The secret of getting started…

When we finished our first meeting of the Mandatory Practice Regulation (MPR) Working Group (WG), it became clear that a key strength in navigating towards a new MPR system was our highly informed WG members – a blend of veterinary professional stakeholders, legal experts, and representatives of other regulators. So, a huge thank you again to them and our new members, who include a representative from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), for once again sharing their invaluable expertise and opinions at our second MPR meeting which focused on scope and standards.

In the words of Mark Twain, “The secret of getting started is breaking your complex, overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks, and then starting on the first one.” The first stage for MPR is considering the scope of a potential scheme. The scope needs to be defined clearly with a good understanding of any potential changes and resources required. For example, a decision needs to be made on whether an MPR scheme only covers traditional veterinary practices, or other clinical settings where allied professionals such as musculoskeletal therapists, veterinary nurses (and other potential future allied professions) might work without the supervision of a veterinary surgeon. 

Thankfully, our learned peers in human healthcare have already warned us of the difficulties of regulating services delivered overseas, which even at this early stage seems a non-starter.

Then we come to considering the standards that any future MPR scheme should assess against. Key questions include the extent to which we base the scheme on the existing RCVS Core Standards, at least in the initial phase of a mandatory scheme, and whether we continue with a compliance-based approach through setting standards and carrying out regular assessments or move towards a more risk-based approach, where for example we target those practices at greatest risk of failing to meet the required standards. To help answer these and other queries, it was important to receive an update on the ongoing Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) review, which could result in a reduction in the volume of current standards and a shift towards a more risk and principle-based approach to inspections.

This means a potential way forward could be taking elements from the Core Standards of PSS, and incorporating elements from other regulatory regimes, especially on risk/intelligence-based approaches. To illustrate further this could lead to developing better insights through the more meaningful use of data.

The contributions from the VMD were also very welcome. In the last 12-to-18 months, the PSS and the VMD have shared reports with another to increase learning. The VMD’s input to the latest MPR discussion was worth noting on:

• How the VMD’s regulatory remit is compliance-based because veterinary medicines regulations (VMR) are very strict and, by law, must be complied with.
• The VMD also has risk-based elements, with a maximum of four years between any practice inspection, and fewer years for those with compliance issues.
• On how food producing animals and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two areas which are very sensitive and important at the organisation.

So to finish on, it’s worth stating again that the College’s core mission is to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare. We strongly believe that MPR will help us better fulfil this mission, and that it is something which the public rightly expects us to be doing. It is important to hear from the VMD and other vital stakeholders, as we negotiate our way towards MPR and we thank them all for their contributions to these discussions.