BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Mark Hedberg — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:48:47 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="plantagenet"]I worked for one corporate when I was a locum and said I never would again; I didn't[/quote]

I am not convinced that this is a corporate;partnership question.

In the dear dark days beyond recall (ie before the advent of corporate vets) I, too, did quite a bit of locum work and I can report that cr@p practices didn't arrive with the limited company.

[/quote]

Amen, Malcolm. Bad management. While a non vet telling a vet how to spay a cat is clearly not on, veterinary surgeons were never taught the tools to effectively compete in the economy. So we need them, just like they need us.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

plantagenet — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:46:34 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="plantagenet"]I worked for one corporate when I was a locum and said I never would again; I didn't[/quote]

I am not convinced that this is a corporate;partnership question.

In the dear dark days beyond recall (ie before the advent of corporate vets) I, too, did quite a bit of locum work and I can report that cr@p practices didn't arrive with the limited company.

[/quote]

No, but the option is still there not to work for them again.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to non vets imposing any restrictions on how a vet does his work (unless that non vet is the client) and I realised within a very few weeks that my bosses wanted me to make money for them regardless. As an practice owner, obviously I want my vets to make money for me, but I would feel very reluctant to tell them how do do their job. The most I might do is suggest that they could use stuff that is on the shelf, rather than order it in, but I would not insist.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Malcolm Ness — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:06:38 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]I worked for one corporate when I was a locum and said I never would again; I didn't[/quote]

I am not convinced that this is a corporate;partnership question.

In the dear dark days beyond recall (ie before the advent of corporate vets) I, too, did quite a bit of locum work and I can report that cr@p practices didn't arrive with the limited company.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Alison McIntosh — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:11:07 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

I worked for one corporate when I was a locum and said I never would again; I didn't.

[/quote]

I wasn't working for a corporate at the time. I can happily report, however, that having worked for several corporates in the past, my moral, ethical and clinical standards remain untarnished and as shiny as the day I graduated

Wynne - you may be happy to go out to clients - but they will likely be your clients, that you know. I applaud your bravery in going out on your own - but remember I am a locum,with no relationship with the people that are calling me out, often with no local knowledge of the bad spots and it does put me in a vulnerable position. (My orange belt in Judo notwithstanding of course...)

I am not suggesting for a moment that we don't do house calls at all. I am suggesting that there are better ways of organising it than the current systems allow, and that the responsibility for that lies with the management - therefore the Code should recognise this.

I hope I haven't derailed the thread too much - shall we get back to discussing the BVU proposals in broader detail again??

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:13:48 GMT

Alison I've never suggested that anyone should place their personalsafety at risk-but refusing on VERY RARE occasions when there are valid grounds for believing that client to be dodgy-bad area(in which case they probably can't afford call-out fee anyway) or slurred speach-and having a blanket ban on all visits are very different things That is totally unacceptable The claim that you wouldn't have anyone to go with you is also invalid You don't need anyone to go with you I do house visits by myself-and I'm a 50+woman 5ft 3 ins tall and weighing 9 stone

If you're genuinely busy and can't leave a critically ill animal -fair enough-but again not a justification for a blanket ban on visits

Wynne

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

plantagenet — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:55:08 GMT

[quote user="Alison McIntosh"]Don't take the job at all? [/quote]

If you are going to be asked to compromise your clinical, ethical, moral or whatever codes - yes, don't take the job.

I worked for one corporate when I was a locum and said I never would again; I didn't.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Eamon McAllister — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:29:06 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

Does anyone know how many paid-up veterinary surgeon members the BVU has?

[/quote]

Very good question Mr. Ness. In the interests of openness, transparency etc...etc... I think we should be told.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Alison McIntosh — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:33:56 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="plantagenet"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]one OOH practice actually had a written protocol stating "must not leave the premises" [/quote]

Should any vet work for an employer who said this, or should a vet who wished to, make it clear that this would compromise their responsibilities and they would not obey this instruction. We have tremendous power (without a union) to alter these situations (usually corporates) by not working in the way demanded.

[/quote]

Probably not, but once there and doing an OOH shift it is not possible to leave or retract from the work. Although not popular I would do/have done as you say, disregard their protocol and do what I feel is professionally correct, and be prepared to accept for it of course. The problem with that clinic is that other staff will obey protocol and not leave, and there is no practice vehicle and no back up on call vet. A prime example where the BVU suggestions are valid, it is simply impossible to follow the present GtoPC and be able to offer home visits. Incidentally, all the directors are m'rcvs.

