Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on September 5, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports BVA congress
Trust me, I’m a vet Trust is slowly earned, but quickly lost, and is at the heart of everything a veterinary surgeon does. A debate at the BVA Congress last November heard two perspectives on the issue of trust, and what it means for the profession. Kathryn Clark reports THE veterinary profession, in general, is still highly thought of by the public, but there is no room for complacency. No one can take trust for granted and veterinary surgeons need to constantly think about how they can be better than they are now. These were the key messages put forward by Nick Stace, chief executive of the RCVS and the first speaker in the debate, which was held as part of the contentious issues stream at the BVA Congress at the London Vet Show on November 22. The issue of trust was central to the RCVS, he explained, which had been established with the aim of giving the profession trust in the standards of veterinary education and giving the public confidence in the veterinary profession. He believed that there were seven principles on which the trust in the profession and its regulator were based. The first of these was transparency. In the past, said Mr Stace, it was almost a hallmark of success for a profession to ‘blind people with science’, an approach that was no longer acceptable. People could ‘sniff out’ cover-ups, he said, and would assume that if they were not being told something, it was because there was something to hide. The second principle was that of motivation; unlike some occupations, being part of the veterinary profession was about more than just making money, and served ‘a much higher purpose’, he said. The third was that of bias. For example, in the research for its first rate regulator initiative, the RCVS had been told by a proportion of the general public that it was too close to the profession. There was a suspicion that the profession and its regulator ‘act as one’. ‘We can’t do that,’ he said. ‘It doesn’t mean that we set out to disagree, but it does mean that disagreeing in itself is not a problem.’ The fourth principle was ‘expertise and edge’. The public expected that the professions they dealt with kept up to date and the RCVS encouraged veterinary surgeons to do this. The College itself could not afford to become complacent as a regulator – if it did not keep up with best practice, the public and the profession would lose trust in it. The next principle for trust was the need to be ‘in touch’ with what the public expected from veterinary practitioners and the RCVS and to respond to this. ‘One of 36 | Veterinary Record | January 11, 2014
Nick Stace (left) and Iain Richards, who both agreed that the veterinary profession was trusted, but that there were challenges to maintaining this trust
the ways we’re trying to do that is through the Practice Standards Scheme,’ said Mr Stace. ‘We’ve heard a lot from practitioners that it’s really a box-ticking exercise, it’s highly bureaucratic and doesn’t add the kind of value that practices want.’ Changes were therefore being made to the scheme. It was also important that practitioners stayed in touch with what their clients wanted. The sixth principle was accepting responsibility. Not only was this the right thing to do, but with the power of social media and the internet, the consequences of not doing so could have far-reaching repercussions. The final principle on which trust was based was ‘going the extra mile’. ‘We can always be better. We can always improve the service we offer to our clients, to the public and the profession,’ he said. Even small improvements made a massive difference to the business being operated. ‘There’s no room for complacency for any of us,’ he concluded. He believed that the veterinary profession was a decent and honourable one, and that the changes that were being brought about within it were ‘a recipe for a successful profession and one that retains the trust placed in it’.
Two-way process
Trust is a two-way process, said Iain Richards, an independent veterinary adviser, who was the second speaker in the debate. Clients trusted vets to do the best for their animals, and vets trusted that their clients
would pay for the services received. The profession was trusted for its integrity and scientific endeavour, and because it was perceived to be caring and honest. Much of this, he believed, was influenced by the fact that it was a self-regulating profession. ‘We have created a set of rules for ourselves for which transgression means loss of your livelihood,’ he pointed out. However, trust was not a simple concept, and it impacted on the profession in a number of ways – in its dealings with clients, with external bodies, with the RCVS and with itself. While trust between the profession and its clients was still strong, the situation when it came to trust in and by external bodies was less secure, he believed. Giving some examples, he cited suggestions by some MEPs that vets were not to be trusted to use antibiotics responsibly. Also, changes to financial services legislation in the UK had prevented veterinary surgeons offering advice to their clients about specific insurance policies. And the Veterinary Medicines Regulations were having a huge impact on the way veterinary surgeons were allowed to use medicines, restricting their ability to use their professional judgement in many cases. Turning to trust in themselves, Mr Richards said that the veterinary surgeons, particularly new graduates, needed to trust in their own knowledge and abilities. Older vets had a duty to help create confidence among younger members of the profession, and it was important to realise that
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on September 5, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports questioning was part of a good scientific process. Concluding, Mr Richards commented: ‘I would far rather be thought of as a trustworthy business than an efficient business.’
