BVA calls on RCVS to ‘clear up confusion’ on disciplinary changes

The BVA has stated it cannot support “publicly naming and shaming veterinary professionals” for “minor transgressions” if it remains part of an overhaul of the disciplinary system.

The RCVS had already voted this year to bring in a clearer, more streamlined process for considering reported concerns, as well as what it billed a more compassionate way of resolving some cases as an alternative to a full disciplinary committee (DC) hearing.

Full details of how the new-look, two-stage preliminary investigation committee (PIC) system, and all-new charter case protocol (CCP) and committee (CCC) would run have now been approved by a clear majority of RCVS council on 11 November.

Assessed

Under the changes, concerns will be assessed by a stage one PIC on whether an arguable case of serious professional misconduct exists. Cases will either close or go to a stage two PIC, which can decide to refer, based on specific factors, to either the DC or the CCC.

CCC powers include issuing confidential warnings, or public warnings published on the RCVS website for up to two years and on a clinician’s record for up to five years.

And it is the public element that continues to attract criticism, notably from the BVA – which jointly voiced concerns with the BVNA in the summer.

‘Amount of work’

Speaking after the RCVS council decisions, BVA president Justine Shotton, said: “We recognise a huge amount of work has gone into reviewing and modernising the college’s disciplinary systems, and there is much to welcome within these forward-looking reforms.

“However, we still have significant reservations about how some changes will be resourced, communicated and put into practice, and want to make sure that a compassionate approach is prioritised across the board.

“We support the stated aims [of the CCP] as an alternative, more compassionate approach to dealing with minor transgressions.”

Confusion

She added: “However, the RCVS needs to clear up some confusion, as the examples given to date of cases that might go through this process (such as failings in CPD, minor convictions, failings in indemnity insurance and confidentiality issues) aren’t necessarily the kind that might otherwise go to a full DC hearing.

“Finally, we cannot support any plans for publicly naming and shaming veterinary professionals when dealing with minor transgressions. This seems completely out of step with the type of cases managed through this protocol, and could be particularly damaging given the social media campaigns that are increasingly waged against members of the profession.”

She added the BVA was pleased to see streamlining of the initial PIC stage and “greater resourcing for cases referred to a stage two PIC to ensure timely outcomes while maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary process”, and concluded that the BVA had written to the RCVS about its ongoing concerns.

Significant powers

Comments about the CCP and the CCC’s powers were also raised and addressed in the full council meeting.

Council member Linda Belton said: “It’s reasonable, I think, to assume that this is going to end up with vets who, if they had gone through the very stressful elongated disciplinary, which we are trying to avoid, would have been cleared and had no sanction against them, are now going to have potentially quite significant ones, because the powers are quite significant that can be issued.

“It may be the right thing from a regulatory and upholding standards point of view, but a warning on my record that I need to inform insurance companies and employers [about] is quite significant, and these people potentially previously would have had nothing long-term. Communicating that as a positive might be quite difficult.”

Not trivial cases

Addressing the meeting, RCVS registrar Eleanor Ferguson said the RCVS “will do everything we can to make the position clear for everyone” in its communications, but reiterated the CCC was not for trivial cases.

She conceded the CCP would “cover one group of people who have not had anything previously”, but stressed a limited number of cases – estimated after the meeting to be around 20 per year – would go through to the CCC.

She said: “We’ve set out in the protocol what factors will be taken into account regarding suitability, and these cases will have crossed the threshold for a disciplinary case.

“Key among all of them are insight, in terms of whether there is any future risk to animal welfare or the wider public interest in dealing with it.”

‘Misconception

But she added: “I totally agree with you in terms of communication, because I think one of the views expressed when this was put through the consultation process was around the kind of naming and shaming, and I think there was a misconception that it would be for somehow trivial cases.

“It is not for trivial cases, it is [for] ones that have crossed the threshold for a disciplinary hearing, and if they don’t go to the charter case committee, they are going to disciplinary.”

After the meeting, Ms Ferguson said: “The establishment of the [CCP and CCC] is important for the RCVS in being able to get the balance right between upholding professional conduct standards, and protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the professions, while also being a compassionate regulator.

“The type of cases we envisage being dealt with by the committee are those where the conduct of the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse has fallen far short of what is expected of them under the code, but where there is no ongoing risk to animal welfare or public confidence, and where the level of insight and contrition about their conduct is such that it can be resolved without the need for an onerous, stressful and expensive disciplinary committee hearing.”

The reforms – voted through by a clear majority – require no change to the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Alternative names to the CCP and CCC will be considered shortly.

The full report is available on the RCVS website