Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 21, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports BSAVA CONGRESS
‘What’s good for the consumer is good for the profession’ The way the RCVS handles complaints is undergoing ‘a refresh and revolution’ which, it believes, will bring benefits to both clients and veterinary surgeons. At the recent BSAVA congress, the College’s chief executive and its Registrar explained how things are changing. Kathryn Clark reports SOLVING disputes quickly is in the interests of those making a complaint and those against whom a complaint is made. Speaking at the BSAVA congress, which was held in Birmingham from April 3 to 6, Nick Stace, the chief executive of the RCVS, said that the RCVS was in the process of transforming its current complaints handling process. The process, he believed, was robust and fair, and had served the profession well for many years, but it was about to go through ‘quite a refresh and quite a revolution in terms of the service we offer both the complainant and the person complained about’. The changes, he said, would bring benefits to both parties. As part of the College’s first rate regulator initiative, it had asked people what they thought of the RCVS, what they thought it did well and not so well, and what they wanted from it. One issue that was raised was the complaints system. Concerns included the time it took for some complaints to be resolved, the lack of a personal approach to both the individual complained about and the individual making a complaint, and a lack of information about what was happening. People knew they were in the complaints system somewhere, said Mr Stace, but they were not sure where. ‘There’s a real responsibility on us to better communicate where they are in that system,’ he said. There was also an issue about the legalistic manner used to communicate with the profession and with complainants. ‘That’s fine if you happen to be a lawyer, but what we need to do is think much more about how we communicate in language that people can understand and realise what they are up against.’ So, what was the College doing? Mr Stace explained that, in the RCVS’s strategic plan, there was a commitment to create a much more service-oriented organisation and a public-facing system of communication. As part of this, there was an intention to reduce the time it took to resolve complaints. At present, on average, it took 19 months for a complaint to reach the disciplinary hearing stage, if it got that far. ‘Our sense is that at the moment it takes too long,’ Mr Stace said. Reducing this time would reduce the stress on the person being complained about and offer a better service to the consumer. 392 | Veterinary Record | April 19, 2014
Nick Stace (left) and Gordon Hockey (right) explained how the RCVS was changing the way it dealt with complaints and how it hoped to move forward
There would be a new emphasis on simplicity, speed, communication and culture, he said. New language would be used, following the example set by the General Medical Council. ‘Using a slightly different language can be very helpful in terms of framing a discussion about what is likely to happen,’ said Mr Stace. The disciplinary process would be simpler, with the current five stages being reduced to three – an initial assessment of a concern and its investigation; then, if appropriate, passing a case to the Preliminary Investigation Committee for further investigation and a decision on whether the case should be passed to the Disciplinary Committee; and, finally, if the case was passed on, the Disciplinary Committee stage. The key changes would be the speed – concerns would be looked at within two weeks by a veterinary surgeon on the PIC, a lay member of the PIC and an RCVS staff lawyer. All three would have to agree to close a concern or to pass it to the PIC. Serious concerns would be fast-tracked. A telephone call would be made to the person raising the concern to explain what was happening. All communication around the case would be in plain English. The aim was to better manage expectations, reduce the ‘fear factor’ and improve the standards of service.
Dispute resolution service
Many concerns are raised with the College but do not amount to serious professional misconduct, and cannot be dealt with by the disciplinary process. To address this issue, the RCVS is considering introducing a new consumer disputes resolution service. Explaining the plans, Gordon Hockey, the RCVS Registrar and head of legal services, said that 80 per cent of concerns raised with the College were not resolved, and that the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options were limited. Nowadays, the public and politicians demanded more from the veterinary profession and, in addition, a European directive, to be introduced next year, would make it a legal requirement for ADR systems to be offered in member states for consumer disputes. It was better, he suggested, for the veterinary profession to be in charge of developing an ADR system itself than to have one imposed on it by government. Regulators were doing more and more in terms of looking at other ways of managing concerns, Mr Hockey explained. For some regulators, consumer disputes resolution was nothing new. The College had made a commitment within its strategic plan to cost and design a trial for a new consumer disputes resolution service. However, should the new RCVS Royal Charter go
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 21, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports through, there would be an explicit role for the College in this area. All plans were still subject to the approval of the RCVS Council, but the College wanted to outline its thinking so far. There were lots of issues, both practical and legal to deal with, Mr Hockey said, but independent legal advice had indicated that, when the new charter was in place, the RCVS would be able to use statutory money to fund an ADR system. ‘In other words, as professional regulation moves on, this is squarely within professional regulation, and that is central,’ he explained. The College had to act in the public interest, and such a system was clearly in the public interest. The College had looked at two approaches for its ADR system – one based on the Dental Complaints Service and one offered by Ombudsman Services. The first service tried to bring the parties together, and recommended potential resolutions, such as the dentist offering an apology, or considering remedial work, or contributing towards the cost of remedial work, or offering a refund. The second service had ‘a slightly tougher feel’, said Mr Hockey, and could impose a resolution. Ombudsman Services acted for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its resolutions were legally enforceable because the RICS had altered its charter to allow this.