[/quote]

So what's the way forward with the obligation to do home visits? I'm a locum, I've just started to do more OOH work and I can't see what I would do in this situation. So far I've always been able to persuade an owner to come to the surgery, but if I were to get an owner demanding a home visit what do I do? I clearly can't leave the building if I have critical animals present and what if another emergency comes in whilst I'm gone? Who do I take with me, as I can't leave the building completely unattended? If the practice protocol says 'don't leave the building' but the RCVS says I must attend a home visit I'm going to end up doing the wrong thing according to one of them.

That's not even touching on the subject of personal safety. Some of the areas I have worked in I've been advised not to go out by myself at night - at all. I really wouldn't fancy doing a home visit in some of these areas. I know Wynne will say that animal welfare comes first - but my own personal safety has to be worth something too. Doesn't it?

I've been in some very dodgy areas doing house visits thinking that even the police wouldn't come out to calls here on their own - but vets are expected to.

But what's my option? Don't take the job at all? I cannot exert any influence over the practice I work for, as a short term locum - therefore how can I be held responsible for their management plan? If I don't work there, someone else will and I'll lose out on a job.

I do think that the RCVS needs to look at its guidance on this. It's another example of the world working one way on paper and another in real life.

I don't mind taking responsiblity for my actions as a professional at all, but some situations you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:57:19 GMT

Does anyone know how many paid-up veterinary surgeon members the BVU has?

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:19:12 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Clive Why didn't you report this policy, as these directors (being MsRCVS ) could be disciplined Their reluctance to do house visits was one of the reasons I left Vets Now

Wynne

[/quote]

Maybe I should of, I don't know?. On the one hand we should report such practices, yet one does not want to become know as a whistle-blower or trouble maker locally. I may need to work there again one day? I was hoping, along with colleagues, to get the matter resolved amicably.

Further, I have little faith the RCVS would take it seriously anyway. In the RCVS Vs Albring case the duty vet was struck off as a sacrifice to the Gods, but it seems no action was taken against the employing practice and it's owners who should be held partially culpable at least.

Also, for the record, it is a small independent OOH provider, not a Vet-Now clinic.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:54:41 GMT

Clive Why didn't you report this policy, as these directors (being MsRCVS ) could be disciplined Their reluctance to do house visits was one of the reasons I left Vets Now

Wynne

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

plantagenet — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:05:33 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"] Incidentally, all the directors are m'rcvs.[/quote]

They should be doubly ashamed of themselves.

I agree that there is a problem, and sadly I think a consequence of corporate ownership, where the clients are separated from the principals, but I think these are less likely to be resolve if the authority of the vet (to say get stuffed if necessary) is diminished.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Clive Ansell — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:52:52 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]one OOH practice actually had a written protocol stating "must not leave the premises" [/quote]

[/quote]

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

plantagenet — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:30:45 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]one OOH practice actually had a written protocol stating "must not leave the premises" [/quote]

Should any vet work for an employer who said this, or should a vet who wished to, make it clear that this would compromise their responsibilities and they would not obey this instruction. We have tremendous power (without a union) to alter these situeations (usually corporates) by not working in the way demanded.

I am with Wynne 100% that non-vet ownership has led to many of these problems and should never have been allowed.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Clive Ansell — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:13:46 GMT

I don't think for a minute that we should be absolved of our professional responsibilities at all, but there are cases where employed and locum veterinary surgeons cannot carry out their duties and responsibilities through failure of their employers, and through no fault of their own. In these cases the BVU recommendations are sensible. Some of the RCVS GtoPC does need rewriting for sure.

Take the issue of daytime or OOH home visits for example; the GtoPC is vague, non specific and woolly at best, what is written is just not workable down on planet real world. many practices I have worked in simply do not have the infrastructure or protocol in place for these to be carried out; no vehicle, not enough time if busy, not enough staff, one OOH practice actually had a written protocol stating "must not leave the premises" . To hold colleagues responsible in these cases is unfair when the means are just not there. In fact in the RCVS Vs Albring case this year, although the VS was struck off , and in their own report the RCVS DC recognised there was an "underlying culture of no home visits in some OOH clinics" there seems to be no action taken against them.

