What would you think of this vet?

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:14:25 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]

Who produces these vaccination cards? Isn't it the industry? Would it be a suggestion to them to add a section "Breeder name and contact details", and a page for 2nd or 3rd owners and their details?

One reason why the few regular puppy breeders we have don't like us filling their name as owners, is that then the vaccination card looks messy with crossed out names or a sticker over the breeder's name etc once the puppy is being sold..

Otherwise it might be a good idea to print our own except that I am sure my boss wouldn't want to spend the money on this.

I still find it all confusing to be made responsible with my signature for data which anybody else is allowed to change as they want. I sign for having vaccinated an animal with this breed, sex, age and colours. With this brand, type and batch of vaccine. This animal ID would be much improved with a microchip. But I do not sign for the truth of the owner's details.

Mariette

[/quote]

It is clear the forum is polarised on this and we're going round in circles, but Mariette, for sure the system of vaccine certification is far from perfect but it is what there is, ignoring it is not an option just because you don't think much of it, completing the details however imperfect you perceive it to be is better than nothing but it also, whatever you think or the 'breeder' thinks fit, an obligation. Regards the breeder's name being on the certificate you can issue a new certificate when the puppy/kitten comes for its second vaccine and sign that. I do hundreds of vaccines a year for the Cats Protection, often 4 or 5 at a time and every single certificate is completed and signed for with their details on it. When a new owner comes in I will make out a new certificate with the new owner's details on if it has been re-homed by then, and if I get any vaccine card with an animal that has had its first vaccine elsewhere I produce a new certificate with my details on it but certify the first vaccine has been done elsewhere. It is that easy.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

mariette asselbergs — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:29 GMT

Who produces these vaccination cards? Isn't it the industry? Would it be a suggestion to them to add a section "Breeder name and contact details", and a page for 2nd or 3rd owners and their details?

Otherwise it might be a good idea to print our own except that I am sure my boss wouldn't want to spend the money on this.

Mariette

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:55:25 GMT

Well said Bob

Wynne

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Bob Russell — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:43:54 GMT

If the profession had the balls to fill in all of these puppy vaccination certificates there is a fighting chance that 'problem' puppies could be traced back to the breeder/dealer.

These problem pups can and should be reported via the local council who have the responsibility for licencing breeders. Often there is so little information on these cards that not even the breed is listed.

If false details are given by a breeder/dealer then trading standards can beat a path to the vet who supplied the vaccination card. They will expect proper records. If the breeder is giving an incorrect name and or address trading standards may be able to take legal action (misrepresentation/fraud etc).

Vets that fail to fill in cards to the best of their knowledge are aiding a nasty industry. Good breeders put their details on a vaccination card happily. Think of those new owners that come in with a file filled with sales contract, diet advice, pedigree etc etc. Much of the information may be clap trap but at least the breeders shows they care about their final 'product'!

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Colin Cameron — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:20:16 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]If I vaccinate puppies that are still with the breeder and are to be sold then I don't fill in the name and address because it will be wrong when the puppy goes to the new home. (I await my red stars). [/quote]

But it would have been correct AT THE TIME OF VACCINATION, would it not? Therefore you do indeed earn the odd red star ! P.S I have probably earned a few myself over the years but I still try and get it right.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Mark Holmes — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:58:48 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

I think what's noticable in this thread is that those of us who regularly have puppy farm pups brought in (having been bought by unsuspecting owners ) are harder on this veterinary surgeon than those who don't see these unfortuneate animals

Wynne

[/quote]

...or those who have high standards of professionalism and ethics and those who don't.

[/quote]

Hey I have never argued that they shouldn't be filled in properly and would never support the signing of a blank one, but they are inadequate as certificates and nothing more than tatty bits of card in most cases. I will leave the pups name blank in some circumstances rather than aving to make something up or fudge it. I think the breeders details being on the card are a good idea.

When I worked in Australia the computer system would print a single use fully filled in certificate which would be valid for one year and traceable, anyone with rx works should be able to get a similar form printed. That's a certificate. Not a tatty bit of card presented by an owner with the scope to be alterated at will post signiture.

Microchipping would be useful but then do people scan and check the id of the dogs who are microchipped against the cards they are presented with routinely... I suspect not and for it to be of any use the kennels would need to scan the dog as well.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:04:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Wynne

[/quote]

...or those who have high standards of professionalism and ethics and those who don't.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Colin Cameron — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:20:39 GMT

