RCVS draft GtPC

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:21 GMT

It isn't RCVS we need to get shot of-it's the EU

Wynne

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:27:57 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]Quite seriously has anyone thought of whether we really need a RVCS and given the EU fiasco re registration of anyone who calls themselves a vet,[/quote]

You want to be regulated by the gumment?

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Richard Carter — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:31:55 GMT

Quite seriously has anyone thought of whether we really need a RVCS and given the EU fiasco re registration of anyone who calls themselves a vet, a register for that matter? I am quite happy to defend my actions in a general court rather than prof conduct if required and then I can get on running a business following the legal requirements of the country, not some wish list for a utopian existence dreamed up by someone who probably hasn't expressed an anal sac in years.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Bob Russell — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:01:32 GMT

Turning this on its head a bit.

As a breeder or the breeders vet I would feel no obligation to take a purchasers opinions at face value nor consider accepting their story without a complete history from the treating vet. If they refused to allow me to see this I would take this as a sign of something to hide and would let them know my views in no uncertain terms!

If goods are considered faulty it is necessary to demonstrate that they are!

I don't have much of an issue with Prof Conduct taking this position but I would simply dismiss the complaint as invalid without the history. This puts all the responsibility on the puppy owner not the breeder, breeders' vet or owners vet! Simple!

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Tim Mainland — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:34:06 GMT

I would have quoted Chris Barker's entire contribution on this topic, but it was a little long. It represents an excellent piece of work, trawling through the detail of the draft GTPC, & its potential consequences, and I thoroughly agree with Chris's conclusions. In short, the RCVS is increasingly straying into areas over which it has no current jurisdiction. Until such time as it does manage to increase its legal scope ( never, I hope!) it would do well to stick to the current legal remit. Given the complex structure of RCVS, I find this puzzling. I am increasingly lead to wonder if there is an individual agenda on the loose, and it worries me where this may lead. I'd hate to see our wonderful history tainted by latter day changes, the consequences of which we may not yet be able to foresee. If RCVS simply continues to uphold the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons in the way that it has always done, then the welfare of our patients, within our practices, will continue to be protected.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:04:04 GMT

The oath is "my constant endevour will be to pritect the welfare of animals committed to my care "

NOT

"my constant endevour willbe to please owners "

Royal College should note the difference

Wynne

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:02:10 GMT

That is absolutely disgusting

That part of the Guide definitely needs changing

Wynne

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Utlendigur — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:48:28 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Failure to provide a history when requested is a different matter.

[/quote]

I had a case not dissimilar to Richard's. An owner trying to return a young pup to the breeder claiming it had had problems since acquired, when actually the pup had been injured in the owner's care and the owner had then failed to provide timely treatment leaving the pup with a serious problem needing ongoing treatment. Profcon informed me I could not provide any history or the xrays to the breeder or their vet without the owner's express permission. Oddly I thought the welfare of the animal was supposed to be the most important, not supporting an owner's lies.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:54:59 GMT

I'm in agreement with Bob and Richard-one needs to know

Vikki-you have a medical record-every time you register with a new doctor-whether because you move to a different geographical location or because you are dissatisfied with the practice-the record is forwarded-what's the difference with our patients

I think Royal College have got it wrong on this one

I'm otherwise broadly in agreement with the new Guide-other than I would like to see 24/7 in the main guide, not relegated to the small print

Wynne

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Bob Russell — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:35:02 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]

[quote user="Richard Carter"]disturbing piece of advice was given by the RCVS today - a dog has been rehomed[/quote]

Sorry if this is a side issue, but the dog has been rehomed.

Clean sheet as far as I am concerned.

The obligation to request a history, to me, is sometimes little more than a poorly disguised anti-competitive piece of guidance.

[/quote]

How on earth can it be described as anti-competitive? It makes perfect sense to know what treatment has been given before. If there have been problems etc. Owners are often blissfully aware of things the vet has said.

