Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

patrick murphy — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:06:16 GMT

I got my response re. my comments on the draft, and it was a fabulous (worth trying) template/automated 'stakeholder' type response. I felt swell for having taking the time out to express a view from a punter.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Bob Russell — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:16:28 GMT

Not sure I am ranting about the PSS but I am ranting about the politics that places it into a code of conduct for all vets. It is a voluntary scheme and should remain so. Much of it (at the lowest level) is ensuring compliance with the myriad of rules and regulations of government.

The code of conduct should deal with the ethical standards we work to.

I intend to continue to work in line with my beliefs and standards and will continue to be guided but not governed by the existing GPC until something better is produced. Once the PSS genuinely improves clinical standards and patient care I will stand behind it wholeheartedly but until that time I will consider it a fairly useful work in progress.

It will be a very sad day when we are forced to select the best bits of a code of conduct rather than sign up to it in its entirety.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

bob lehner — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:49:49 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

I am/we are in danger of making the thread a rant against the PSS but we had a nurse who had worked at the RVC in their hospital and they were (allegedly!) forced to buy a dental machine even though dentals were never carried out there.

[/quote]

Hmm - perhaps it would be a good idea if dentistry was done at the vet schools. Perhaps the failure to do so might explain why historically many veterinary students in this country have graduated pretty under-skilled at dentistry, one of the most common procedures undertaken in general practice.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Julian Earl — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:19:22 GMT

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:53:42 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

Have downloaded my copy - just as I feared - RCVS trying to enshrine its position above the profession as 'regulator' - it mentions this in a few places. They are not the regulator - they are the admin. The council is supposed to reflect the feeling of the profession. I don't recall anyone asking for PSS to become compulsory - I really think a referendum on this one to be completed by practicing veterinary surgeons only is needed.

It really is simple - it is illegal to be a vet without being on the Register. If you are on the Register and are deemed by a committee of your peers to be unsuitable, then there is a mechanism to get you off the the Register. There is a guide to help you get on with your fellow professionals. That is it, nothing more, no hidden agendas, no empires being created, no legal powers of entry, no legal ability to force an opinion on you on how to practice.

If my practice premises are so unsuitable that I am practicing dangerous veterinary science and a committee of my peers (and I mean practicing veterinary surgeons, not specialists and solicitors) come to that conclusion then a level of practice standards already exists. My problem is that a prescribed standard is an opinion and at the moment it appears to be held by a committee either having the luxury of working in a university standard hospital or a referral centre where the poorer clients have already been weeded out by the first opinion vets and then deciding that this becomes the only acceptable way.

The problem with the survey run with the public is that it had the approach of asking whether they want to drive a Mercedes (substitute your dream luxury car) the answer being 'yes'. If you ask them if everyone must drive said car and also have to pay the rates for owning said car, then the answers become much less enthusiastic.

And 'borrowing' legislation from real government departments such as H & S, employment law, data protection to inspect!!. Talk about a quango developing.

[/quote]

Summed up nicely.

I have nothing to add.

Except (couldn't resist it): if I went in to any of the UK University veterinary hospitals I have seen with the object of listing poor standards to criticise, I'd soon list plenty. But I'm sure they would be able to produce a dusty faded Written Scheme of Examination for each and every autoclave.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Eamon McAllister — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:18:48 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

The council is supposed to reflect the feeling of the profession. I don't recall anyone asking for PSS to become compulsory - I really think a referendum on this one to be completed by practicing veterinary surgeons only is needed.

[/quote]

If we were allowed a vote of confidence in the RCVS itself what do you think the outcome would be?

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Julian Earl — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:03:13 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

I say again. This forum has an unique opportunity to change the RCVS by electing a Council member, or even two, with the apparent views expressed.

How many subscribers to this forum?

How many would vote for an ORG candidate if their manifesto was as the theme of this thread?

Is that enough to get elected?

Who wants to be nominated?[/quote]

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

And 'borrowing' legislation from real government departments such as H & S, employment law, data protection to inspect!!. Talk about a quango developing.

[/quote]

Richard gets my nomination. I think I've already "nominated" Niall on another thread, so keep going and we'll soon fill up the Council.

Anyway, when the PSS was first dreamt up and presented at a BVA council meeting I raised the question of what would happen to practices who failed to meet Tier one and was told that they were "probably acting illegally". Oh, really, so my question stands then and remains unanswered. Until now if the PSS is going to be enforced in which case striking off might be the answer offered.

