. But to refuse a possible therapy on the grounds "it is just a dog" is wrong. You'll have to read my full post in the jUST A DOG thread?

Thanks.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 10:17:00 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228689#228689"]I believe that Arlo has a point in stating the uncomfortable truth that it is only a dog![/quote]

Well, I feel distinctly uncomfortable even saying it. Not least because it could be read in many different ways. But for clarity, I am certainly not implying that what you all do is unimportant. On the contrary, in terms of what you contribute to the sum total of human and animal wellbeing, it's right up there with the best of them, in so many different ways.

And of course, you want to strive to do the best you can, and of course regulation should maintain standards.

I just think that when thinking about regulation, training, punishment, the level of care, etc. etc. it might be a good idea to step back, take a deep breath, and remember that 'it's just a dog', in order that you don't regulate or overtreat yourselves out of business.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Nick Jackson — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:58:45 GMT

[quote userid="7898" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228685#228685"]Could you elaborate on what makes you uncomfortable about this? [/quote]

Sure! I get that a lot of people go through their whole education and career experience with a clear idea of the scope of work they want to do. However, I worry that limiting the scope of the degree course and subsequent career opportunities will fundamentally change our profession in a negative way. There are many people who due to lifestyle, disability, injury, or age choose to transition from larger animal work to small for example, this option would be lost to people without the broad based training. There is also a lot to be gained from having the perspective of how animals in different settings are treated and managed, and being able to bring that awareness to bear on other species. Finally the scope of work vets undertake outside of veterinary clinical practice often requires them to draw on a knowledge of a range of animals being treated, which just wouldn't be possible.

I know that split degrees and limited licensure have been popular in some circles for some time but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for it other than people not wanting to learn about species they are CURRENTLY planning on treating.

I don't really understand the disability argument the more I think about it, Surely there could simply be dispensation within teaching to allow for altered physical abilities. We are all as professionals already bound by the code of conduct to only carry out practice that is within our skill set, doing anything else would be sanctionable as is regardless.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Marianne Thomas — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 15:02:36 GMT

[quote userid="3094" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228691#228691"]Sorry I did not mean to hijack this thread if IO seem to have done so?? [/quote]

Not at all! As Arlo pointed out this is my first foray on these forums- specifically because I think this is something where the more perspectives we share, the more informed all our responses to the consultation will be! And thanks for explaining

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Julian Earl — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:26:32 GMT

Thanks Marianne. Not struck off initially but I can see that if I was not fit to practice, that might have been the end result? Apart from the pain and damage inflicted on the patients, that would have been hard to live with! Instead, the RCVS kindly granted me Cert AVP- status in SHP., and WEL. which must have been for work done previously as I was not working at all by that time! I doubt that I would have achieved that before my accident though! Go figure??!

Sorry I did not mean to hijack this thread if I seem to have done so??

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Bob Russell — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:49:28 GMT

I believe that Arlo has a point in stating the uncomfortable truth that it is only a dog! Vets are generally a very good group of people, much respected because we don't actually treat a patient as if it is just a dog.

The RCVS seem so up their own nether regions and are trying to equate us with human doctors. The real world implications for them to make a mistake can be world destroying.

It could be argued that the most important role we have is food safety and much of that is subcontracted to one company.

The arrogance of the RCVS sometimes staggers me. The self-importance irritates me.

This is a fine profession because of the individuals that chose it as a career. Remove all vets and there will be a lot of upset and suffering for individuals but the world will carry on much the same.

If we are expected to work as if we are human doctors then the costs will be beyond affordability.

Let us get on with our jobs. Guide by all means but don't destroy a profession just because you want to regulate.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Marianne Thomas — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:11:10 GMT

I hadn't thought about risk of being struck off. Presumably that's what would have happened if you hadn't taken the decision?

I'm sorry you had to end your career early. Glad you had a good financial plan.

My though were about disabilities where only some types of work aren't possible. For example, farm work requires more physical strength & it generally helps to be more than 5ft tall, & to not have a splenic injury or significant immunocompromise. Some folks have no problem doing medicine but may not be safe to do surgery due to a seizure or cardiac disorder. I'll can only work part time due to my disability, but when I'm there, I'm great.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Julian Earl — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:50:54 GMT

[quote userid="7898" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228659#228659"]f we're talking about having categories for those taking career breaks for health reasons, those who may have permanently lost some competencies due to injury or illness, or those working part time, I can see value in that.[/quote]

May I offer some personal thoughts here? As someone whose career was terminated by m injuries, sustained outside of work I voluntarily retired early. There were several reasons for this:

1, I was not allowed to drive after a severe head injury.

2. I could not stand unaided for long, eg when operating?

3. I had and have suffered short-term memory loss. Plus lost some ability to concentrate. I have realised that when your brain "goes" Everything goes! So working would not have been a good choice at all! :

4. In short I would have been a danger both to myself and to my patients..., more importantly as a vet, a danger to my patients!

4. After this retirement I subsequently developed profound left-sided weakness. Ironic when I am right-handed but do all of my fertility work on cattle using my left hand, My right hand did/ does not work as well for that for some reason I'd be interested if there is a scientific explanation for my opposite hand, the left, being more dextrous [ ? or should that be sinistrous?] for this work. Do we use the right side of our brain for creating imagery of what we can feel?