Failure to provide a history when requested is a different matter.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Richard Carter — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:48:57 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]When do we get a chance to vote on this[/quote]

about the same time we get to vote on devolution of the various countries in UK, the EU, the euro, being able to fire your MP etc

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:18:04 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]I’m afraid this stinks.[/quote]

Sums it up quite well.

When do we get a chance to vote on this? Anybody?

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Richard Carter — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:09:47 GMT

It is an animal that has been treated by a veterinary surgeon that is still suffering from the condition. I would have thought the whole purpose of getting a history is to try have a baseline to evaluate whether the current condition is the same/ different, responding/not responding and although I may be wrong, a clinical history pertains to the patient, not the client and is owned by the veterinary practice, not the client. I really don't care if the client details are all obliterated before sending through as happens with vaccination cards that belong to dogs through rescue centres.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Vikki Halliday LLB — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:37:25 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]disturbing piece of advice was given by the RCVS today - a dog has been rehomed[/quote]

Sorry if this is a side issue, but the dog has been rehomed.

Clean sheet as far as I am concerned.

The obligation to request a history, to me, is sometimes little more than a poorly disguised anti-competitive piece of guidance.

Fair enough if the animal was on treatment when it came to you. But if not, then RCVS are on this occasion correct. If you sold/rehomed/otherwise gave away an animal, you would expect that the veterinary surgeon to whom you confessed your problems, would at least keep those confidential.

However, it does seem as if the previous client, if actively refusing permission to release the history, may have something to hide. That's when you get to play detective!

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Richard Carter — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:19:58 GMT

Not impressed - at what point did the PSS become an acceptible benchmark in veterinary practice? I can understand there being pressure groups to make small animal medicine as complicated as possible to reduce the chance of new start-ups next door but to pretend we are promoting animal welfare and veterinary science with the bureacratic (? where is the spell check again?) mess currently presented as core standards. Think time to speak to my MP again.

A further very disturbing piece of advice was given by the RCVS today - a dog has been rehomed. It has been xrayed for lameness problems. The new owner presents the dog with the previous owner's name, address and previous vets details. We telephone for history. We get told that the RCVS has advised them that as they do not have the previous owners permission, they cannot release the history. I telephone RCVS and this is confirmed. I try to argue that I am equally bound by the Data protection act and that I already hold the information of the previous client anyway and what I am after is the history which is collectively the possession of the patient and the previous vets, not the previous owner who has by selling / rehoming fido, handed over any lingering responsibilities to his health. RCVS not budging in their advice. I am going to write to the Commissioner of the Data protection act on this as this will have a major impact on how we are expected to work.

We are professionals, not the public, we expect histories to be available from colleagues without needing to track down Ms X who is no longer at their previous address, we are bound by the Data protection act already and the situation has to be similar to selling a car where previous details of ownership, servicing history, guarantees etc are available and transferable. Can I start banging my head again??

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Chris Barker — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:23:00 GMT

Reposted as paragraphs lost in ether...

While recent postings have centred on the fait accompli changes to the GTPC just received by us all, I’ve been having a look at the draft rewrite of the GTPC which was put before RCVS Council last week. I’m intrigued as to the reasons behind the redrafting – perhaps the RCVS has recognised the ammunition that the previous Guide gave to the OOH non-clients who phone demanding attention - ‘I know your responsibilities…’

The problem for me is that the rewrite carries on in the same manner – it details the veterinary surgeon’s responsibilities with no mention, whatsoever, of the owner’s own primary reponsibility for the welfare of their animal under the law. The proposed guidelines are suitably vague and waffly in classic RCVS style – too much so for my own liking. The devil will be, as always, in the detailed notes of clarification.

So the proposed Guide starts… ‘

The overarching duty of veterinary surgeons is to ensure the welfare of animals committed to their care…’

No definition of ‘committed to their care’ is offered and the argument over just why a veterinary surgeon should be responsible for animals not registered to the practice will continue.

