Standards and advice update: euthanasia, wildlife, indemnity insurance, certification, and social media

It has been a little while since we have had an update on recent changes to the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, meaning that we have something of a bumper edition this month covering updates to guidance on euthanasia, wildlife, professional indemnity insurance, certification, and social media.

As with previous editions, we will set out the changes, additions and deletions in full, with further explanation of why the changes have been made.

For our updated social media guidance, we have also set out three case studies illustrating how veterinary professionals can best navigate the sometimes turbulent world of social media platforms in an appropriate and professional way.

Summaries of all the changes are set out below. New guidance is in bold text and removed guidance is struck out. In each case, we have also explained why we have made these changes.

 

Euthanasia of animals

The following changes have been made to Chapter 8 (‘Euthanasia of animals’) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

8.3  In England, Animals which are kept under a licence granted under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 or from March 2020 the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Animal Exhibits) (Wales) Regulations 2020 must either be euthanased by a veterinary surgeon, or by a person who has been authorised to do so by a veterinary surgeon. These animals may include animals sold as pets, boarded cats and dogs, and animals trained for exhibition. Horses held under a licence granted by the regulations may be euthanased by a person who is competent and holds a licence or certificate to do so. Veterinary surgeons are expected to use their clinical judgment when authorising a non-veterinary surgeon to euthanase an animal, however, the following factors may be considered:

a. the experience of the person

b. whether the method of euthanasia is humane and effective

Explainer

The guidance was amended following the enactment of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Animal Exhibits) (Wales) Regulations 2020, following similar legislation coming into force in England.

The purpose of this legislation was to promote the welfare of animals by licencing the following activities: selling animals as pets, providing or arranging for the provision of boarding for cats or dogs, hiring out horses, dog breeding and keeping or training animals for exhibition.

Additionally, these regulations state that an animal held under a licence granted under these acts can only be euthanised when certain conditions are met. These conditions can be found in 8.3.

 

Treatment of wildlife

The following has been added to Chapter 11 (‘Communication and Consent’) to the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

Wildlife
11.33  Wildlife is, by its nature, wild, and may only be ‘owned’, or taken possession of, in exceptional circumstances. However, confusion can arise in relation to who (if anyone) is required to consent to treatment of a wild animal. A common scenario is where a member of the public finds a disabled or injured animal and takes the animal to a veterinary practice for treatment.

11.34  In this instance, the member of the public may take possession of the animal for the purpose of tending to it until it is fit to be released (subject to section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which prevents the release of invasive species). At the point the animal is handed over for treatment, legitimate possession of the animal passes to the veterinary surgeon/practice. At no point does the member of the public have a right of ownership over the animal and as such, their consent is not required before treatment (or euthanasia if appropriate) is commenced. See paragraph 11.1, above, as to who may be considered a ‘client’ and therefore consent to treatment on behalf of an animal. For veterinary surgeons’ obligations in relation to providing first aid and pain relief to wild animals, see Chapter 3: 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, paragraph 3.9.

11.35  It is therefore a matter for the veterinary surgeon to decide what treatment is in the animal’s best interest and to carry out that treatment.  It is not necessary for the member of the public to formally sign over ‘ownership’ to the veterinary surgeon or practice. Although, in this scenario, the member of public does not have a right of ownership over the animal, veterinary surgeons may feel it appropriate to keep the member of public up-to-date with an animal’s progress, especially if the member of the public has expressed a desire to be kept informed. Veterinary surgeons should also be mindful that members of the public who find injured animals may be upset by what they have found.

11.36  If a member of public takes an animal away against veterinary advice and the veterinary surgeon has concerns about its welfare (for example, because euthanasia is necessary), they should consider whether it is necessary to alert the relevant authorities (see Chapter 14: Client confidentiality for guidance). 

11.37  It is acknowledged that some organisations, for example wildlife sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres, are in a unique position and as such, are likely to face many, varying challenges in relation to the ownership of wildlife. Further guidance that may assist in this respect may be found in the BVZS Good Practice Guidelines for Wildlife Rehabilitation Centres and the BSAVA Manual of Wildlife Casualties.

Explainer

The Standards Committee had considered this issue based on a small number of instances in which members of the public who had found an injured animal and brought it to a veterinary practice for treatment, had then claimed ownership and raised concerns with the RCVS that the animal has been treated or euthanased without their consent.

This raised the question of whether, by taking the animal into their possession for the purpose of seeking veterinary treatment, the member of the public has become the owner, temporary or otherwise, of the animal.

The College’s position is that wildlife is, by its nature, wild and as such can only be owned in exceptional circumstances, for example where an animal has been tamed and is treated as a pet.

