THE RCVS has been much in my
mind this week. We are getting
the last bits done for our practice
standards scheme inspection, which
has all gone well apart from the last three items: gas certification,
electric certification and a risk
assessment for stress in the
workplace.
As regular readers will know we are
currently in the process of recruiting a
new vet and building new premises so
the request to sit down
and come up
with a few
pages on
stress seemed
slightly
ironic.
I could
delegate it to
our HR department, but that’s me too,
me and a currently-empty shiny new ling cabinet. However, our old friend
of this column (disgruntled from
Staffordshire) came up with the goods
and sent me a pro forma stress risk
assessment.
I knew I couldn’t get through writing
it without some reference to the risk
of stress brought on by writing a stress
risk assessment. And quite why the
RCVS is so interested in the state of
the wiring and gas in the two premises
we rent is beyond me, but I suppose a
practice that doesn’t gas or electrocute
its patients, or burn down in the middle
of afternoon surgery, is generally a
good thing.
A grey area
I have also been minded of the RCVS
in regard to the evolving concept of
“advanced practitioner” status for vets.
A few years ago the RCVS launched a consultation on the concept of
a middle tier of expertise between
specialist and GP. Something many of
us are used to but is something of a
grey area.
The consultation was well responded
to and a working party formed. Its findings and recommendations are
on the RCVS website and worth a
read. On the whole it all looks pretty
sensible to me, if fairly onerous on
those wishing to attain the status.
To become an “advanced
practitioner” (AP) the RCVS website
lays out the following requirements
that you must have to apply to be one:
An RCVS qualification:
- an RCVS Certificate in Advanced
Veterinary Practice with a designation
or - an RCVS Certificate (awarded up to and including 2012)
or - a postgraduate clinical qualification
awarded by a university/recognised
awarding body at Level 7 in the
Framework of Higher Education
Qualifications (at least 60 credits/30
ECTS, of which 40 credits are in the
clinical area applied for)
or - a relevant postgraduate masters
degree.
It continues: “We consider it
important that those accredited as APs
have presented evidence of further
study in key areas of professional
development, such as those covered in
the RCVS ‘A’ modules in the CertAVP,
or other equivalent modules.
“If you hold a qualification which
does not include such elements, gained
before 31st December 2013, e.g.
RCVS Certificates awarded up to and
including 2012, there will be an initial
three-year window during which you
could be admitted to the list (subject to
approval of other criteria).
“If admitted, you will then be
required to gain 100 hours of CPD
(or an equivalent formal qualification/
module of at least 10 credits) that
covers the same ground as the ‘A’
module.
“After you have been
accredited, you will then
have the five-year period
up to your next application
for re-accreditation to carry
out the CPD or complete a
professional development
module.
“Prior to initial application,
it is recommended that a
minimum of 250 hours of
CPD over five years (whilst
also complying with the
formal RCVS requirement)
should have been undertaken.
Of this, it is recommended
that 125 hours of that CPD
should be in your chosen
designated field.”
That’s a pretty hefty
commitment and it is
interesting that the RCVS is not
letting go of the much-debated
“A” module content. So if you have done another provider’s certificate
(e.g. the new BSAVA ones) to avoid
that “A” module content, or an old-
style RCVS one, you will need to go
back and do the “A” module or similar
to be an “advanced practitioner”.
The RCVS is certainly holding all
the cards here. I wonder how many
existing certificate holders running
busy and long-standing referral
businesses will do that?
Answers from
the College
I got in touch with Freda Andrews in
the RCVS education department who
very kindly answered some further
questions on the subject.
- Can you summarise the concept and the
reason why it is being brought in (or direct
me to a source where such a statement could
be found)?
“See background info on
Specialisation Working Party
recommendations. You need to see
the introduction of AP status as part
of a package of measures to clarify
specialisation in the profession. I can’t
really add much more to what was said
in the WP’s report to Council.”
- I read there is an extra CPD requirement
to maintain this status: what is it and how
will it be policed?
“To maintain accredited status,
APs will need to demonstrate a
commitment to, and strong record,
of CPD [see above from website]. We
would encourage everyone to make
the most of using the online RCVS
Professional Development Record to
keep all their CPD records, as it allows
you not only to keep a summary of
what you’ve done, but you can also include development plans, notes and
other documentation which would
support self-directed learning and
other non-formal CPD activities you’ve
undertaken.
“If you grant RCVS access to those
records, it will make the application
process for Specialist and for
Advanced Practitioner a little easier.
“Initial applications will also need to
be supported by good CPD records,
and we’d recommend around 250
hours over the previous five years.
However, during the introductory
period, we’ll be flexible about this, as the previously published RCVS
minimum was only 105 hours over
three years.”
- Will there be a requirement for anyone taking referrals to have this status? There
will be a lot of people with varying extra
qualifications, or in some cases none, who
currently provide a useful and long-
standing referral service. Will their
livelihood be threatened if they choose not
to acquire this status?
“No – the Specialisation WP
recommended that ‘it should continue
to be a matter of professional
judgement for the veterinary surgeon
as to whether a case would bene t
from being referred to another
veterinary surgeon’ – see the fuller
discussion and recommendations
of the WP, page 17 onwards: www.
rcvs.org.uk/document-library/
specialisation-working-party-report-
recommendations-rcvs-council/.
Informed
choice
“Clients should be able to make an
informed choice, so referring vets
should make it clear what level of
expertise someone has in terms of
whether they are accredited or not, and
if so, at what level (AP or Specialist).
“The wording in the Code of
Professional Conduct and associated
guidance is being revised as
recommended by the specialisation
WP.” (This was agreed at the recent
meeting of the RCVS Standards
Committee.)
- Is the decision of the RCVS not to list
post-nominals related to this new policy?
“Yes – see the working party’s
recommendations. It was all designed
to make things clearer for the public.
However, in the light of concerns that
have been expressed recently within
the profession, Council will be looking
again at this issue at its next meeting in
June.”
Thanks to Freda Andrews for the comments
above; watch this space as this is an evolving
story.