‘Veterinary surgeons must ensure that there is appropriate veterinary management or supervision of the veterinary team and appropriate support and assistance for newly qualified veterinary surgeons, including those who qualified elsewhere in Europe, or overseas’

One would truly hope that such support would be provided, but once again this demand is outwith the area of jurisdiction of the RCVS.
‘Veterinary surgeons must not direct a Listed Veterinary Nurse to undertake veterinary surgery in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, if the nurse's name has been removed from the RCVS Register at the direction of the Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee’
And this illustrates precisely the way the RCVS is going. They create a new category of veterinary nurse – the RVN. Initially nurses volunteered to change their status from VN to RVN. This voluntary change allowed the RCVS to create a disciplinary process for the volunteers. But then the RVN status became compulsory for all newly qualified nurses, no choice. Other were forced to change status (eg. our head nurse, a qualified assessor, would have been prevented from working with new nursing students without becoming a RVN. This is simple coercion).

‘Veterinary surgeons must ensure that animals committed to their care receive appropriate and adequate veterinary care’…

Gone is any reference to OOH 24/7 care, but a clear implication within the section that veterinary surgeons could be seen as retaining ultimate responsible for the emergency cover provided by a commissioned OOH centre.

‘Veterinary surgeons must take steps to provide emergency first aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation’…

Sensible wording, removing any reference to species competence and as such this is useful

‘Veterinary surgeons must be able to communicate effectively, using the English language in the UK, as appropriate to the audience and context’….

Hmm Very brave Or foolhardy The RCVS cannot prevent EU graduates from registering with the them and thereby become eligible to practice in the UK. But it could, under this section, stop them from working in the UK if their English is not good enough. Expensive test case a’coming I fear…

This treads on the area of clinical competence, on which the RCVS is currently unable to comment but an area over which it sought control in its submission to EFRACom. I remain unconvinced that the bureaucracy within the RCVS would have the ability to respond to the plethora of complaints from dissatisfied clients which would result from such a change in disciplinary scope.

‘Veterinary surgeons who are concerned that the health, performance or competence [Subject to legal advice on RCVS jurisdiction] of another veterinary surgeon is impairing his or her fitness to practise must take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of the other veterinary surgeon, are protected’

‘Veterinary surgeons with ownership or control of the veterinary business, or with management or other responsibilities associated with the veterinary team or business, have a greater responsibility to ensure professional colleagues, or staff within the organisation or practice, comply with responsibilities in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct’

Why? Why should they have ‘greater responsibility’? The Guide to Professional Conduct gives the RCVS jurisdiction over the individual conduct of individual veterinary surgeons. Why should a veterinary surgeon with ownership or control of a veterinary business have to bear responsibility not only for him/herself but for all the staff employed by the business? Let us remember that the RCVS has no jurisdiction over veterinary businesses – this is an unhidden attempt to extend its power and should be resisted until primary legislation gives it such a legal right.
In a single stroke the RCVS would seek to make each practising vet part of a snooping police force. Under this provision one could be taken to Disciplinary for failing to act on the suspicion that another vet is incompetent. You could be struck off for something someone else has done. I am extremely concerned with this precedent

But the VSA gives no right to the RCVS to remove a RVN’s right to perform Schedule 3 procedures even when found wanting under the RVN disciplinary process. So to impose the sanction on the VN profession the RCVS has to make it a disciplinary matter should a veterinary surgeon allow a ‘convicted’ RVN from continuing to do work which the RVCS cannot legally forbid.

I’m afraid this stinks. I can understand the frustration of those in the RCVS who legally cannot impose their chosen sanction – but until they have the right to do so the RVN disciplinary process should not have been enacted. I find it appalling that the RCVS will threaten veterinary surgeons with disciplinary action in order that it can enforce an illegal sanction.

