18 Jan 2023
With RCVS council due to vote on controversial “under care” guidance tomorrow (19 January), the BVA has urged the college to put its plans on hold ahead of an anticipated review of medicines rules.
Allister Webb
Job Title
BVA president Malcolm Morley has called on the RCVS to delay implementing its "under care" reform plans. Main image © Ihor / Adobe Stock
The BVA has called for the implementation of proposed new “under care” guidance to be put on hold ahead of an anticipated review of medicines rules.
The plea came as the body gave its first public reaction to the revised measures, published by the RCVS earlier this week.
Members of the college’s ruling council are due to consider the plans in a meeting at the University of Nottingham’s vet school tomorrow (19 January).
But papers published ahead of that session advised members they may want to consider the timing of implementation because of an expected “imminent” consultation on the future of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (VMRs).
In a statement released this afternoon, BVA president Malcolm Morley said: “In light of the imminent review, we have urged [the] RCVS to delay implementing this new guidance, the timing of which seems illogical given that it hinges on the current wording of the VMRs.”
The association has welcomed changes made to the guidance, including a requirement for vets to have 24-hour physical examination or premises-visiting capability available.
However, although progress has been made in addressing their concerns. Dr Morley said the body was “disappointed and concerned” that the college continues to resist its and others’ calls for recognition of the vet-client-patient relationship (VCPR) model.
The college argues implementing the model would go beyond the terms of the current VMRs.
But Dr Morley reiterated his argument that the VCPR was a safe way of enabling remote prescribing to take place.
He said: “The proposed guidance represents a fundamental shift towards permitting remote prescribing outside an established VCPR, which could have significant negative impacts on both animal welfare and the sustainable provision of veterinary services in the UK.”
Dr Morley also called for a commitment to review implementation of the guidance within a specified timeframe and questioned whether the requirement for physical examination facilities could be enforced without formal regulation of veterinary practices.
He added: “Enforcing the proposed guidance would rely on veterinary surgeons raising concerns about the conduct of fellow professionals. In addition, such concerns are only likely to be raised after the event and when harm has already occurred.”