Anyway, my point is that I would have been upset if I had effectively been struck off as unfit rather than retiring, certainly without assessment! I cannot be the only person with enough self-respect etc., to know when to say, stop!! And to think about the alternatives to working as a vet should disaster strike? So is a new category really needed for those who are not able to work properly/safely/ reliably [ delete as applicable...], any more?

Thanks. I hope that I have grasped the sense of this thread correctly?

Cheers to all.

Oh, thanks Arlo I've just seen your question. Would I have considered continuing work if possible? Yes I suppose I would if it were physically possible but as you can probably see from my post here, that was not to be the case. So when a nearby practice knowing of my accident said they wanted to expand and would I be interested in selling up, I nearly bit their hand off !! But even a limited role would have been extremely difficult and having supported ( with just £20 or £30 or month initially) Standard Life since I was aged 25 years old, I was able to ask for my money back and retired early as a result! I spent my whole life trying to be a good vet and have a good reputation but all that effort could easily have been undone by working after my accident so it was an easy decision in reality! Thanks for asking Arlo!

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Marianne Thomas — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 09:32:16 GMT

[quote userid="18277" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228684#228684"]this is the first step in allowing various further limited licences - small animal only, equine only, farm only, OV only?, Meat inspection only?, who knows, but I dont feel comfortable with any of them within the current landscape. [/quote]

Could you elaborate on what makes you uncomfortable about this? Many (most?) of us work like this. I have friends from vet school who were never going to do large animal work, for reasons of both interest & physical ability, who had to do the full course. Honestly, it seemed inequitable

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Nick Jackson — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 22:27:02 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228680#228680"]I suspect death-by-estimate may eclipse death-by-incompetence by quite some way in some localities within the country?[/quote]

This may be the best summing up of this point I have heard to date. Thank you.

On the other points mentioned - limited licensure - I feel that for the simple view of allowing physically disabled people to participate I would be in favour. My major concern is that while this exemption is hard to argue against, others would be more dubious. There are many that are concerned, myself included, that this is the first step in allowing various further limited licences - small animal only, equine only, farm only, OV only?, Meat inspection only?, who knows, but I dont feel comfortable with any of them within the current landscape.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

patrick murphy — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 21:10:49 GMT

Yes you are correct

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Beats — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 19:39:10 GMT

[quote userid="6103" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228673#228673"]Council has no regard for the increased costs[/quote]

From what I read on internet forums, I suspect death-by-estimate may eclipse death-by-incompetence by quite some way in some localities within the country?

Is this reflected in RCVS priorities? They are supposed to be an outcome-focused regulator now, I believe.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

patrick murphy — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 15:06:56 GMT

I agree with all of these points. It would appear that Council has no regard for the increased costs that our clients must face now, with very little option to have more than routine surgeries done outside of the (very high quality) referral networks. I am a dinovet but when I make a periodic return to practice I am constantly faced with clients having to make decisions re treatment/finance with very little option but referral. I even have them shopping referral centres, not for quality, but purely for cost. Even imaging is a big cost to some.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Cool — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 14:21:15 GMT

To add to your valid points Nick, there is a limit to how much veterinary fees that can be charged. It is hard for practices to find vets to employ at the present time and from what you have said Nick the cost benefit ratio of being a vet is being constantly eroded by these changes and their attendant cost implications. I have said this in other discussions on this platform the RCVS seriously needs to think about the impact of these changes or regulations on the vets they seek to regulate. Don't get me wrong, I am not against regulations or changes.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 5: Modernising RCVS Registration

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:10:22 GMT

dominic stevens and Marianne Thomas - two first-time posters after being members for nearly a decade! A very warm welcome. Hope you'll pull up a chair and make yourselves comfortable, so to speak!

[quote userid="8714" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228657#228657"]You want to do some basic general practice orthopaedics ..nope. Refer or take these prescribed courses or certifications (tm). etc. [/quote][quote userid="18277" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228665#228665"]This is by biggest fear for the future of the profession, the opportunities for progression lost to general practice, a de-skilling and demoralisation of the majority of general practitioners. [/quote]

I've thought this for ages. Variety is the spice of life. It can't be that exciting just prescribing wormers day in, day out.

[quote userid="18277" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228665#228665"]I also worry what this would do to the costs of veterinary care[/quote]

That too. Costs of veterinary care are already spiralling out of control, driven by technological advances and the referral culture.

And at the end of it all, it is still just a dog.

That is not to devalue the importance of people's dogs, or your role repairing them, just that I sometimes look at the costs and think the world has gone mad. I wonder to what degree the College considers the impact of its actions on the cost of veterinary care. Does it consider that more CPD, suspension of vets (which someone has to pay for), revalidation and promoting a referral culture are all things which will push veterinary care beyond the means of many.

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228647#228647"]Would a different category of registration for a disabled person not be discriminatory though?[/quote][quote userid="7898" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29666/vet-legislation-reform-5-modernising-rcvs-registration/228659#228659"]Yes, I'm not sure what's meant by this[/quote]

Clive Ansell I don't think so. I think the idea is the reverse. Don't forget, it is not singling out people with disabilities (it is aimed at overseas grads too). And the idea seems to be to make it possible for more people with certain disabilities to be able to perform an albeit more limited role, which they cannot do now.

Julian Earl I wonder how you feel about this idea. Would you have liked to return to practice in a more limited role after your accident (if it would have been possible)?