However, it should be noted that even in this unusual situation, ownership is only temporary until such time as the animal decides to move on; this is different to the position in relation to domestic animals, which are subject to permanent ownership.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence for a person to ‘take’ a wild animal. There is, however, a defence to this that allows a person to take an injured or disabled animal for the purposes of tending to them until they are fit to be released back into the wild.

The newly published guidance, which was approved by the Standards Committee at its February 2020 meeting, acknowledges that the legal position is not entirely clear but endeavours to clear up some of the uncertainties and complexities around ‘ownership’ of wild animals.

 

Professional indemnity insurance

The following changes have been made to Chapter 17 (‘Veterinary teams and leaders’) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct

Professional indemnity insurance and equivalent arrangements

17.16  Veterinary surgeons must ensure that all their professional activities are covered by professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements. The purpose of professional indemnity insurance is to cover compensation claims in the event an allegation of negligence is made against you.

17.17  In addition to professional indemnity insurance, veterinary surgeons may also decide to take out insurance to provide cover in the event a concern is raised with the RCVS (although this is not required). Many policies will include both types of cover, however it should not be presumed this is the case. Veterinary surgeons should have particular regard to this issue when carrying out locum work, as although the practice’s insurance is likely to provide cover for negligence claims, it may not provide any other type of cover.

17.18  For ‘equivalent arrangements’ to be satisfactory, they must cover four key areas:

a. There must be sufficient funds available to cover potential future claims;

b. Those funds must be readily available in the event that losses need to be compensated – funds are not readily available where use affects significantly the work of the business or life of an individual;

c. There must be an established procedure in place for dealing with claims and accessing those funds, so that all parties have clarity about the process; and

d. There must be arrangements in place to ensure claims are dealt with by those who are independent of those who are the subject of the claim, so that decision-making is not based on personal interest. 

17.19  Veterinary surgeons seeking to rely on the equivalent arrangements provision should seek professional advice (e.g. from a solicitor or accountant) to ensure equivalence with professional indemnity insurance. 

Explainer

Changes to the guidance on professional indemnity insurance were made after it was observed by the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Liaison Committee that the supporting guidance did not explicitly state that the purpose of the requirement for professional indemnity insurance (PII) was to ensure that veterinary surgeons were covered in the event of claims for negligence.

It was also noted that there was no reference to the fact that it is not a requirement to have cover for concerns raised with the RCVS and that veterinary surgeons often presumed, mistakenly, that PII provides cover in the event a concern is raised with the RCVS.

As a result, the Liaison Committee asked that the Standards Committee consider an amendment to Chapter 17. These changes were approved at the April 2020 meeting of the Standards Committee.

 

Certification

The following has been added in respect of Chapter 21 (‘Certification’) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

21.2 Some veterinarians may also work as Official Veterinarians (OVs). These are practitioners, who are designated by the UK Government to carry out certain duties, including certification responsibilities. Veterinarians in salaried employment of the UK Government, mainly Defra and its executive agencies (principally the Animal and Plant Health Agency – APHA) and the devolved administrations (e.g. in Northern Ireland the Departments of Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs – DAERA) are also considered OVs. OVs may be asked to sign certificates relating to live animals or products of animal origin (for example, meat and dairy products, animal by-products, genetic material).  

21.11  The 10 Principles of Certification

Principle 1. A veterinarian should certify only those matters which: d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP) (see Annex 21.A).

Footnote: ‘Competent Authority’ means the relevant national government department responsible for animal health or public health official controls (e.g. Defra/DAERA) or agencies or bodies to which the Competent Authority has delegated the relevant functions (e.g. APHA, FSA/FSS or Local Authorities).

Principle 2. In relation to OVs certifying commodities for export, particular regard should be given as to whether there is a conflict of interest where they own or part own either a business producing a commodity which they are authorised to certify for export or the commodity to be exported, or are a salaried employee of the business. 

21.18  For the avoidance of doubt, ‘Competent Authority’ means the relevant national government department responsible for animal health or public health official controls (e.g. Defra/DAERA) or agencies or bodies to which the Competent Authority has delegated the relevant functions (e.g. APHA, FSA/FSS or Local Authorities).

Explainer

The guidance was amended following the Standards Committee meeting in April 2020, adopting proposals received by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) regarding veterinary certification at the end of the Transition Period (TP) on exiting the European Union (EU).

Defra has introduced the umbrella category of ‘Officially Authorised Persons’ (OAP) to recognise the existing range of supporting roles that officials may currently play in support of OV functions and to bring the terminology used in the guidance into alignment with the EU Official Controls Regulation (OCR); and, to recognise the term Trade Certification Support Officer (TCSO) as the Northern Ireland equivalent of a Certification Support Officer (CSO). The term ‘Competent Authority’ has been clarified and is aligned with the definition in UK legislation.

