New guidance on 24/7 emergency care
A fact-finding exercise highlighted safety concerns about home visits.
RCVS guidance on 24/7 emergency care will place greater emphasis on the owner's legal responsibilities, helping vets to decline home visits that are felt to be unnecessary or unsafe.
The new guidance was agreed in principle at the recent RCVS Council meeting on June 5, where it received high praise from councillors, who referred to it as “an exceptional piece of work.”
It has also been welcomed by the BVA. President Robin Hargreaves said: “BVA has argued that the delivery of [24/7 emergency care] has to be realistic and the public expectation must be managed.
“We therefore welcome the college's commitment to highlight owners' responsibilities alongside those of veterinary surgeons.”
A review of the guidance was prompted by a number of factors, including significant concerns over the Chikosi disciplinary case in 2013. Furthermore, a Devon vet petitioned the RCVS earlier this year, calling for mandatory house visits to be removed from the code of professional conduct. The petition received more than 2,800 signatures.
Work on the new guidance was carried out by the RCVS standards committee, chaired by Clare Tapsfield-Wright. Outlining the recommendations at the council meeting, she said less emphasis would be placed on house visits, and more on the need for clients to take their pet into practice for the best treatment.
Under the new guidance, vets are not obliged to attend away from the practice unless, in their own judgement, the welfare needs of the animal would only be served by doing so.
A fact-finding exercise carried out by the committee found there was a strong desire among the profession to continue providing 24/7 first aid and pain relief. However, there were strong calls for there to be no obligation to make house visits, even though vets said they would still attend where necessary, even if there was no obligation to do so.
The exercise highlighted some safety concerns regarding home visits, as well as a fear of disciplinary procedures. Many vets said they carried out unnecessary home visits due to fear of disciplinary action.
This was addressed in the new guidance, which states that owners cannot demand visits and vets may decline if they feel a visit is unnecessary or they have overriding safety concerns. Disciplinary action will only be considered where there is wilful disregard for animal welfare.
Ms Tapsfield-Wright said the exercise also revealed frustrations among vets about seeing unregistered clients, who were felt to be more likely to be bad debtors.
Under the new guidance, vets may charge unregistered clients higher fees, or offer registration with the practice as an alternative.
Mr Hargreaves praised this recommendation, saying: “We also welcome the recommendation that the College better supports vets by making it clear that out-of-hours costs are generally more expensive and that vets are not obliged to carry out substantive treatment for which the owner cannot pay.”
Ms Tapsfield-Wright said there were many calls for the RCVS to take a greater role in educating the public. A number of organisations have offered to help with this, including BVA, Blue Cross and RSPCA.
RCVS president Neil Smith praised the methods used in developing the new guidance. Rather than a typical consultation, the committee used a detailed process of evidence gathering. Col Smith says this forms “a useful model that could be adapted to address other such issues that we may face in the future.”
Having received the support of council, the committee will now review some changes to the wording of the new guidance. Ms Tapsfield-Wright said it will then be published “as soon as possible”.
Visit the RCVS website to view the presentation given to council on June 5.
RUMA CA&E has extended the deadline for its online survey into vaccine availability.