Likewise the question of what was being assessed by the PSS was raised: the gizmos or the people? I was assured it was practice as a whole. Despite ticking the boxesa for CPD and assorted H&S measures etc., we failed on not having a sink in the kennels, or alternatively we could have a swing door to replace the existing door that had a normal door handle. Can anyone spot that in the standards, because I never found it? Not having the full lead screening required by the RPA in the x ray room was deemed not to be that important though. (Addressed now, in case anyone is wondering.)

The last thing we need is a further rise in hoops to jump through when our patients are already treated to the best of our ability and the vast majority of our clients are happy.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Richard Carter — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:40:32 GMT

And 'borrowing' legislation from real government departments such as H & S, employment law, data protection to inspect!!. Talk about a quango developing.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Bob Russell — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:45:16 GMT

Will the RCVS listen to comments or will the final version be an exact copy of the draft? It will be interesting to see. I for one will be very unhappy to see any mention of the PSS in the code.

I have no issues with practices being in the scheme and we will probably join as an academic exercise to make sure our paperwork is in order. We have a well equipped practice for its size and we work hard to look after our patients (or refer to someone that can when we reach our limits). The lowest level of the PSS seems to be primarily a paper exercise.

How does ensuring the correct H&S paperwork in the filing system find its way into a code of conduct?

Once the PSS genuinely controls the standards of care for our patients I will welcome it into a code of conduct. Until such time there is no place for it in such a document.

Never forget the struck off vet being interviewed in front of his PSS approved sign!

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

J G Wray — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:00:18 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I have seen no evidence of either covetuousness or venality[/quote]

Not covetous eh? Who asked for the VMD practice register? Who asked for control of the paraprofessionals in a new VSA - this was to be achieved effectively by extension of powers under VSA?

Venality - nope, vexatious, manifestly or these threads wouldn't thrive

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] I would never vote for anyone whowanted to do away with our 24/7 committment-that said,the more actual practitioner members on Council,the better[/quote]

Wynne - how do you know how any Councillor votes whether practitioner or not? It's impossible for reporters to see, because they use a show of hands and there's a reluctance amongst the Councillors to have a recorded vote, even though some may support it during their election campaign. The Council room is cramped and an odd shape and , well, unsuitable for open debate and recording of same. No wonder they want to keep it.

JGW

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

patrick murphy — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:53:02 GMT

I have sent my little comments in so I will see if they respond, but I think that your magpie comparison is so accurate,and unfortunately a blinding truth

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:57:08 GMT

RCVS Councillors vary Some are certainly remote-particularly the lay appointed members-that is only one of my deep objections to them. The same criticism can be applied to some,but not all university members-particularly those who have never been in practice. Some are also supercilious-again the worst offenders seem to me to be university members, some of whom are offensively contemptuous of practitioners. I have seen no evidence of either covetuousness or venality

Some current RCVS Councillors are , however both approachable, and reasonable. More approachable candidates and therefore Council members would be a good thing,but , on so many important issues opinion within Vetsurgeon is so diverse,that a candidate who could be supported by all of us would be an impossibility-e g I would never vote for anyone whowanted to do away with our 24/7 committment-that said,the more actual practitioner members on Council,the better

Wynne

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Anthony Todd — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:18:00 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Our future[/quote]

I say again. This forum has an unique opportunity to change the RCVS by electing a Council member, or even two, with the apparent views expressed.

How many subscribers to this forum?

How many would vote for an ORG candidate if their manifesto was as the theme of this thread?

Is that enough to get elected?

Who wants to be nominated?

"Yes we can"

We certainly can't if we just moan!

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

J G Wray — Tue, 31 May 2011 22:19:49 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]To be fair, the RCVS did circulate it via the veterinary media: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2011/03/28/35562.aspx[/quote]

..and some of us pointed the consultation out some time ago on this list and others.in my opinion, worth nothing, there really isn't much point in responding, something which is contrary to what most people say, because it ain't gonna make a jot of difference to RCVS. They are impervious to points made by the profession. It is only when they are dragged into the context of third party scrutiny, like EFRACOM, that the view of the practitioner (Chris Barker for instance) or their professional bodies are taken into account. Even after EFRACOM the Registrar's report excused their performance - anyone remember that? They have form.

They rationalise any comments made in consultation as being ill considered and off-the-cuff from disgruntled Retention-Fee-Payers (RFP), whereas their working groups and committees have considered all. Consultations by RCVS are a fig leaf, a nod to procedure for public bodies to follow, nothing more.

Molyneux has even come out and said so herself, something you carried on this site.

