PVA appeals to RCVS to ‘think again’ about ‘under care’ plans

Proposed reforms of “under care” guidance increase the risk of animals being wrongly diagnosed or given inappropriate treatments, a newly formed veterinary organisation has warned.

The Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA) has added its voice to calls for a rethink of the RCVS’ plans, just days before a final decision is expected to be made on them.

The college has maintained that change is essential, despite its proposals being branded a potential “Brexit moment” for the sector during a London Vet Show (LVS) debate in November.

BVA backing

Now, the PVA, which was launched following that session, has given its backing to other veterinary bodies and academics who have argued that any potential reforms should be based around implementation of the vet-client-patient relationship (VCPR) instead.

Some groups have argued that such a relationship can be established through solely virtual means.

But the PVA said: “There is a great deal of clinical information that can only be garnered via a physical examination, and to equate this with a phone or video consultation as a ‘clinical assessment’ could lead to misdiagnoses and mis-prescribing.

“Automatically putting a client and their animal ‘under care’ of the vet at the other end of the phone, irrespective of whether a remote consultation is adequate in those particular circumstances, entails risk.”

It added: “The PVA echoes the BVA’s call for the RCVS to recognise the vet-client-patient relationship and legislate around this.”

Final decision

A final decision on the planned reforms is expected to be taken during an RCVS council meeting at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Science this Thursday, 19 January.

Papers for the session have not yet been published, and a college spokesperson indicated it could not comment on the PVA’s views before they were released.

But senior college figures have insisted reform is necessary to make the guidance suitable for future application, as well as to resolve anomalies in the present arrangements.

Risk acknowledgement

President Melissa Donald acknowledged that potential risks could not be eliminated fully during the LVS session, but argued the body was already having to respond to wider sectoral change.

However, the PVA has urged the college to “think again”, arguing the profession needs to be asked whether it wants the change at all.

Although a consultation on the plans attracted around 2,700 responses, the college said at its launch the process was intended to consider whether the guidance and its safeguards were sufficient, and the need for any additions or amendments, rather than whether it should be implemented.

‘Flavour of change’

But the PVA said: “Merely consulting upon which flavour of change the profession would prefer seems surprising.”

The group has also called for further legal advice to be sought, stating it was “not convinced” by the guidance that was provided to the college by Fenella Morris KC.

In a published summary, she argued the term “clinical assessment” should be considered to include both in-person and remote interactions, and the type of assessment that would be considered appropriate would depend on the specific case circumstances.

But the legal basis for reform has been a key area of contention in recent months after a council meeting last summer was told the college would be left in a “precarious” position if it was disregarded.

Second opinion

The PVA claimed a second opinion, which “factors in scientific evidence concerning differences in volume and accuracy of data generated by a physical as compared to a remote consultation in a range of clinical scenarios”, was needed.

The group also warned of potential negative consequences for independent practices from the changes in response to concerns raised within that sector about the proposals for the provision of 24-hour emergency cover.

It said their clients “could automatically become those of corporate bodies capable of setting up the infrastructure of a 24-hour veterinary triage service”.