The British Association of Veterinary Emergency & Critical Care has released the results of a survey into practitioners attitudes to 24-7 and OOH home visits. 

360 veterinary surgeons took part in the survey, nearly all of whom have been practising for more than 2 years. 70% work in small animal practice, 12% at a dedicated OOH provider, and the bulk of the remainder in referral or mixed practice. 81% described the work they do as small animal first opinion, and 76% were employees. 35% said they had already responded to the RCVS call for evidence on the provision of 24/7 emergency cover.

26% said they work for a practice that outsources its OOH to a dedicated provider, and more than 85% of those said they would not return to an on-call system. 

In terms of dedicated out-of-hours providers, a clear pattern emerged. Namely those practitioners who outsource their OOH feel that patient care, staff safety and professional well-being are all enhanced by dedicated OOH services, but that dedicated OOH comes at a cost of reduced value for money for the pet owner. Customer service between the different OOH provisions is perceived to be similar (on-call better 25%, same 48%, and dedicated better 27%).

Among those practitioners who work for a dedicated OOH service, dedicated OOH services perform best in all categories. 68% responded that OOH customer service is better with a dedicated OOH service compared to an on-call system (12% responded that on-call provided better customer service on average). 44% responded that customer value for money was better with dedicated OOH service compared to 19% who responded that customer value for money was on average better with an on-call system.

Among those practitioners who do their own on-call, customer service and value for money were perceived to be better with an on-call system (42% v 26% and 61% v 15% respectively). In the other categories dedicated OOH services again out-performed an on-call system.

Whether routine or emergency, 'owner demands' were felt to be the biggest reason for home visit requests (41% and 30% respectively). However, 'genuine clinical need' was the main reason cited by 19% of respondents as the main reason for emergency home visits. Inability to move the animal was given as the main reason by a further 28%. 

Participants in the survey were asked to score (out of 10) how much their decision to perform a home visit was affected by the threat of a complaint, either to their employer or to the RCVS. Interestingly, 37% said a complaint to their employer weighed heavily on the decision (ranking it 8 or higher) where, by comparison, 52% said the threat of a complaint to the College ranked 8 or higher in their decision making.

69% of respondents said they make visits alone, either sometimes or always. When asked if they had ever felt threatened whilst performing an OOH visit, 48% said yes. This compared to 23% who said that they had felt threatened when performing a visit in normal hours.

When asked to rank (out of 10) the stress home visits cause, 7% said none at all and 36% said 8 or above. 

72% said they believe that the profession should continue to be obligated to provide 24/7 for animals.

Respondents were then asked to say whether they support or disagree with the suggestion that the need to perform house visits is removed from the CoPC. 59% were strongly for the idea (scoring it up to 3), compared to 22% who were strongly against it (scoring it 8 or above).

Opinions about whether the College should clarify the need to perform house visits was far more clear cut. 77% strongly supported clarification (scored up to 3), whereas only 16% said there was no need (scored 8 or above).

However, an overwhelming 93% said that they would continue to perform visits in the case of genuine clinical need even if the Code of Professional Conduct was changed to make it dear that there was no risk of disciplinary action for not attending off-site.  

PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.