RCVS President Neil Smith has issued a statement in response to the petition by Devon vet Jo Dyer which called for the removal of mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct and received just shy of 1300 signatures over the past 48 hours.
The statement reads:
"I am delighted to see that so many veterinary surgeons are taking seriously our call for views and evidence on all aspects of the provision of 24-hour emergency cover, including those who have signed up to veterinary surgeon Jo Dyer's petition calling for the removal of 'mandatory house visits' from the Code of Professional Conduct.
"However, I am concerned that the petition is working on a misunderstanding. Veterinary surgeons are not mandated to attend away from the practice just because an owner has requested a visit. It is a professional decision based on a range of factors.
"In fact, paragraph 3.13 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct states 'Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else, to provide the service.'
"I appreciate that recent disciplinary hearings, especially that of Mr Chikosi, have increased concerns in the profession that vets will be disciplined for not turning out to every single request for a home visit. This is not the case. In order for someone to be taken to a disciplinary hearing for refusing to attend away from the practice, first there needs to be a complaint, and second, the Preliminary Investigation Committee needs to be convinced that the veterinary surgeon could not justify their decision. Such cases are rare. In fact, last year, only 3% of the complaints we received were about 24-hour cover, and not all of those related to home visits.
"Having said this, the number of signatures received on Jo Dyer's petition, and the comments of the signatories, will be fed into the material reviewed by the Standards Committee, alongside formal responses to our call for evidence, and views gathered from animal-owner research. Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances, the wording of our guidance needs to be reviewed, at the very least.
"It is likely that any recommendations for change in our 24/7 policy would go to the June meeting of Council, although this timetable is subject to change, depending on the nature of the report from the Standards Committee."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
"likely" erm what else do they have to talk about other than Nick Stace's new central heating boiler ?
Unfortunately, although Royal College can repeatedly and accurately state that house visits on request are not, and never have been mandatory, only visits when necessary, those who are unwilling to even do this will continue to misinterpret what is written.
Wynne
The origin of this petition lies in the profound sense of unease resulting from the Chikosi case, where the majority of practising vets felt that a flawed decision was taken by people unqualified to judge the situation, who then proceeded to give flawed advice to the profession at large, and topped it off with a wholly inapproriate sentence. those are the issues that really need looking at. There is also an issue where a vet on duty late at night is solely responsible for everything that might come their way, while practice owners/ bodies corporate are accountable to no one.
"Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances," I signed the petition, and I am well aware that house visits are not mandatory in all circumstances. If the RCVS states that "On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds." then it is stating that some home visits are mandatory. There should never (in my opinion) be a situation where a veterinary surgeon feels pressured to make a visit, whilst feeling it may be unsafe to do so. The word "necessary" absolutely implies that there are circumstances were there is no choice.
Maybe the wording should not be left as open ended as it is...rather, why not frame it as 'house visits are not mandatory', period. This would avoid the ridiculous situation Mr Chikosi found himself in.
It puts the onus clearly on the owner to facilitate delivery of the patient to the point of service .
I'm an outsider (Ireland), but I think the problem is all these "rules". I've taken a look at the "Code" and it seems fine to me - succinct, principle-based etc. The problem appears to be the 100-odd pages of "supporting guidance" which read rather like a rulebook and in my mind conflict rather with the "Code" in parts. Which takes precedence? Is the supporting guidance just that - helpful hints for the diffident - or is it intended and used as a rulebook?
Trying to make a rule book only encourages people to break rules etc - just look at tax situation... the more complicated the rules, the more ways to bend them... If Duncan's proposal was made a rule that a patient had to be delivered to a point of service, then that will effectively make farm animal OOH calls optional (who's going to transport a calving cow? Is that even legal?) This is all fine if you belive in market forces... but then if you believe in market forces you don't need the RCVS as folks will go to vets because they're good, not because nobody else will sell them a bottle of meloxicam...