Record/certificate/record/certificate/record/certificate????? I must say that I stand with those who do try and complete these documents as fully as possible and apportion a decent amount of gravitas to their signing. I also believe them to be certificates even with their inadequacies and would welcome mandatory microchipping to make them more secure ( although the chips could be changed anyway if really wanted). Can anyone explain to me why so many intelligent professional people seem to be in pathological denial of the quite simple fact that by signing any document or record in their capacity as a Veterinary Surgeon they are certifying the contents of that document to be true and accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief. They are therefore creating a certificate. Whether that is a good nor bad certificate is another matter. As an example of a document signed by a Veterinary Surgeon being neither a record or a certificate I was once given a card by the new owner of a puppy where the only writing anywhere on it was the Veterinary Surgeons signature. What was he actually stating by his signing in his professional capacity? This thread is however going over very very old ground and pedantism and I have seen no improvement in vaccine record cards / certificates over the last thirty years. Why are so many people just not bothered about the status of their professional signatures? If we don't care then why should anyone else? As regards doing batches for breeders ( I've done lots over the years) I can see no justification in leaving the owners details out for unsold puppies / kittens as at the time of vaccination they are owned by the breeder. Simple concept to grasp really. Who is actually in charge of the situation? In danger now of being too pedantic myself now but I really can't see why there is all the reluctance to take a few seconds to fill in a form before signing it whether you choose to call it a record, certificate or anything else. Maybe I just have rather old fashioned ideas but I intend to stick with them. Not a rant but just asking for some sensible explanation as I just can't quite understand the mentality behind some of the foregoing comments. As for these horrible puppy farms, some of the owners seem to have paid a visit to the black burning fires to get moral instruction from Auld Clootie himself ! Of course these Vets should be reported for any their actions which are deemed to fall dangerously short of expected standards but one must be very careful and establish the facts first, and anyway who is so bIameless as to cast the first stone? I can however appreciate their dilema in some circumstances. One must not climb on to too high a horse! Hope this missive gives food for thought and apologies for any exessive rambling.........it is rather late now

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:13:25 GMT

Wynne

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:51:49 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[Your argument cannot be valid without proven ID of the animal. The due diligence would add 5 minutes to every booster, tricky on a £99 boosters for life plan...........

[/quote]

I think this statement proves one of my original points does it not? - the vet in question in the OP is charging very low rates and then complaining he attracts dodgy clients. The extention of this is: if by doing so this means one is so busy that one does not have time to fill in a record card correctly one is not doing ones job properly and perhaps one should (to put it politely) reconsider ones charging policy.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Claire Fisher — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:24:41 GMT

Our RVNs give some second vaccines (which the RCVS have ok'd) and they just stamp the card with "given under veterinary direction" so they don't have to be signed to be valid.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:48:24 GMT

There's a simple way to decide whether or not vaccination certs/records should be fully filled in-write to RCVS Prof Conduct, and abide by their ruling

Wynne

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Julian Earl — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:41:01 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]The purpose of the signature is clear and that makes the document a certificate. Again, no-one answers my question - why bother to sign the certificate at all if it is just a record card?[/quote]

You have a point in a roundabout sort of way. Maybe I'll just initial them from now on.

There is more than a signature required to make something a certificate! I sign various cheques, letters, birthday cards all the time. Is the little handheld computer the delivery drivers have a certificate, because I have sometimes signed them.

Your argument cannot be valid without proven ID of the animal. The due diligence would add 5 minutes to every booster, tricky on a £99 boosters for life plan...[/quote]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]Again, no-one answers my question - why bother to sign the certificate at all if it is just a record card?[/quote]

Why not because we always have done and the public now expect it. I sign the controlled drugs book, that's no certificate. It's a record. I do fill in all the details as I try to on a vaccination card. Thats not the point. The point is its a record. As I said they cannot be certificates otherwise we could not sign them. The fact we can and do means they are not or we couldn't unless you are taking all the precautions listed above.

[/quote]

It is disingenuous to refer to birthday cards and cheques; you do not sign them as a verterinary surgeon. You sign them in a personal capacity. Similarly, the drugs book reference is moot: when you fill it in you sign it because it is true do you not? So you are in fact certifying the use of restricted drugs in a legal capacity. Try telling a court that you signed the book not knowing whether it was correct.

As for "we have always done it" - so what? That proves nothing about how good/bad a certificate is, it just proves firstly that we haven't taken them seriously before, and secondly that we need to be more careful in the future.

Thirdly, both of you are making a circular argument: (a) [Michael] it is "not" a certificate without a proven id, without proven id it is not therefore a certificate. Yes it is, it is just a bad certificate, and (b) [Mark] if they were a certificate you would not sign it, but you do therefore that makes it a non-certificate. Nope, you are just signing a poor certificate that's all.

Take a Pet passport or some other example of a good certificate. Fill it in as appropriate but don't sign it and hand it to the owner. It is useless for its intended purpose. Now sign it. It is no longer useless. What makes the difference? The signature, pure and simple. Because it is now taken as authoritative of the vaccination having been done.

They are absolutely and categorically a certificate - you sign it for someone to use as proof of vaccination. If it is a record, it does not need the signature.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 20:05:23 GMT

The posts above explain what I was trying to say better than I could have done myself......

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Mark Holmes — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:12:36 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]Again, no-one answers my question - why bother to sign the certificate at all if it is just a record card?[/quote]

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 16:28:29 GMT

You have a point in a roundabout sort of way. Maybe I'll just initial them from now on.

Your argument cannot be valid without proven ID of the animal. The due diligence would add 5 minutes to every booster, tricky on a £99 boosters for life plan...........

