RCVS Draft Health protocol

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:55:21 GMT

Had a look at the Health Protocol on the RCVS site and it may just be me but it does look toned down and more logical and less aggressive than the draft.

Overall it does seem more balanced and logical (or I am in a more mellow mood!!!) - dare I say good job RCVS??

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Mark Holmes — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:59:16 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Oh by the way I have known a number of vets that were better vets even if drunk than some vets are sober!!!!

[/quote]

I would second that!!!! I recently saw a dog 3 weeks post season with a muddy vaginal discharge, pu/pd and vomiting with a subnormal temperature and depression that had been "diagnosed" with a chill! HOW DRUNK WOULD YOU HAVE TO GET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:46:50 GMT

Oh by the way I have known a number of vets that were better vets even if drunk than some vets are sober!!!!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:42:50 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

In the past there have been, I believe, some famous drunks on RCVS council. In the likely event that there are one or two on the current council (the stats relating to alcoholism in middle aged professionals suggest that there probably is) I wonder if they will abstain should this all come to a vote - abstain from voting - they wouldn't be drunks if they could abstain otherwise.

This is a pernicious bit of interfering and empire building. The present rules if applied consistently and with rigour can deal with all the concerns and scenarios that Wyn and others have mentioned. It behoves those who are asking for this expansion of the College's power to show that there is a need - that will be done easily and unequivocally by listing cases where patients and/or clients have been disadvantaged in a way that would have been avoided had these new rules already existed.

[/quote]

If it can speed the decision making process for vets with health issues I am in favour of a clear protocol.

However it has to be a good protocol to ensure fair treatment for all. This draft does not seem to be good.

The amendments in the article go a long way to making it so IMO.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:10:09 GMT

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:36:33 GMT

I have a low opinion of GPs because they willingly sign false certs-and I , as a taxpayer have to pay out

Wynne

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:18:59 GMT

The whole point of a well thought out protocol is that it shouldn't matter who is on the committee. The process should be quick, efficient (when has the RCVS been considered either of these?).

A complaint is made and a letter arrives on the vets doorstep from the Royal College. There is little in the protocol to protect the member from malicious complaint. That member of staff that has just left under a cloud can go straight in with an accusation without proof and it is up to the MRCVS to defend him or herself.

The protocol is heavy handed and immediately puts the onus on the vet to defend (and pay for the privilege). The GP should be the first place to go in this situation. As I have said in cases of non-cooperation further advice can be sought.

You seem to have a much higher opinion of RCVS council members than GP's. Your GP should always act in your interest but the burden of proof should always be on the accuser than the accused!.

The suggestions made in the article seem to me to be so sensible and fair that I cannot see why the council should have a problem adopting them in their entirety. They bring an element of fairness from the start with the punitive element only coming into play if necessary.

No one can really argue that some vets are a danger to themselves and to patients They should be removed temporarily or permanently from the profession as appropriate but this protocol is a malicious complainants charter!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:20:07 GMT

Bob Reading people's opinions I would say a lot of disquiet isn't because of the protocol itself, but because people distrust RCVS Council members

I would divide Council members into3 lots:

1) those I both know, like, and trust

2) those I know, but both dislike and distrust-and yes there are a couple who IMHO are thoroughly slimy

3) those I don't know

Category 2 are in sufficient of a minority for me to give the organisation as a whole the benefit of the doubt

Wynne

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:04:56 GMT

At a guess, I would say

a) a medical consultant could solve the legitimate concern of the GP over patient confidentiality

b) GPs have a very poor record of honesty when we all know they readily sign bogus sick notes, so is their evidence going to be reliable ?

Wynne

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:41:43 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Yes but what about a situation where an animal is put at risk by a veterinary surgeon who is affected by drunkeness, or even worse, (because it is illegal, and we as a profession are allowed access to controlled drugs ), and it later emerges that other veterinary surgeons were aware of the problem, but kept quiet. The new approach is more compassionate than a full DC enquiry-and there is no dispute that inability to function because of drunkeness on duty, or drug addiction is "conduct likely tobring the profession into disrepute " and therefore comes under the remit of Royal College.I often criticise them,but on tghis occasion I'm with them

Wynne

[/quote]

I have no argument in principle with the protocol but do take issue with the idea that the RCVS should appoint a medical 'consultant' at the expense of the individual as opposed to using the individuals own GP.

Things will escalate if the vet under investigation is uncooperative or the GP refuses to become involved and at this point external medical advice would seem more appropriate.

The protocol does not give any of us protection from vindictive accusations. Are we likely to face a letter from the RCVS if a spiteful ex-client sees one of us in the pub celebrating a little too much? There needs to be some degree of proof and the protocol as it stands could be a licence to create havoc.