The outcomes of its deliberations included requiring practical action, or an apology or explanation to be given. This service was genuinely independent, he said, and would tell complainants if they were wasting its time. This allowed complaints to be closed down and both parties to move on. Mr Hockey described elements of both services, and noted that, whatever system the RCVS used, it had to be able to deal with clinical issues. Decisions would have to be made about what types of issues would go to an ADR system and also the financial limit that the system would work to. Following the presentations, the question was raised of whether statutory registration or retention fees would have to be increased to fund any ADR system. Mr Stace replied that there were currently no plans to increase fees to cover the costs of any ADR system. A pilot system would be introduced, subject to RCVS Council approval, later this year and was currently affordable from the College’s existing budget. Also, it was unlikely that the College would go down the ‘polluter pays’ route, making practices that used the system pay for doing so. If, over time, it was found that the same practices were repeatedly using the system, then this might be reconsidered. ‘For the time being, it will be a scheme that will be covered in the current fees,’ said Mr Stace.
Mr Hockey added that it was possible that the existence of an ADR system might decrease the number of complaints the RCVS had to deal with, because if a complaint came in that would be better dealt with by the ADR system, it would be referred on. What was less certain was how many complaints the new system would generate in its own right. However, ‘Having a place to complain to shows you are not afraid of dealing with the issue,’ he said. A comment was made that a common complaint about the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) was that ‘no-one knows what it is’. Given this, how would the RCVS raise the profile of an ADR system? Noting that changes to the PSS were in the pipeline, Mr Stace said that, with a more public-facing PSS and more publicfacing consumer redress system, the RCVS would have market itself more directly to the consumer. ‘The scale of that I don’t really know at the moment,’ he said. ‘And, in truth, we won’t start raising the profile of the organisation with consumers for a while, because we’re not ready to launch the fresh Practice Standards Scheme yet, and obviously the disputes resolution service will be a pilot this year.’ However, when the RCVS began raising its profile, it would have to do so in a cost-effective way. doi: 10.1136/vr.g2772
April 19, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 393
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 21, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
'What's good for the consumer is good for the profession' Veterinary Record 2014 174: 392-393
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2772 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/16/392
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 BSAVA CONGRESS
‘What’s good for the consumer is good for the profession’ The way the RCVS handles complaints is undergoing ‘a refresh and revolution’ which, it believes, will bring benefits to both clients and veterinary surgeons. At the recent BSAVA congress, the College’s chief executive and its Registrar explained how things are changing. Kathryn Clark reports SOLVING disputes quickly is in the interests of those making a complaint and those against whom a complaint is made. Speaking at the BSAVA congress, which was held in Birmingham from April 3 to 6, Nick Stace, the chief executive of the RCVS, said that the RCVS was in the process of transforming its current complaints handling process. The process, he believed, was robust and fair, and had served the profession well for many years, but it was about to go through ‘quite a refresh and quite a revolution in terms of the service we offer both the complainant and the person complained about’. The changes, he said, would bring benefits to both parties. As part of the College’s first rate regulator initiative, it had asked people what they thought of the RCVS, what they thought it did well and not so well, and what they wanted from it. One issue that was raised was the complaints system. Concerns included the time it took for some complaints to be resolved, the lack of a personal approach to both the individual complained about and the individual making a complaint, and a lack of information about what was happening. People knew they were in the complaints system somewhere, said Mr Stace, but they were not sure where. ‘There’s a real responsibility on us to better communicate where they are in that system,’ he said. There was also an issue about the legalistic manner used to communicate with the profession and with complainants. ‘That’s fine if you happen to be a lawyer, but what we need to do is think much more about how we communicate in language that people can understand and realise what they are up against.’ So, what was the College doing? Mr Stace explained that, in the RCVS’s strategic plan, there was a commitment to create a much more service-oriented organisation and a public-facing system of communication. As part of this, there was an intention to reduce the time it took to resolve complaints. At present, on average, it took 19 months for a complaint to reach the disciplinary hearing stage, if it got that far. ‘Our sense is that at the moment it takes too long,’ Mr Stace said. Reducing this time would reduce the stress on the person being complained about and offer a better service to the consumer. 392 | Veterinary Record | April 19, 2014
Nick Stace (left) and Gordon Hockey (right) explained how the RCVS was changing the way it dealt with complaints and how it hoped to move forward
There would be a new emphasis on simplicity, speed, communication and culture, he said. New language would be used, following the example set by the General Medical Council. ‘Using a slightly different language can be very helpful in terms of framing a discussion about what is likely to happen,’ said Mr Stace. The disciplinary process would be simpler, with the current five stages being reduced to three – an initial assessment of a concern and its investigation; then, if appropriate, passing a case to the Preliminary Investigation Committee for further investigation and a decision on whether the case should be passed to the Disciplinary Committee; and, finally, if the case was passed on, the Disciplinary Committee stage. The key changes would be the speed – concerns would be looked at within two weeks by a veterinary surgeon on the PIC, a lay member of the PIC and an RCVS staff lawyer. All three would have to agree to close a concern or to pass it to the PIC. Serious concerns would be fast-tracked. A telephone call would be made to the person raising the concern to explain what was happening. All communication around the case would be in plain English. The aim was to better manage expectations, reduce the ‘fear factor’ and improve the standards of service.
