7 Aug 2023
The RCVS is set to extend the circumstances in which vets can prescribe antibiotics, but the BVA says many professionals feel “inadequately prepared” for implementation of the new rules.
Allister Webb
Job TitleMany vets still feel confused and under-prepared for implementation of the profession’s new “under care” guidance, only weeks before it comes into force, the BVA has warned.
The claim was made after the RCVS confirmed it is making further changes to the guidance – specifically around the prescription of antibiotics – in response to professional feedback.
But while it welcomed that move, the BVA said its view of the guidance as a whole was “largely unchanged”.
Its president, Malcolm Morley, said the group was “seriously concerned about reports of widespread confusion across the profession” about the impact of the guidance on practising vets.
He said: “While the latest RCVS webinar provides useful interpretation of the guidance, many vets still feel inadequately prepared and overwhelmed by its complexity.”
Details of the fresh considerations were outlined in the latest of two webinars hosted by senior college officials ahead of the implementation of the new guidance from 1 September.
The current agreed guidance requires a physical examination “in all but exceptional circumstances” when antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, or antivirals are prescribed to animals that are neither production, farmed aquatics or game.
But following the latest webinar held on 17 July and discussions within the college’s standards committee, the additional change has now been published on its under care web page.
The revised guidance stated: “Where samples are obtained for the purpose of testing following a physical examination, it is acceptable for a veterinary surgeon to prescribe antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals based on the results of those contemporaneous tests without the need for a further physical examination.”
The same criteria will also apply to production animals, farmed aquatics or game where a physical examinations has taken place “recently enough” for the vet to have current information.
Speaking in the webinar, the college’s junior vice-president, Linda Belton, argued the changes would help to address both broader ecological concerns about the profession’s work and one of the key reservations held by opponents of the college’s reforms.
She said: “The whole rationale around this is around getting good veterinary oversight around the prescribing of medicines where there is the potential for resistance development or environmental contamination.
“What we’re trying to really build here is effectively a VCPR [vet-client-patient relationship]. We’re not looking for a form to fill in or a box to tick, and it’s not something that can look forwards. It’s in the moment. It’s each and every time we prescribe.”
Commenting ahead of the revised guidance being published, Dr Morley said the BVA was “pleased” by the antibiotic commitment and looked forward to further details.
But he added that the BVA had been “surprised” by the VCPR assertion, because of the college’s persistent rejection of the concept during debates on how the guidance should be reformed.
He added: “As it stands, the guidance does not serve the best interests of animal welfare, access to veterinary services, or the veterinary profession.
“Our position remains that the RCVS should have formally adopted the concept of the VCPR in the new guidance and defined it in a way that is fit for purpose now and in the future.”
But speaking during the webinar, senior vice-president Melissa Donald said the rules offered safeguards against both AMR and the misuse of controlled drugs, as well as making allowances for technological advances.
She said: “Developing the guidance has been far from easy, but we believe it not only protects animal health and welfare, but also maintains public trust by ensuring the decision making remains firmly in the hands of individual veterinary surgeons and works for all sections of the profession.”
Miss Belton also insisted that “sensible” decision-making would be accepted where vets sought to justify decisions taken in exceptional circumstances.
The issue has been another of the major areas of concern surrounding implementation of the new guidance. A number of example scenarios have been published by the college to help vets adjust to the new rules.