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Julian Earl — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:24:02 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]If they are truly a certificate I sincerely hope you write the details on instead of using the stickers, you sign in a colour other than black and take a photocopy of each and everyone. I've worked in practices where the VN's would sign them. To be honest if I thought they were a certificate then I would not be prepared to sign them in their present form.

[/quote]

If it is relevant, then I always fill them in completely. Of course it is not relevant though, because I might just be hopelessly incompetent and/or dishonest or unprincipled, and it might be a poor example of what a certificate should be; in any event, what I personally do has no relevance to the status of a document with a signature plus MRCVS. The real pertinent fact is that this document is being used by an owner to prove that their dog has been vaccinated - without the veterinary signature, the owner cannot use it that way. The purpose of the signature is clear and that makes the document a certificate. Again, no-one answers my question - why bother to sign the certificate at all if it is just a record card?

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Claire McConnell — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:02:31 GMT

I agree with Mark

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Mark Holmes — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:57:55 GMT

If they are truly a certificate I sincerely hope you write the details on instead of using the stickers, you sign in a colour other than black and take a photocopy of each and everyone. I've worked in practices where the VN's would sign them. To be honest if I thought they were a certificate then I would not be prepared to sign them in their present form.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Julian Earl — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:11:22 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

On a completely separate note, we should not be pushing to consider things "official certificates" unless forced. That leaves leaves us open to sanction. Where something can be considered a record rather than a certificate it should be. I fill in a few export certs and I am very very careful when doing so, similarly with passports and other documentation. I fill in frankly hundreds of vaccination records. If they had the same gravitas as other documentation my liability would be several fold greater, and purely on the basis of small risk of error per card but hundreds of opportunities. It is likely somebody would find fault sometime.

No, keep official certification to an absolute minimum. They are purely a record.

[/quote]

No they are not. Clearly. It is just convenient to ignore the fact that they require a signature, so let me ask again, as I asked Gillian before: why do you sign it then if it is not a certificate? If it is "just" a record card then your signature MRCVS is not necessary. You place your veterinary signature on there only to show that you have given the vaccine, i.e. you are "proving" that the vaccination has been carried out. The signature has no other purpose than that.

A record can have all the details but the veterinary signature. The signature clearly and obviously is there to show that the vaccines have been administered. Again, whether the certification is adequate when the typical animal details are all that is written is another issue, therefore chipping is indeed the better road to go. But because you sign it as an MRCVS that alone makes it a certificate.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:27:43 GMT

Gillian I have some very good breeders on my books-whodon'task me tofill in incomplete certificates. With puppies, I put "progeny of..............." under name,which together with breeders name and address, dob, sex, and colour identifies the puppy to 1/2 a litter at most

As tobrand new client with litter of pups-simple-follow GtoPC and request permission for records to be forwarded from previous practice before registering-it's not an emergency

Wynne

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Mark Holmes — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:13:11 GMT

I would agree its best to fill in all the boxes but on occasion I have been in the rediculous position of having to name the puppies in the consult room just to have something to put in the box. (at the time practice policy to fill in all sections) I would comfortably leave the name box blank rather than having to do that or resort to "Pup 1" I agree that breeder details on the vac card are very useful should a problem arise post sale.

No, keep official certification to an absolute minimum. They are purely a record.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Bob Russell — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:13:26 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

But if a brand new client came in with some puppies to be vaccinated, what measures are put in place to ensure that the information you are given is correct? Do you check ID? Do you want proof of address? I am truly baffled why such importance is being placed on a document that can so easily be obtained fraudulantly.

If a breeder wants to obtain a vaccination card with pretty much any details filled in then he could.They just need to bring in a pup. Or ask for replacement cards for old ones that have been lost - how do you know they're not going to just amend a couple of details and then reuse it? All they needed was your signature in a box...all the rest can be changed.

You seem to be getting the impression that I never fill in vaccination cards - that is not correct. I do so 99% of the time. There is no reason not to. But if I am given a good reason, then I don't have a problem leaving a box blank.

[/quote]

I absolutely agree there is no reason to do so other than laziness or sloppiness. Allowing a breeder to remain anonymous cannot be a good thing for patient, client or welfare. We should not leave address details (or any other parts of the card) blank! This makes it all to easy for unscrupulous puppy farms to function.

If the breeder lies and gives false details so be it. If I became aware of a client using false details I would question why and their honesty overall. As such I would be inclined to suggest they may be happier with another vet! We should all be doing the job to the best of our ability, not at the direction and whims of breeders.

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:47:11 GMT

Re: What would you think of this vet?

Bob Russell — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:35:57 GMT

I think failure to fill in a card properly should only be a disciplinary matter if there is the intention to deceive. That said I completely fail to understand why these cards are not filled in. The vet involved is paid to vaccinate and the card is there to confirm it has been done. Failure to fill in the card properly means the vet is only doing part of the job.

It would be interesting to see how a trading standards officer would look on a half filled in card. I am sure they would not lose any sleep but I suspect they would also be unimpressed. I will give an old friend at New Forest District Council a ring and ask!