Dispute resolution service
Many concerns are raised with the College but do not amount to serious professional misconduct, and cannot be dealt with by the disciplinary process. To address this issue, the RCVS is considering introducing a new consumer disputes resolution service. Explaining the plans, Gordon Hockey, the RCVS Registrar and head of legal services, said that 80 per cent of concerns raised with the College were not resolved, and that the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options were limited. Nowadays, the public and politicians demanded more from the veterinary profession and, in addition, a European directive, to be introduced next year, would make it a legal requirement for ADR systems to be offered in member states for consumer disputes. It was better, he suggested, for the veterinary profession to be in charge of developing an ADR system itself than to have one imposed on it by government. Regulators were doing more and more in terms of looking at other ways of managing concerns, Mr Hockey explained. For some regulators, consumer disputes resolution was nothing new. The College had made a commitment within its strategic plan to cost and design a trial for a new consumer disputes resolution service. However, should the new RCVS Royal Charter go
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 21, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports through, there would be an explicit role for the College in this area. All plans were still subject to the approval of the RCVS Council, but the College wanted to outline its thinking so far. There were lots of issues, both practical and legal to deal with, Mr Hockey said, but independent legal advice had indicated that, when the new charter was in place, the RCVS would be able to use statutory money to fund an ADR system. ‘In other words, as professional regulation moves on, this is squarely within professional regulation, and that is central,’ he explained. The College had to act in the public interest, and such a system was clearly in the public interest. The College had looked at two approaches for its ADR system – one based on the Dental Complaints Service and one offered by Ombudsman Services. The first service tried to bring the parties together, and recommended potential resolutions, such as the dentist offering an apology, or considering remedial work, or contributing towards the cost of remedial work, or offering a refund. The second service had ‘a slightly tougher feel’, said Mr Hockey, and could impose a resolution. Ombudsman Services acted for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and its resolutions were legally enforceable because the RICS had altered its charter to allow this.
The outcomes of its deliberations included requiring practical action, or an apology or explanation to be given. This service was genuinely independent, he said, and would tell complainants if they were wasting its time. This allowed complaints to be closed down and both parties to move on. Mr Hockey described elements of both services, and noted that, whatever system the RCVS used, it had to be able to deal with clinical issues. Decisions would have to be made about what types of issues would go to an ADR system and also the financial limit that the system would work to. Following the presentations, the question was raised of whether statutory registration or retention fees would have to be increased to fund any ADR system. Mr Stace replied that there were currently no plans to increase fees to cover the costs of any ADR system. A pilot system would be introduced, subject to RCVS Council approval, later this year and was currently affordable from the College’s existing budget. Also, it was unlikely that the College would go down the ‘polluter pays’ route, making practices that used the system pay for doing so. If, over time, it was found that the same practices were repeatedly using the system, then this might be reconsidered. ‘For the time being, it will be a scheme that will be covered in the current fees,’ said Mr Stace.
Mr Hockey added that it was possible that the existence of an ADR system might decrease the number of complaints the RCVS had to deal with, because if a complaint came in that would be better dealt with by the ADR system, it would be referred on. What was less certain was how many complaints the new system would generate in its own right. However, ‘Having a place to complain to shows you are not afraid of dealing with the issue,’ he said. A comment was made that a common complaint about the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) was that ‘no-one knows what it is’. Given this, how would the RCVS raise the profile of an ADR system? Noting that changes to the PSS were in the pipeline, Mr Stace said that, with a more public-facing PSS and more publicfacing consumer redress system, the RCVS would have market itself more directly to the consumer. ‘The scale of that I don’t really know at the moment,’ he said. ‘And, in truth, we won’t start raising the profile of the organisation with consumers for a while, because we’re not ready to launch the fresh Practice Standards Scheme yet, and obviously the disputes resolution service will be a pilot this year.’ However, when the RCVS began raising its profile, it would have to do so in a cost-effective way. doi: 10.1136/vr.g2772
April 19, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 393
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on June 21, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
'What's good for the consumer is good for the profession' Veterinary Record 2014 174: 392-393
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2772 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/16/392
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/
