The review

"The issue of whether a physical examination is necessary [in order to make a clinical assessment] should be a matter of judgement for the veterinary surgeon in each, individual case."

 

12. The current review began in 2019 to find out whether the current rules are fit for purpose, or whether change is required. As with all RCVS guidance, the aim is to protect animal health and welfare, maintain and uphold veterinary standards and ensure public confidence in the profession.
     
13. To assist with data gathering, the Standards Committee engaged the services of RAND Europe (an independent consultancy). The review comprised focus group discussions with members of the professions, the outcomes of which informed a survey which went out in May 2021 and had 5,544 responses. RAND analysed the survey responses and produced a report.
     
14. As a result of the difficulties arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, it was necessary to suspend the normal guidance and introduce temporary guidance allowing veterinary surgeons to establish ‘under care’ remotely in certain situations. The purpose of this was to ensure that veterinary surgeons could continue to care for animals without breaching government guidelines and restrictions, and in a way that was safe for them, their teams and their clients.
     
15. The operation of this temporary guidance presented us with a unique opportunity to carry out research and gather evidence based on real experiences. We therefore commissioned two independent pieces of research from SAVSnet and VetCompass to find out how veterinary surgeons applied the temporary guidance, and to compare treatment before and after the pandemic to see whether there were any negative implications for animal health and welfare. The findings showed that veterinary surgeons behaved responsibly and, where issues were identified, these have been factored into the proposals (see section B of the online survey). In the words of VetCompass: ‘Throughout the pandemic, veterinary professionals have acted in a manner that not only protected human health but ensured animal health or welfare were not compromised’. The research report from SAVSnet and executive summary with presentation from VetCompass are available to view online.
     
16. As explained above, this review hinges on the interpretation of legislation and, in particular, the terms ‘clinical assessment’ and ‘under care’. Therefore, we sought legal advice to ensure the basis of the guidance that governs the profession is correct and reliable. Interpreting legislation requires an assessment of intention at the time it was enacted, as well as applying the context of today’s world.
     
17. In the case of ‘clinical assessment’, we have been advised that this should be interpreted as including both in-person and remote clinical assessments. The issue of whether a physical examination is necessary should be a matter of judgement for the veterinary surgeon in each, individual case. We were further advised that ‘under care’ does not change the interpretation of ‘clinical assessment’ and involves consideration of whether the veterinary surgeon has taken professional responsibility for the animal. This legal advice can be viewed online.
     
18. The proposals in this consultation therefore reflect the findings of the review, the results of the independent research projects, and legal advice we have received.
     

Why are we consulting?

19. With all the above in mind, we would like your views on our proposed guidance on ‘under care’, in particular, on whether there are adequate safeguards built in to protect animal health and welfare and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary profession. As regards out-of-hours care, we would like to know whether you agree with the approach taken, together with some specific questions about what level of 24-hour emergency cover is appropriate for limited service providers and referral practices.
     
20. We believe that the proposed guidance set out in Section E will continue to protect animal health and welfare and ensure veterinary surgeons prescribe POM-Vs safely. The proposed guidance is intended to uphold public trust in the profession and give clarity, as well as providing a degree of future proofing so that the profession is prepared for the inevitable development of technology.
     
21. We also intend to consult with members of the public to better understand their views and how the proposals might affect access to veterinary care.