Protest demands greater scrutiny of RCVS

A pet owners’ organisation, which claims the RCVS is failing to act in the public interest, has staged a protest to promote its demand for greater external scrutiny.

Members of the Justice for Pets Action Group believe current disciplinary procedures do not properly challenge poor behaviour and misconduct by clinicians when it occurs.

But college leaders said that, while they are sensitive to the group’s concerns, the body cannot consider issues of alleged negligence.

Police were alerted to the demonstration outside the college’s central London offices on 7 March, though only a small number of protesters were actually in attendance.

Investigation

The group, which estimates it has around 200 current members, believes a separate regulatory body similar to the General Medical Council should be established for the veterinary sector and has called for an ombudsman to investigate the college.

A mission statement, published ahead of the protest, also argued the college’s present complaint investigation protocols were “not fit for purpose”.

Group founder and former RVN Jack Bodimead insisted its purpose was not to “vet bash” and potentially exacerbate existing workforce challenges as a result, but to draw attention to an issue which they believe is being largely ignored.

She said: “We do not want to impact the veterinary profession. We need vets, we need good vets, we need good vet nurses.

“But we have this other issue where people are not able to just ignore what’s happened to them and what’s happened to their family members.”

Figures

According to the college’s own figures, as presented to the SPVS Congress in January, only 12 out of more than 3,300 individual issues – including 620 which progressed to become formal complaints – were the subject of full disciplinary hearings during 2023.

Of those, three were struck off the RCVS register, while another three were suspended, and college officials have previously stressed the system is not intended to punish professional mistakes.

But Ms Bodimead argued that many owners are left “extremely confused” by a lack of clear standards for what constitutes misconduct.

She said the group was set up to support members of the public who felt they had been denied a voice in the process and had been left “broken” by their experiences.

Voice

She added: “At the moment, we’re a small group, but we know there’s many more people out there that need help, and if we can be a voice for them, that’s what we want to be.”

The protest was referenced during the latest meeting of the college’s council, also held in London, on 14 March.

Chief executive Lizzie Lockett told members the organisation had only become aware of the action through social media and the group had not sought a meeting with them.

She said: “What they want is for us to look at negligence. That is something we can’t do and will never do.

“We do have sympathy for the situation these owners find themselves in, but their call for action is not something we’re going to be able to support.”

Procedures

The college’s website states that its disciplinary procedures cannot consider claims of negligence “unless it is so severe as to amount to serious professional misconduct”.

Miss Lockett also confirmed police had attended the site, highlighting the college’s obligations both to the owners and other occupants of the building where it is operating from and previous experience of being the subject of a much larger demonstration.

Ms Bodimead said the group had not received any engagement from the college prior to the protest, but would continue to raise awareness of the issue with the aim of attracting further public and political support.