23 Aug 2022
College consultation is underway on proposed changes to guidance, but critics, including a former member of its council, argued the process is not addressing fundamental questions about the plans.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image © Seventyfour / Adobe Stock
The RCVS is facing fresh criticism of its proposed reforms to “under care” guidance after it refused to release further details of the legal advice underpinning the plans.
Around three weeks are left of a professionals’ consultation on the measures, which the college said had attracted more than 1,100 responses at its midway point.
But critics, including a former member of its council, argued the process is not addressing fundamental questions about the plans, which they feared risk undermining public confidence in the sector.
The RCVS said legal advice was necessary to ensure that its proposals were based on an accurate interpretation of existing legislation.
But the only publicly available record of that advice is a single page summary, compiled in late March, by Fenella Morris QC. In it, she argued that the term “clinical assessment” should be interpreted “so as to include both in-person and remote” assessments.
She also advised that an animal could be deemed to be under a vet’s care in both in-person and remote circumstances.
The summary continued: “The question of whether the veterinary surgeon’s contact with the animal is sufficient to render it under his care within the meaning of the Regulations will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
“Answering the question will involve consideration of whether the veterinary surgeon is taking professional responsibility for the animal to which he is prescribing the POM-V in relation to its prescription.”
During an RCVS council meeting in July, where the decision to go ahead with professional and public consultations on the proposed guidance was made, supporters of the measures argued that rejecting the advice would put the college in a “precarious” legal position.
Asked by Vet Times whether that was the only legal advice the RCVS had received, or whether further material was available to members, a spokesperson said: “The summary of the legal advice that was in the council papers in July is the only legal advice that we’re publishing to the profession and public regarding the under care consultation.”
A subsequent freedom of information request by Vet Times for all legal advice and related correspondence was rejected on the grounds of legal professional privilege.
Former RCVS council member Colin Whiting said the review was one of the reasons behind his resignation from the body in June, as he could not see any circumstances in which he could support it.
He believes at least some council members recognise the proposals are unpopular, but claimed there was “no particular drive” to increase engagement, and the potential risks of remote assessment and prescription had not been properly taken into account.
Concerns about the impact on animal welfare and how improper practices could be monitored were raised at the July council meeting.
Dr Whiting said: “I think if we asked the profession a simple ‘do you think it is a good idea for a completely third-party, virtual-only vet service to be able to consult and prescribe for a patient under your practice’s care?’, you would get a resounding ‘no’.
“Instead, we have a ‘we know you won’t like them, but we’ve chosen sprouts for you anyway… But we’re asking you if you’d prefer them boiled or fried… see how we always consult with you?’
“An independent, unconnected, third-party, remote provider prescribing for your practice’s patients will be a convenient, but substandard, service for owners, will delay definitive care or early diagnosis of most conditions, and will reduce public confidence in the profession, as there are frequent contradictions and changes of approach.”
Meanwhile, Federation of Independent Veterinary Practices spokesperson Richard Weston, who has been an outspoken critic of the reforms, said the current proposals did not address his concerns.
He said he had advocated a policy over many years that vets should not begin work on a case without having access to all relevant information about the animal being presented and suggested human medicine would not be carried out in the ways now being proposed for the veterinary sector.
He also argued standards are a more critical issue, adding: “I’m not sure where legality comes in. This is about professional conduct.”
But the college maintains its plans are intended to maintain confidence and reduce the risk of substandard service.
Its spokesperson said: “In terms of the consultation, its main aim is to identify anything we haven’t thought of that would help maintain confidence and protect animal health and welfare, so we would like people to feed any concerns/suggestions they may have into the consultation.
“We have already stated quite openly that the new guidance will be coming into effect, but we want to make sure it’s as good as it can be; hence, we are consulting widely on it to get as much feedback from as many different stakeholders as possible.
“An awful lot of work and research has gone into examining the effects of this new guidance – much of it done independently – and we also held two comprehensive stages of the review process involving the professions before we reached this final stage.”
The professionals’ consultation continues until 12 September. A public consultation, conducted by the polling organisation YouGov, is also due to take place within that period.