Losing trust
During the discussion that followed the presentations, David Tyson, a former BVA president, highlighted a number of issues where he believed that the profession was in danger of losing the trust of the public; these included bovine TB and badger culling, the
use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, welfare at slaughter (particularly slaughter without stunning) and the routine use of ‘gold-standard’ diagnostic techniques, which were expensive and many clients could not afford. This last aspect was often defended on the grounds of ‘evidence-based medicine’, he suggested. Mr Stace agreed that many of these were big public issues. However, taking the issue of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) specifically, he believed that the use of EBVM would actually help to build trust. Providing useful, practical information to
the profession to help its members make the best decisions was a positive thing, he said. Mr Richards agreed that there did seem to be an increasing tendency to work up straightforward cases. Students, he believed, were told to use the gold-standard techniques, and used their teaching as the evidence on which to base their decisions. However, there were cases in which it was vital to work up cases properly. ‘Sometimes, we have got to do an informed work up,’ he said. It was important to offer clients a variety of options, he concluded. doi: 10.1136/vr.g19
January 11, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 37
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on September 5, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Trust me, I'm a vet
Veterinary Record 2014 174: 36
doi: 10.1136/vr.g19 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/2/36
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports BVA congress
Trust me, I’m a vet Trust is slowly earned, but quickly lost, and is at the heart of everything a veterinary surgeon does. A debate at the BVA Congress last November heard two perspectives on the issue of trust, and what it means for the profession. Kathryn Clark reports THE veterinary profession, in general, is still highly thought of by the public, but there is no room for complacency. No one can take trust for granted and veterinary surgeons need to constantly think about how they can be better than they are now. These were the key messages put forward by Nick Stace, chief executive of the RCVS and the first speaker in the debate, which was held as part of the contentious issues stream at the BVA Congress at the London Vet Show on November 22. The issue of trust was central to the RCVS, he explained, which had been established with the aim of giving the profession trust in the standards of veterinary education and giving the public confidence in the veterinary profession. He believed that there were seven principles on which the trust in the profession and its regulator were based. The first of these was transparency. In the past, said Mr Stace, it was almost a hallmark of success for a profession to ‘blind people with science’, an approach that was no longer acceptable. People could ‘sniff out’ cover-ups, he said, and would assume that if they were not being told something, it was because there was something to hide. The second principle was that of motivation; unlike some occupations, being part of the veterinary profession was about more than just making money, and served ‘a much higher purpose’, he said. The third was that of bias. For example, in the research for its first rate regulator initiative, the RCVS had been told by a proportion of the general public that it was too close to the profession. There was a suspicion that the profession and its regulator ‘act as one’. ‘We can’t do that,’ he said. ‘It doesn’t mean that we set out to disagree, but it does mean that disagreeing in itself is not a problem.’ The fourth principle was ‘expertise and edge’. The public expected that the professions they dealt with kept up to date and the RCVS encouraged veterinary surgeons to do this. The College itself could not afford to become complacent as a regulator – if it did not keep up with best practice, the public and the profession would lose trust in it. The next principle for trust was the need to be ‘in touch’ with what the public expected from veterinary practitioners and the RCVS and to respond to this. ‘One of 36 | Veterinary Record | January 11, 2014
Nick Stace (left) and Iain Richards, who both agreed that the veterinary profession was trusted, but that there were challenges to maintaining this trust
the ways we’re trying to do that is through the Practice Standards Scheme,’ said Mr Stace. ‘We’ve heard a lot from practitioners that it’s really a box-ticking exercise, it’s highly bureaucratic and doesn’t add the kind of value that practices want.’ Changes were therefore being made to the scheme. It was also important that practitioners stayed in touch with what their clients wanted. The sixth principle was accepting responsibility. Not only was this the right thing to do, but with the power of social media and the internet, the consequences of not doing so could have far-reaching repercussions. The final principle on which trust was based was ‘going the extra mile’. ‘We can always be better. We can always improve the service we offer to our clients, to the public and the profession,’ he said. Even small improvements made a massive difference to the business being operated. ‘There’s no room for complacency for any of us,’ he concluded. He believed that the veterinary profession was a decent and honourable one, and that the changes that were being brought about within it were ‘a recipe for a successful profession and one that retains the trust placed in it’.
Two-way process
Trust is a two-way process, said Iain Richards, an independent veterinary adviser, who was the second speaker in the debate. Clients trusted vets to do the best for their animals, and vets trusted that their clients
would pay for the services received. The profession was trusted for its integrity and scientific endeavour, and because it was perceived to be caring and honest. Much of this, he believed, was influenced by the fact that it was a self-regulating profession. ‘We have created a set of rules for ourselves for which transgression means loss of your livelihood,’ he pointed out. However, trust was not a simple concept, and it impacted on the profession in a number of ways – in its dealings with clients, with external bodies, with the RCVS and with itself. While trust between the profession and its clients was still strong, the situation when it came to trust in and by external bodies was less secure, he believed. Giving some examples, he cited suggestions by some MEPs that vets were not to be trusted to use antibiotics responsibly. Also, changes to financial services legislation in the UK had prevented veterinary surgeons offering advice to their clients about specific insurance policies. And the Veterinary Medicines Regulations were having a huge impact on the way veterinary surgeons were allowed to use medicines, restricting their ability to use their professional judgement in many cases. Turning to trust in themselves, Mr Richards said that the veterinary surgeons, particularly new graduates, needed to trust in their own knowledge and abilities. Older vets had a duty to help create confidence among younger members of the profession, and it was important to realise that
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on September 5, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports questioning was part of a good scientific process. Concluding, Mr Richards commented: ‘I would far rather be thought of as a trustworthy business than an efficient business.’
Losing trust
During the discussion that followed the presentations, David Tyson, a former BVA president, highlighted a number of issues where he believed that the profession was in danger of losing the trust of the public; these included bovine TB and badger culling, the
use of antibiotics in food-producing animals, welfare at slaughter (particularly slaughter without stunning) and the routine use of ‘gold-standard’ diagnostic techniques, which were expensive and many clients could not afford. This last aspect was often defended on the grounds of ‘evidence-based medicine’, he suggested. Mr Stace agreed that many of these were big public issues. However, taking the issue of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) specifically, he believed that the use of EBVM would actually help to build trust. Providing useful, practical information to
the profession to help its members make the best decisions was a positive thing, he said. Mr Richards agreed that there did seem to be an increasing tendency to work up straightforward cases. Students, he believed, were told to use the gold-standard techniques, and used their teaching as the evidence on which to base their decisions. However, there were cases in which it was vital to work up cases properly. ‘Sometimes, we have got to do an informed work up,’ he said. It was important to offer clients a variety of options, he concluded. doi: 10.1136/vr.g19
January 11, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 37
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on September 5, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Trust me, I'm a vet
Veterinary Record 2014 174: 36
doi: 10.1136/vr.g19 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/2/36
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
