Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Sal the 1st — Fri, 19 Feb 2021 19:25:58 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176826#176826"]

Sal the 1st said:
Yes I can see some positives - presumably the paraprofessionals will also have to satisfy cpd requirements and pay a professional annual registration fee (hopefully that will reduce the fees for everybody else if there are more paying in)

I don't think that necessarily follows. I mean, you'd expect the fees brought in from paraprofessionals to be needed for regulating them.

[/quote]

Just my thoughts but the more people paying into the pot then there are going to be more questions into how that money is being spent - and lets face it the RCVS keep the cards pretty close to their chest on that one. If, as in the case of my friend, they are already members of a regulatory body (in their case the FRC) for which a retention fee is already paid. will this mean that they will now have to pay 2 fees or do the RCVS get to keep the whole lot - and what would happen to funds, staff, resources and buildings already held by other regulatory bodies would they then be absorbed into this monster regulator or would the original body be allowed to co exist ?

[quote userid="60272" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176862#176862"]I can see the paraprofessional regulation as potentially being an RCVS power grab.[/quote]

This is exactly what I and others see it as. Megalomania.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Cyonica — Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:22:59 GMT

I'm not aware of any evidence, and it's not something I'd be personally interested in doing. I know some people are very passionate about the idea of district nursing, which is why I mentioned it, but I don't know how much of a demand there would be for it. Practices could theoretically already have their own "district nurses" travelling to clients' houses if that was service they thought was in high demand. So, no is the answer! But I also haven't put much thought into it so don't have much of an opinion one way or the other.

I had to take a few deep breaths before I could tackle the protected title argument! Those people aren't veterinary nurses. I don't think it's unfair to make that clear. Maybe that sounds harsh, but there's a qualification pathway to being an RVN that's been available for many, many years, and that no one who wants to practice as a veterinary nurse has any excuse to have not completed at this point. No non RVN/SVN can work within Schedule 3 of the VSA, so really those people not on the register are kennel assistants / VCAs. "Nurse" may not be a protected title, but to my understanding "registered nurse" is. I think "nurse" is a difficult one because it's such a wide-reaching word and can apply to many professions, including ours, but "veterinary nurse" is pretty specific and it's misleading for someone who isn't a SVN or RVN to use it.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:30:22 GMT

Hi Cyonica

[quote userid="60272" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176862#176862"]Allowing vets to delegate to professionals not in their employment also opens the door for progress (eg. district nurses).[/quote]

Is there any evidence that there's any market demand for a district veterinary nurse? Genuinely curious.

[quote userid="60272" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176862#176862"]I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this.[/quote]

The argument against is that it unqualified staff who have been nursing for years have always been able to call themselves a veterinary nurse, which is an accurate description of their job title, and possibly unfair to remove it.

But the number of unqualified staff has been reducing over the last decade, and I wonder how many would still be affected.

Incidentally, in human medicine, the title 'nurse' is not protected.

[quote userid="60272" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176862#176862"]Also, how many paraprofessions are there, and where do they want to draw the line? Physiotherapists? Groomers? Breeders? [/quote]

It's a good question and one I have not yet seen answered.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Cyonica — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:24:40 GMT

Since the RCVS are the veterinary regulatory body, it would make sense for them to regulate anyone practicing acts of veterinary surgery, so certain paraprofessionals like equine dental technicians should probably fall into that bracket. As you say, it would make it a requirement for them to be qualified and accountable for their actions as professionals. I would imagine, though, that the RCVS would want control over what these professions can or can't do, which I expect is why they are looking to bring them under their regulation.

Allowing the RCVS to define what acts of veterinary surgery can be delegated without need for new legislation allows for much faster progress with regards to adapting to the reality of modern practice. This could be a really good thing, and I hope it could allow them to remove some of the grey fuzz around Schedule 3 delegation. Allowing vets to delegate to professionals not in their employment also opens the door for progress (eg. district nurses).

It doesn't make sense that veterinary nurse isn't already a protected title. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want this.

I can see the paraprofessional regulation as potentially being an RCVS power grab. It would mean more work for the RCVS and they'd have to have representatives from these professions on the council or it wouldn't be fair. Also, how many paraprofessions are there, and where do they want to draw the line? Physiotherapists? Groomers? Breeders? I'm still not sure how I feel about that one.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:52:06 GMT

[quote userid="2240" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176824#176824"]Yes I can see some positives - presumably the paraprofessionals will also have to satisfy cpd requirements and pay a professional annual registration fee (hopefully that will reduce the fees for everybody else if there are more paying in)[/quote]

I don't think that necessarily follows. I mean, you'd expect the fees brought in from paraprofessionals to be needed for regulating them.

[quote userid="2240" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176824#176824"]Isn't there a real risk here that somebody can become a member in one respect and that RCVS registration can then be used to 'legitimise' something else they do as a sideline.[/quote]

That's something I hadn't thought of. I wonder if more of the allied professions practise quackery as well as, say, physiotherapy, than vets. Take homeoquackery as an example. Only a very, very small number of vets peddle that stuff. I wonder if many more physios do? I am not meaning to have a pop at physios by the way.

[quote userid="2240" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32145/vet-legislation-reform-1-embracing-the-vet-led-team/176824#176824"]So if she sticks RCVS registered on her ads even if it only relates to her professional standing as a farrier what are her clients going to see and believe?[/quote]

Mmmm. I really wonder whether anyone else has thought of this, and whether it is likely a significant issue. I think it could be.

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Sal the 1st — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:21:46 GMT

I think its a bit scary to be honest that the RCVS regulates paraprofessionals as well. Presumably to be regulated by the RCVS it will mean you become a member? Yes I can see some positives - presumably the paraprofessionals will also have to satisfy cpd requirements and pay a professional annual registration fee (hopefully that will reduce the fees for everybody else if there are more paying in) but how exactly would the RCVS decide who should be members and who should definitely not? Isn't there a real risk here that somebody can become a member in one respect and that RCVS registration can then be used to 'legitimise' something else they do as a sideline. I will use as an example a friend of mine who is farrier - nothing wrong with that BUT (and you will love this one Arlo ) she is also a healer and homeopath, does the odd bit of kinesiology and uses crystals to help 'balance' So if she sticks RCVS registered on her ads even if it only relates to her professional standing as a farrier what are her clients going to see and believe?

RE: Vet Legislation Reform: 1. Embracing the vet-led team

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:24:41 GMT

Who'll start me off here? Would you say that these proposals are all unreservedly good things? See any unintended consequences? Anything you disagree with?