‘Watershed moment’ as RCVS council approves ‘under care’ reforms

The adoption of new “under care” guidance has been declared a “watershed moment” for the veterinary profession by the BVA’s president.

Malcolm Morley has also urged the whole sector to monitor the impact of the measures approved by RCVS councillors yesterday (19 January) once they are implemented.

The new guidance will not come into force until at least the beginning of June and a review of the exact timing is expected to take place in March.

But, in a statement released following the council’s decision, Dr Morley argued the profession, as well as the college, had a responsibility to analyse its effects.

Scrutinise

Dr Morley said: “Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.

“At BVA, we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members, and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.

“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”

Examination

The new guidance says vets should have 24-hour physical examination and premises visit capabilities available, even if they do not provide them themselves.

Papers published ahead of the meeting said that element of the guidance had been amended in response to concerns raised during a consultation process in which more than 2,700 professionals and more than 2,000 members of the public had participated.

But Dr Morley said he still had concerns about the college’s proposals, despite the amendments.

Evolved with feedback

The BVA president said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession.

“New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices, as well as clients and their animals.

“However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship (VCPR) has been established.

“This is an internationally recognised concept and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.”

Implementing model

RCVS officials insisted they had included elements of the VCPR into the guidance, while supporters argued it would not prevent practices from implementing the model for themselves if they wished.

Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said the guidance needed to build public confidence, and meant questions of examination and prescription were matters “for your professional judgement as vets, something you are trained to do”.

But another council member, Jo Dyer, claimed the plans effectively rendered the under care concept “meaningless” in remote consultations and worried that any potential future amendments the college might wish to implement could be subject to legal challenge.

Wording

Dr Dyer said: “If remote prescription companies get going, they’re not going to stop. We can review all we like.”

She also argued the guidance ought to say vets “must” provide physical examination and visit facilities instead of “should”, as is stated, despite the counter argument that such wording was in line with other professional guidance.

She added: “If it was ‘must’, it would be nearly as good as what we’ve got now. Because it’s ‘should’, it’s optional. It’s advisory and it’s not strong enough for me, I’m afraid.”