‘Veterinary surgeons must use their professional status to provide only factual information to the general public about veterinary products and services’

By trying to insist that we meet should standards well above the basic legal requirements for any business the RCVS is straying into areas in which it has no jurisdiction – those of practice premises and business practices. This proposed demand should be dropped forthwith and any reference to the PSS expunged from the GTPC. After all, a later section in the redraft already demands that ‘Veterinary surgeons must ensure they (and their staff as appropriate) are sufficiently familiar and comply with legislation relevant to the provision of veterinary services’

The RCVS has no entitlement to make any demands beyond this statement and to seek to interfere in the working of practice – until new primary legislation is enacted the RCVS has jurisdiction only over the behaviour of individual veterinary surgeons and should acknowledge this fact within any redrafted GTPC.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Chris Barker — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:00:50 GMT

I've been having a look at the draft rewrite of the GTPC which was put before RCVS Council last week. I’m intrigued as to the reasons behind the redrafting – perhaps the RCVS has recognised the ammunition that the previous Guide gave to the OOH non-clients who phone demanding attention - ‘I know your responsibilities…’

So the proposed Guide starts… ‘

The overarching duty of veterinary surgeons is to ensure the welfare of animals committed to their care…

‘Veterinary surgeons must ensure that animals committed to their care receive appropriate and adequate veterinary care’… Gone is any reference to OOH 24/7 care, but a clear implication within the section that veterinary surgeons could be seen as retaining ultimate responsible for the emergency cover provided by a commissioned OOH centre.

‘Veterinary surgeons must take steps to provide emergency first aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation’… Sensible wording, removing any reference to species competence and as such this is useful

‘Veterinary surgeons must be able to communicate effectively, using the English language in the UK, as appropriate to the audience and context’…. Hmm Very brave Or foolhardy The RCVS cannot prevent EU graduates from registering with the them and thereby become eligible to practice in the UK. But it could, under this section, stop them from working in the UK if their English is not good enough. Expensive test case a’coming I fear…

‘Veterinary surgeons must take and, at the request of the RCVS, demonstrate that they have taken, reasonable steps to address performance (i) that could impair fitness to practise; or (ii) that results in harm, or a risk of harm, to animal health or welfare, public health or the public interest’…. This section carries the rider . . ‘Subject to legal advice on RCVS jurisdiction’ This treads on the area of clinical competence, on which the RCVS is currently unable to comment but an area over which it sought control in its submission to EFRACom. I remain unconvinced that the bureaucracy within the RCVS would have the ability to respond to the plethora of complaints from dissatisfied clients which would result from such a change in disciplinary scope.

‘Veterinary surgeons who are concerned that the health, performance or competence [Subject to legal advice on RCVS jurisdiction] of another veterinary surgeon is impairing his or her fitness to practise must take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of the other veterinary surgeon, are protected’

‘Veterinary surgeons with ownership or control of the veterinary business, or with management or other responsibilities associated with the veterinary team or business, have a greater responsibility to ensure professional colleagues, or staff within the organisation or practice, comply with responsibilities in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct’ Why? Why should they have ‘greater responsibility’? The Guide to Professional Conduct gives the RCVS jurisdiction over the individual conduct of individual veterinary surgeons. Why should a veterinary surgeon with ownership or control of a veterinary business have to bear responsibility not only for him/herself but for all the staff employed by the business? Let us remember that the RCVS has no jurisdiction over veterinary businesses – this is an unhidden attempt to extend its power and should be resisted until primary legislation gives it such a legal right.
In a single stroke the RCVS would seek to make each practising vet part of a snooping police force. Under this provision one could be taken to Disciplinary for failing to act on the suspicion that another vet is incompetent. You could be struck off for something someone else has done. I am extremely concerned with this precedent

‘Veterinary surgeons must use their professional status to provide only factual information to the general public about veterinary products and services’

Oh well – be careful what you say in public then….unsubstantiated opinion, non-evidence-based anecdote, eminence-based medicine…see you in disciplinary…