RCVS are like a magpie, attracted to shiny, sparkly things. They are exclusively acquisitive . They have only sought to increase their control over the profession and would control paraprofessionals if they were allowed. They are now branching into control over the business of veterinary practice in the revised GtPC, which is well beyond their legal remit.

They will trip up when this is scrutinised by a third party, like the Government or the Courts and that's when they'll have the spotlight shone on them. Their shortcomings will be laid bare and unfortunately end our self-regulation, but not because of the failings of the profession, nor fashionable political expediency, but because they are [R]emote, [C]ovetous, [V]exatious and [S]upercilious.

Our future as a self-regulating profession is imperilled by RCVS, no one else.

JGW

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Niall Taylor — Tue, 31 May 2011 21:49:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Pity this hasn't been circulated by the actual RCVS itself [/quote]

To be fair, the RCVS did circulate it via the veterinary media: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2011/03/28/35562.aspx

[/quote]

But you can rest assured if it was something they really wanted us to know about, or fees to pay there would have been individual emails - how hard would it be to set that up, millions of spammers do it every day!

Niall

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 31 May 2011 18:41:55 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Pity this hasn't been circulated by the actual RCVS itself [/quote]

To be fair, the RCVS did circulate it via the veterinary media: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2011/03/28/35562.aspx

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Bob Russell — Tue, 31 May 2011 18:08:09 GMT

One re-read - this is potentially a recipe for massively enhanced regulation by the back-door. Has anyone actually decided the old guide is unsuitable or unfit for purpose? It has developed slowly over many years and should only be replaced by something better. This code is not better but in places scarily political. Perhaps I am getting paranoid. I want to run my practice not how someone behind the PSS thinks I should.

I for one feel much more comfortable with the existing guide despite its age and idiosyncrasies! Can I vote for the status-quo?

I would be grateful if people would post copies of their responses. Are we sleep walking into a disaster?

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Tim Cheyne — Tue, 31 May 2011 16:37:12 GMT

My download started with the warning "This type of download can harm your computer, do you wish to continue?" Didn't say anything about harming me!

Tim.

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Chris Barker — Tue, 31 May 2011 16:12:11 GMT

Proof reading failed at the end...

Do NOT let those in power at the RCVS go unchallenged should your views differ from theirs

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Chris Barker — Tue, 31 May 2011 16:10:06 GMT

Do have a look at it - consultation ends on June 24th.   I fear we are sleep walking into a system of increased regulation; the miscreants will ignore the rules, as always, while those that respect them will waste yet more time on an endless paper-chase producing yet another volume of compliance documents which will sit on a shelf in a back office, unread until the next inspection beckons.

Within what is presented as a 'simplified document' are proposals to significantly extend the jurisdiction of the College. For example, the new Code proposes that a veterinary surgeon could be taken to Disciplinary for failing to act on the suspicion that another vet is incompetent. Ultimately one could be struck off for something that someone else has done!    It also seeks to make adherence to the Core Standards of the Practice Standard Scheme compulsory for every practice, even though much of the detail within these Core Standards far exceeds the simple legal requirements required of veterinary businesses in the UK.

And nowhere is there any recognition of the significant changes brought about by the Welfare of Animals Act which full square laid responsibility for the welfare of an animal at the feet of the owner.   Instead we have the continued demand that the vet take up this responsibility as soon as he/she is contacted by the owner.   Any owner. At any time.   Even if they have never contributed to the financial viability of the service they are seeking to use...

So please read the consultation document, recognise the scope of the proposals and offer some comment.    My views may not be typical, perhaps I can be dismissed as one of the 'usual suspects', part of the 'vocal minority'.    But please do let those in power at the RCVS go unchallenged should your views differ from theirs.

Chris B

Re: Have your say on the draft Guide to Prof. Con.

Bob Russell — Tue, 31 May 2011 16:10:00 GMT

I see the PSS is incorporated in the code. I bet that will not get removed! Compulsory PSS by the back door? Very unhappy about any reference to such a flawed paper pushing exercise. Get that genuinely right and I will happily sign up to it!

Also a bit concerned about:

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

Not quite sure what is meant by this! Does this cover opinions? How much of our job is based on facts and how much on our best interpretation of the information out there?

Very waffly and pretty meaningless in places and extremely specific in others. Not sure this is a helpful document. Looks very politically correct!

Very true it is no longer a guide in any sense of the word. I found the old document did offer a considerable amount of guidance (not always that wise though).

I suspect a lot of vets and pet owners will be left scratching their collective heads trying to get help from this code. My code is not 15 pages log but one short sentence:

"I will do the best I can for my patients" perhaps followed by "but please remember I am human and fallible".

I will send them an email once I have re-read it!