POM-V issue only noted since under care shift, VMD claims

Veterinary practices will be given updated guidance about the use of POM-Vs, following a delay to implementation of new under care guidance in the area.

The VMD confirmed the move after the RCVS came under fire for its suggestion of “widespread non-compliance” with existing regulations.

Critics have claimed the college itself failed to identify any breaches of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (VMRs), while the BVA hinted the problem should have been addressed earlier.

But VMD officials have indicated the issue only came to their notice as a result of the under care changes, which are now largely in force.

Awareness

A spokesperson said: “We are aware that some practices have not been fully complying with the VMR in relation to prescribing POM-V antiparasitics, which has come to light following the RCVS’ updated ‘under care’ guidance.

“We are working with the RCVS to produce further clarification in our guidance for veterinary practices, to support full compliance with the VMR requirements for prescribing of POM-V medicines.

“Both RCVS and VMD inspectors will continue to assess compliance with the VMR during practice inspections and deal with any non-compliance in accordance with our respective procedures.”

The college itself later said: “Once this has been published, both [Practice Standards Scheme] PSS assessors and VMD inspectors will assess compliance during practice assessments/inspections, and handle any non-compliance in accordance with their respective procedures.”

Post-meeting communications

The row erupted in response to communications issued by the college after its council meeting on 7 September.

During that session, members backed plans to delay implementation of the revised under care guidance for administering POM-V antiparasitics until 12 January 2024, even though the rest of the changes have been implemented.

A statement issued after the meeting said the decision had followed “recent reports of widespread non-compliance by veterinary practices with an aspect of the VMRs” and concerns from some practices about whether they could become compliant.

The statement was derided in a number of online comments, which branded the college “patronising” and accused it of moving the goalposts, while one correspondent to Vet Times branded it an “embarrassing U-turn” and claimed no breaches had been identified, even under the college’s PSS.

Queries

A college spokesperson said it had received “a handful of queries” from practices with concerns about their ability to comply with the new guidance prior to its planned implementation on 1 September, which increased substantially as that date drew closer.

He added: “This message was further reinforced by feedback from vets and vet nurses attending our Regional Question Time meeting in Telford, and we were also contacted by the BVA and the BSAVA, asking for a pragmatic solution to the challenges being faced by large numbers of their members.”

The college also argued that while it was “not practicable” for PSS assessors to look at all areas of clinical records during inspections, the new guidance takes a stronger line on the supply of antiparasitic POM-Vs.

The spokesperson continued: “It is our view that these medicines should be treated differently to other POM-Vs, because the risk of uncontrolled use is greater, for example, resistance and environmental impact.

“As such, the guidance requires a physical examination in order to positively impact prescribing behaviours and change attitudes to these medicines. As a regulator, we naturally take compliance with relevant legislation very seriously and continually look for ways to support veterinary professionals in maintaining this.”

‘Pragmatic solution’

The delay in implementation has been welcomed by the BVA, which said it had made representations to seek what it termed a “pragmatic solution” for its members.

But while it acknowledged the move would give practices time to ensure full compliance, the group also appeared to suggest the issue should have been recognised and resolved at an earlier stage.

Its president, Malcolm Morley, said: “Given that this issue has been a significant concern for a majority of practices, including those inspected under the RCVS PSS, the extension is of utmost importance in ensuring that all vets can effectively navigate the recently introduced RCVS guidance on under care.”