‘Veterinary surgeons must maintain adequate practice standards to a minimum of the core standards of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme’.
The RCVS just won’t give up on compulsory practice standards will it? The standards laid down in the Core Standards of the PSS far exceed the legal basic requirements of a business active in the veterinary sphere. For example:
1.6 The practice must have written requirements for a professional standard of behaviour, personal hygiene and appearance to be maintained by all members of the practice at all times. A biosecurity policy must also be available (GtPC/BP)
1.7 The practice must have protocols, known to all relevant staff, for dealing with members of the public (GtPC/BP)
1.9 The practice must have in place an annual performance review system for all clinical staff to monitor and plan development (GtPC/BP)
2.4 The practice must have a means of monitoring client perceptions and feedback (GtPC/BP). The practice must have a means of recording and considering client complaints

Chris B
By trying to insist that we meet should standards well above the basic legal requirements for any business the RCVS is straying into areas in which it has no jurisdiction – those of practice premises and business practices. This proposed demand should be dropped forthwith and any reference to the PSS expunged from the GTPC. After all, a later section in the redraft already demands that ‘Veterinary surgeons must ensure they (and their staff as appropriate) are sufficiently familiar and comply with legislation relevant to the provision of veterinary services’ The RCVS has no entitlement to make any demands beyond this statement and to seek to interfere in the working of practice – until new primary legislation is enacted the RCVS has jurisdiction only over the behaviour of individual veterinary surgeons and should acknowledge this fact within any redrafted GTPC.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Bob Russell — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:32:38 GMT

9. Veterinary surgeons must maintain adequate practice standards to a minimum of
the core standards of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme.
Council Mar 11 AI 08a Annex C

Interesting idea!

Like the bit about informing the RCVS about all cautions, convictions etc - are the really interested in documenting a speeding offence and do they have the facilities to deal with every driving offence? May be I missed the bit about 'that might render him/her unfit to practice' - will check again!

Seems very woolly in places and rather specific in others. I don't have any major grievances about it in principle but will wade through it with a magic marker!

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

J G Wray — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:39:37 GMT

By the way VN Council got to see this stuff before any MRCVS?!?!?!?!?

There will be some opportunity for feedback posted somewhere on the RCVS site, though it might be a bit of a trawl. Any feedback given may not be acknowledged as having been received. This is nothing new and I think, yes I think, it's a tad rude,

The people who have been working on this are not daft, so they probably shouldn't be shot, however, the vehicle for getting this done, RCVS process may not be entirely transparent. See if you can divorce the two issues, because this is pretty important stuff.

JGW

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:37:53 GMT

[quote user="Utlendigur"]

4. Veterinary surgeons must, whenever appropriate, advise their clients aboutmeasures to minimise the risk of...contaminants (biological and chemical agents)

Food borne pathogens - do we have to provide cookery lessons?

[/quote]

I think they should have gone for NBC - Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical. Just so everything's covered. :)

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Utlendigur — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:47:16 GMT

3. Veterinary surgeons must take steps to provide emergency first aid and pain
relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation.

The words "twenty four hours"??

9. Veterinary surgeons must consider the euthanasia of an animal to prevent
unnecessary suffering, even when the owner or keeper of an animal cannot be
contacted, but prior to this, treatment options must be considered, as
appropriate.

Sounds a bit woolly

4. Veterinary surgeons must, whenever appropriate, advise their clients aboutmeasures to minimise the risk of zoonotic agents, food borne pathogens, residues, contaminants (biological and chemical agents) and antimicrobial resistance.

Food borne pathogens - do we have to provide cookery lessons?

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:47:09 GMT

I'm glad they reminded me to tell clients only facts. ;)

Joking aside, I'd love to see a Veterinary Surgeon's Bill of Rights someday.

Re: RCVS draft GtPC

Martin Jones — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:45:35 GMT

[quote user="" Pachyderm""]

See if you can see what's missing.

[/quote]

Formatting? Do tell.