ASA Adjudication on Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Ad

A leaflet, for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), stated in bold "... What's RCVS accreditation? …" and in bullet points stated "… An accredited practice is inspected every four years It must certify annually that it continues to meet the standards It may be subject to spot-checks between full inspections …". Under the heading "What does it mean for me and my animals?" text stated "RCVS accreditation means Peace of mind for you Quality care for your animals Regular inspections for the practice …". Text below stated "The Practice Standards Scheme is a voluntary initiative - not all practices are part of it yet. As a client of an RCVS accredited practice, you can rest assured of a high quality of care throughout the practice ...".

Issue

The Action Group against the RCVS Conduct Department asserted that:

1. the claim "RCVS accreditation means ... Regular inspections for the practice" was misleading, because they understood that not all accredited practices had been inspected under the scheme and

2. the claims "RCVS accreditation means ... Quality care for your animals" and "you can rest assured of a high quality of care throughout the practice" were misleading, because they understood that, although the building structure, qualification of staff and health and safety issues were inspected, clinical standards and competence were not. They also believed RCVS could not deal with unethical conduct or negligence.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The RCVS stated that their Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) was introduced to the veterinary profession on 1 January 2005 but had not been launched to the public until March 2006. They explained that it was a voluntary scheme for accredited veterinary practices which met the standards set out in their three-tier structure: Tier 1 represented core standards and was relevant to all veterinary practices; Tiers 2 and 3 were cumulative and represented the additional standards necessary in order to achieve accreditation at the higher levels.

1. The RCVS believed their claim of regular inspections was justified. They explained that under the PSS, inspections were carried out every four years and practices were also subject to spot checks in the interim. They said if a practice that had not been part of an existing approved scheme wanted to apply to join the PSS, they would have to be inspected prior to RCVS accreditation. They explained that the PSS absorbed two previous schemes: the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) scheme and the joint RCVS and British Veterinary Hospitals Association (BVHA) scheme. Under those schemes, practices were also visited every four years and were managed to similar standards as their current scheme. They added that the inspectors from the previous schemes had become PSS inspectors. They said the earlier schemes had closed when PSS had been introduced but pointed out that practices, which transferred from the previous schemes to PSS, followed the same four-yearly inspection cycle uninterrupted. They argued that, although the practices may not have been inspected since 1 January 2005, they should have been inspected within the last four years unless they had joined the PSS under the transitional agreement for Veterinary Nurse Training Practices, (VNTPs) practices accredited by the RCVS Awarding Body for Veterinary nurse training, in which case they were visited at least twice each year.

RCVS provided documentation which showed that, of the 1,856 practices under the PSS scheme between 2003 and 2006, 1,144 were accredited, 630 were awaiting inspection under the transitional arrangement and 82 were part-way through the application process for inspection or approval. Of the 1,144 practices (662 of which were VNTPs), 482 had been visited during the four years and, since 1 January 2005, 44 spot inspections had been carried out on accredited practices.

2. The RCVS stated that PSS regulated the accreditation of practices, not veterinary surgeons, and that this information had been mentioned in the leaflet. They added, however, that a veterinary surgeon could be subject to disciplinary action by the RCVS if their practice had accreditation. They explained that under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, the RCVS could discipline (remove, suspend from the register or reprimand) veterinary surgeons if the RCVS Disciplinary Committee considered them unfit for practice. However, they explained that they had no jurisdiction over allegations of negligence against a surgeon, which were dealt with by the Civil Courts. RCVS sent a copy of their complaints procedure together with a copy of the document "The Veterinary Surgeons and Vet Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure and Evidence) Rules Order of Council 2004". They also submitted copies of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme Manual and Rules. They said, when they referred to quality of care in their leaflet, it related to professional development, clinical governance, the service clients received, care of the animal patient (for example 24 hour emergency cover) and the practice equipment. They stated that the leaflet had not suggested that there were no risks involved with veterinary treatment because they acknowledged that mistakes during medical and surgical treatment could occur regardless of the standard of a practice.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the RCVS PSS was a voluntary scheme set up to regulate veterinary practices. We noted that PSS was a scheme that had been introduced in January 2005 and that, under PSS, not all the accredited practices had yet been inspected. We understood, however, that the practices would have been inspected under previous schemes, which were not dissimilar to PSS. We also noted, regardless of scheme, all RCVS accredited veterinary practices had been inspected at least once in four years with interim spot-checks. We acknowledged the Action Group's concerns that not all accredited practices had been inspected under PSS; nevertheless we concluded that, because the leaflet clearly stipulated the inspection criteria, the claim "RCVS accreditation means ... Regular inspections for the practice" was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We acknowledged that it was not compulsory for a veterinary practice to be regulated by RCVS. We understood, however, that for a practice to be accredited by RCVS, they had to demonstrate that they practiced to PSS set standards. We acknowledged that the Action Group considered that the claim "Quality care for your animals" was misleading because they believed clinical standards and competence were not evaluated. While we did not dismiss their concerns lightly, we nevertheless considered that the leaflet clearly set out which aspects of an accredited practice were inspected; it referred to hygiene, health and safety, facilities and equipment as examples of areas covered. Because clinical standards and competence were not listed under the areas covered, we considered that readers were unlikely to infer that they would be inspected. In addition, we noted RCVS had systems in place, such as a complaints procedure, practice visits and the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, which, we considered, enabled concerns to be highlighted and addressed. We concluded that the claims "RCVS accreditation means ... Quality care for your animals" and "you can rest assured of a high quality of care throughout the practice" were unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)