Also, as Wynne has pointed out, who takes responsibility when the practice owners are not mrcvs's? I occasionally work for a small independent charity practice, where it is managed and administered by a board of volunteer, trustees who know very little about veterinary practice. All of the veterinary surgeons are part time employed or locums and all practice policy and protocol is decided by the trustees. Getting them to stock only licenced drugs, to stop using generics, to have all necessary equipment and drugs, and to have a policy on overnight animal care has been an uphill battle. It certainly would be unfair for any employee to held accountable for the failings of the non veterinary management.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Rob Loxley — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:37:14 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]But at the end of the day, isn't it a union's job to do just that? Put pressure on employers?[/quote]

Yes, and maybe some of that needs exerting via the RCVS, but some of the tinkering with the GtPC as suggested is not the right answer, IMHO.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:39:39 GMT

But at the end of the day, isn't it a union's job to do just that? Put pressure on employers?

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Rob Loxley — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:19:38 GMT

[quote user="Shams Mir"]

We are NOT suggesting that Vets should not be accountable for what they do, but they should not be held responsible over what they have no control!

[/quote]

So if there are problems, why is the answer not to put pressure on the employers to put the control back in the hands of the Vet by ensuring that their protocols/policies allow their employees to follow the Law and GtPC? It just seems that some of the BVU 'solutions' of fiddling with the GtPC treat the symptom (big bad corporates making employees break the law/GtPC?) but not the underlying problem (the employers needing to not do this)?

Is the answer not in enforcing the RCVS guidelines/code of practice for Corporate Practices that already exists rather than absolving vets of their ultimate responsibility??

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Bob Russell — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:55:42 GMT

Cascade is a red herring as far as the code of practice is concerned. Like it (and I clearly don't) or not, it is the law and cannot be changed by employer or employee. If an employee is being pressurized into breaking the law by an employer this is outside the RCVS remit. If the law is changed to a form that makes cascade an issue of professional responsibility rather than criminal law then the code should come in to play. This is how I would prefer cascade to be implemented rather than the blunt force of the law.

An employee unable to continue working in any environment where criminal activity is required would appear to have a classic case for constructive dismissal so enter the BVU!

The code of practice should be there to guide us as professionals so must apply to all of us without discriminating. My view is that the RCVS are not improving anything with this code (even with the many constructive suggestions from Mr Mir).

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

J G Wray — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:46:50 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"] No hiding behind anyone else in this.[/quote]

I beg your pardon, plantagenet, but who are you? I know who Dr Mir is.

JGW

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

plantagenet — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:16:25 GMT

[quote user="Shams Mir"]May I very humbly urge the contributors to this thread to please take a little time to go through our actual recommendations in full rather[/quote]

I did - you identify some problems but I, for one, did not like your answers. Being a professional is difficult, there are conflicting interests and a professional takes the responsibility for making a decision and carrying the can.

"humble" I don't think so, there is an arrogance that sees a black and white answer to every situation.

If you have no control about performing what you think your professional duty is, you do what Clive (back in this post) did and many others. No hiding behind anyone else in this.

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:55:49 GMT

I did read it in full,which is why I said there were some good points.My disagreement is that you think professional employees should be able to hide behind the "Nuremburg defence " We ARE responsible for our professional actions,and it'sessential the animals are'nt allowed to suffer,with no-one accountable

Wynne

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Shams Mir — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:43:00 GMT

I fear this discussion is beginning to lose touch with the reality of our recommendations.

We are NOT suggesting that Vets should not be accountable for what they do, but they should not be held responsible over what they have no control!

May I very humbly urge the contributors to this thread to please take a little time to go through our actual recommendations in full rather than basing opinion entirely on the thoughts expressed by various contributors to this thread.

Shams

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Judith Joyce — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:19:13 GMT

[quote user="Shams Mir"]are NOT a 'disgruntled' lot but Veterinary Professionals[/quote]

..........but if BVU gets its way over this matter they will become mere veterinary technicians without professional responsibility. On a par with a (very) junior civil servant or a private in the the army. "I was only following orders" is not a defence that can be used with any integrity by a veterinary professional who expects their signature on a certificate to be taken seriously or their professional opinion to be listened to.

Malcolm N

Re: BVU recommends radical changes to the draft Code for Vets

Tim Mainland — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:16:10 GMT

I presume Mr Mir believes that Dr Conrad Murray's employer was responsible for his own death, and would absolve the Dr of any professional responsibility?