13 Feb 2024
A new report has revealed concerns were raised over the potential for criminal prosecutions to be brought because of planned reforms to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations.
Allister Webb
Job Title
A new report has revealed concerns were raised over the potential for criminal prosecutions to be brought because of planned reforms to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (VMRs).
The issue arose from proposals to restrict the prophylactic use of antibiotics, which critics warned could prevent usage for certain procedures with higher infection risks.But the BVA has said newly published revisions to the proposed measures showed that Government officials had “listened” to the profession’s concerns.
The group’s president, Anna Judson, said: “These are reflected in amendments including the appropriate use of the cascade, the prescribing of medicated feed and a commitment towards better regulation of online pharmacies.
“The BVA will take time to carefully review the details of the Government’s consultation response and share feedback with Government and our members.”
Around three-quarters of the original recommendations are set to proceed as planned, according to a consultation response document published by the VMD on 2 February, but one of the key areas of concern for vets related to the guidance around prophylactic use, as the paper reported there had been “concerns raised that the proposal could leave vets open to prosecution when prescribing antibiotics to protect the welfare of an animal.”
The BVA’s own consultation response, compiled in collaboration with several of its divisional organisations and SPVS, had warned that the original guidance’s reference to exceptional circumstances “would appear to preclude use of antibiotics for common surgeries where the risk of infection can be high”.
The VMD has now pledged to clarify key terms in that area – such as “routine”, “exceptional” and “predictable” – as well as the requirements for a management review.
The body has also committed to amending its plans relating to the veterinary cascade, which included the introduction of a specific offence of promoting illegal usage.
The report highlighted concerns including the potential risk of misinterpretation and negative impacts on both disease management and efforts to reduce antimicrobial usage, while the BVA’s consultation paper warned the measures could restrict vets’ clinical judgement.
However, the response document said: “It is not the intention to limit treatment options or prevent individual vets from using their own clinical judgement when prescribing in accordance with the cascade, nor is it intended to prevent the vet from discussing treatment options with the owner of the animal under treatment.”
Proposals to require online sellers of medicines within the POM-V, POM-VPS and NFA-VPS categories to be registered with the Government were supported by almost 70% of consultation respondents, while the report also indicated that a term “medicinal premix” would be adopted for medicated feeds in an effort to prevent confusion with other products.
The VMD has further pledged to reinstate the requirement for a “clinical assessment” when prescribing POM-V medicines, instead of its original proposal to allow vets to perform a “clinical examination or other proper assessment”.
The BVA-led response also warned that the VMD’s proposed approach would introduce “another unnecessary and undefined term”, and argued the guidance should clearly state that it is for the college to interpret what the clinical assessment term means in practice.
Although no firm timescale for introduction of the new regulations has been stated, officials told the annual NOAH conference on 1 February it is hoped they can be implemented from the spring.
