17 Mar 2023
Amended rules come into force from 1 September, but body is urged to remind vets of the vital role they play in upholding professional standards ahead of launch.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image © beavera / Adobe Stock
An RCVS councillor has urged the body to do more to remind vets of their “duty” to help uphold professional standards before new “under care” guidance is implemented.
The amended rules are finally set to come into force from 1 September, with a review after 12 months, following the approval of further revisions.
But concerns have persisted both over how the guidance will be enforced, and the apparent onus placed on individual vets to report any issues.
The virtual session on 16 March heard there was a historic impression that the college discouraged so-called “blue-on-blue reporting” of one professional by another.
But lay member Tim Walker said being prepared to step in when such issues occur was an “essential” part of the veterinary role, and losing sight of that could be problematic.
He said: “For me, it goes to the heart of what it is to be a professional. It is the duty of professionals to report poor practice whenever they see it.
“Where other professions have got into trouble, it’s where that duty has been forgotten.”
Danny Chambers suggested CPD content could be developed to more fully explain the college’s regulatory role.
Fellow elected member Olivia Cook said there was a need to get the message that all vets are part of the college across more effectively.
She added: “The standards are for all of us to keep, all of us to monitor, all of us to report. One college, one profession.”
Council members had earlier voted virtually unanimously in favour of amendments put forward by the college’s standards committee, following discussions held since the previous council session in January.
The main amendment strengthened the wording of the guidance to say vets now must, rather than should, have 24-hour physical examination or premises visit availability before taking responsibility for an animal.
The meeting was also told that availability needed to be demonstrated in the form of a written agreement that could be produced on request.
Council member Jo Dyer welcomed that change, which she had originally advocated at the January meeting.
But she suggested there was a need both for further clarity on potential punishments and a speeded-up process for concerns to be reported.
Dr Dyer argued it would only take a small number of cases with no follow-up action for inappropriate practices to become more widespread, adding: “If it’s left to slip, then we’re looking at a very rapid slippery slope.”
She also urged colleagues to delay implementation of the new guidance for as long as possible until the end of the year, in line with the window previously approved by members.
That allowed for the guidance to come into force any time between 1 June and 31 December.
But, with the results of the ongoing consultation on Veterinary Medicines Regulation reform expected to be published around the end of June, a proposal to enforce the guidance from 1 September was voted through by 13 votes to 3.
Standards committee chairperson Linda Belton said implementation then “makes sense” and she was confident that further work on example scenarios and communication with the profession would be done by then.
Lay member Judith Worthington said a further council meeting in June allowed a further review opportunity, if required, while Dr Chambers argued there was “no advantage” in a further delay.
Veterinary Schools Council-appointed member Chris Proudman also warned that a December implementation risked the introduction of the new guidance being lost around Christmas activities.
Ahead of the meeting, college officials had argued that a review of the guidance’s impacts should only take place at least two years after implementation to enable sufficient data to be collected first.
However, while registrar Eleanor Ferguson said the process of thinking about the form that the review should take ought to begin much earlier, many members were concerned that the entire process should be brought forward.
Miss Belton led calls for a 12-month review, which received unanimous support, with a “watching brief along the way”.
Dr Chambers also cautioned a mechanism was needed for action in case there was a “sea change” in the profession immediately after the guidance came into force.
The commitment to a review has also been cautiously endorsed by the BVA, which has been among the leading critics of the reforms in recent times.
In a statement issued following the meeting, its president, Malcolm Morley, said: “The RCVS’ revised ‘under care’ guidance has generated real concern within the veterinary profession – particularly around the unintended consequences for both animal welfare and access to veterinary services.
“The British Veterinary Association welcomes RCVS council’s commitment to a post-implementation review after 12 months, but we need further detail on how impacts will be evaluated.
”In addition, we look forward to seeing real-life case studies and other resources from the RCVS to help equip vets to navigate the changes, and effectively apply them to their practice.”