We need checks and balances. The article makes suggestions that appear, to me to make total sense. Unfortunately there is a sizeable group in the profession that have limited confidence in the capabilities of some the RCVS's enthusiastic amateurs!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:29:13 GMT

Wynne

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Mark Holmes — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:12:08 GMT

There is a really big problem when the RCVS takes on more that its responsibility would suggest it should. Firstly our fees go up but that aside it encourages the media and the public to see the RCVS as our representative body, which they are not. The media then looks to the RCVS to comment when they want a response to something like Panorama, or the tonight program and all the RCVS are prepared to do is give a watery, meaningless and politically spineless reply.

They should stick to their responsibilities, make better use of our fees and pass responsibility for things such as this to the BVA or BSAVA who would (I hope) approach it sensitively rather than punatively.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:04:37 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I haven't yet forgiven Dr. Shams Mir for devising the stupid name "Vets4BVU" ( for his organisation, but I found his article well-reasoned and absolutely right.

[/quote]

Totally agree.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:52:27 GMT

I just wish they showed a greater willingness to tackle the "snake-oil salesmen ". They could be far more pro-active in detecting and prosecuting those who openly trade as "animal healers ", and who are therefore breaking the law by both diagnosing and treatng disease in animals, even though they don't call themselves veterinary surgeons, or use POM-Vs

Wynne

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Richard Carter — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:40:01 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Fair play RCVS are, of course primarily a regulator[/quote]

This really is a case if it gets said enough times it becomes the truth. Actually the RCVS was set up to determine the educational and practical standards required for registered members to practice veterinary surgery legally in this country - something quite different. It was primarily meant to stop the snake-oil bunch from conning the public pretending to be veterinary surgeons. It is only the current lot that seem determined to grow the empire into every activity of qualified vets whether required or not.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Richard Carter — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:30:13 GMT

I am horrified that our RCVS (yes our organisation) is taking on yet more authority that nobody asked it to. I would have thought there are other organisations and charities better suited for this task.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:28:52 GMT

I haven't yet forgiven Dr. Shams Mir for devising the stupid name "Vets4BVU" ( for his organisation, but I found his article well-reasoned and absolutely right.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Mark Holmes — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:42:31 GMT

The issue with the RCVS version is that it is punitive from the outset. It does not read like fellow professionals who might offer support and care for those with mental and physical health problems. As a result of this protocol, can you see somebody potentially with depression, alcohol addiction or worse, getting a sympathetic and supportive visit or phone call. Or a PIC letter listing responsibilities and sanctions and how that might effect that state of health

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:41:06 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Fair play RCVS are, of course primarily a regulator, that is their legal remit-but they are trying to be helpful, so should receive credit. I'm prepared to be open-minded, and not condemn RCVS out of hand Give them a chance

Wynne

PS I did thinkthe title of the consultation document ambiguous-in my naivety, until I read it , I thought it delt with HEALTH problems, such as MS which could impair ability to practice-on reading,I realised addioction problems would have been a more honest title

[/quote]

Can't see much sign of them being helpful in the draft. The purpose of the protocol is to protect our patients - no argument there but it can be done in a more humane and less heavy handed manner. Reserve the big guns for those individuals that reject help but keep the vets own health professionals central to determining fitness to practice.

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:32:32 GMT

The impact any such protocol has on vets should be top of their list. Illness should not be punishable however everyone clearly expects a 'weeding out process' for those considered unfit for practice. This may lead to temporary or permanent exclusion from practice but the individuals welfare is critical.

Vets with stress/addiction problems may need to be removed from the profession but the idea that the RCVS should add to the problems of an individual is unnecessary, bureaucratic, potentially expensive and inappropriate.

I love the idea that a vet being investigated should pay for the privilege. The idea seems to be that he or she should pay for the medical examinations dictated by the RCVS. What happens if the vet cannot afford to pay?

The courts would take a dim view of a disciplinary process could not be defended because someone cannot afford to pay to defend themselves!

It makes sense for the individuals own GP to be the key figure in determining the health situation as they are likely to be familiar with the vet. A protocol seems quite appropriate but only if it is appropriate itself!!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:19:04 GMT

Wynne

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

vs0u — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:20:39 GMT

I don't think the health proposal is meant to be for the welfare of vets - more to get rid of the alcoholic/drug addicted ones. Can't see an RCVS letter arriving really being of much comfort to a suicidal/alcoholic vet!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Mark Holmes — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:29:51 GMT

Probably not because they are more interested in policing rather than supporting..... and if something is practical, manageable and workable then its not fit to have the RCVS stamp on it!!!

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Bob Russell — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:56:22 GMT

But will they listen?

Re: RCVS Draft Health protocol

Mark Holmes — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:53:01 GMT

I have read the article and would support it as amended over the RCVS draft without reservation.