In respect of the extent to which OVs certify commodities for export, the guidance has been updated to reflect the considerations by OVs of any potential conflicts of interests before providing certification in light of the anticipated increase in requirements to the EU/NI at the end of the TP.

Defra has announced details of the Groupage Export Facilitation Scheme (GEFS), which will replace the Trusted Supplier Scheme (TSS), to support certification of certain types of groupage exports from Great Britain to the EU following the TP (see APHA's GEFS guidance).

We will make the necessary changes to Chapter 21 of the supporting guidance when the scheme comes into force following the TP.

 

Social media

The following has been added to Chapter 28 (‘Social media and online networking forums’) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

28.3  Veterinary surgeons have a responsibility to behave professionally and responsibly when; offline, online as themselves and online in a virtual world (perhaps as an avatar or under an alias). This responsibility also applies to private forums as there is no guarantee that comments posted will remain private (for example, someone could take a screenshot and post it on public social media platforms.) Veterinary surgeons may put their registration at risk if they demonstrate inappropriate behaviour when using social media. The standards expected of veterinary surgeons in the real world are no different to the standards they should apply online, and veterinary surgeons must uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession at all times.

28.7  When using social media veterinary surgeons should avoid making, posting or facilitating statements, images or videos that:

a. contravene any internet or social media policy set out by their employer or organisation (Remember that comments or statements made or facilitated by veterinary surgeons may reflect on your employer / organisation and the wider profession as a whole)

b. cause undue distress or provoke anti-social or violent behaviour

c. are offensive, false, inaccurate or unjustified (Remember that comments which are damaging to an individual’s reputation could result in a civil claim for defamation for which veterinary surgeons could be personally liable. Defamation law can apply to any comments posted online made in either a personal or professional capacity)

d. abuse, bully, victimise, harass, threaten or intimidate clients, colleagues, staff or others (the Codes of Professional Conduct states that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses should not speak or write disparagingly about another veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse. This covers all forms of interaction and applies to comments about individuals online)

e. discriminate against an individual based on his or her race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion or beliefs, or national origin (comments demonstrating hostility towards an individual’s race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or transgender identity may amount to a ‘hate crime’ and may be reported to the authorities and prosecuted in a criminal court)

f. bring the veterinary profession into disrepute (veterinary surgeons should be mindful that their online persons can have a negative impact on their professional lives)

NB: Please note that this is not an exhaustive list. There are many different types of social media misuse.

Explainer

The guidance was amended following the Standards Committee meeting in November 2019, when concern was expressed regarding comments posted on various online platforms and forums by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

The Committee’s concern on this subject included the anonymous posting of offensive content, which may amount to a hate crime and may be reported to the authorities.

The supporting guidance was amended to reinforce the College's position that comments of this nature are unacceptable, and in severe cases, may be considered serious professional misconduct.

 

Social media case studies

Scenario 1: WhatsApp and Instagram

Vic and Fred, young veterinary surgeons, had been at their practice just under two years. When they joined the practice, they were invited to join a WhatsApp chat group by other young vets at the practice.

The WhatsApp group had been set up several years before another vet, Jenny, now a Director at the practice and therefore no longer part of the group.

When Jenny set up the WhatsApp group she wanted to provide new vets to the practice with a social network, where hopefully better working relationships could be built and friendships formed. The group had been a resounding success and new vets to the practice often commented on the great team spirit at the practice.

During the first surgery of the New Year, one of Fred’s clients brought in their three-legged dog, which had only recently had a limb amputated. When Fred got home that night, still amused by what went on during the consultation, he shared the case with his colleagues on the WhatsApp group.

Most shared Fred’s amusement, including Vic who took a screen shot and posted it on her Instagram story, with the caption ‘how funny is this’. Over 100 of Vic’s friends saw her story, visible for 24 hours, including Martin who shared it on his social media platforms, Instagram and Facebook.

Two weeks after Vic’s post of Fred’s case, the RCVS received a complaint via its formal concerns process regarding both their professional conduct. Dave, a friend of Martin’s, was so dismayed at the potential breach in client confidentiality/GDPR and also the inappropriate use of social media that he contacted the RCVS to complain.

Following receipt of a formal concern, Stage 1 of the RCVS’ concerns process begun and an assessment and investigation of the case commenced.

What does the RCVS advise?

The RCVS’s advice on client confidentiality is set out in Chapter 14 of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

In addition, both Fred and Vic should have been mindful of Chapter 28 of the guidance, which covers ‘social media and online networking forums’, as sets out that vets may put their registration at risk if they demonstrate inappropriate behaviour when using social media (paragraph 28.3).

Vets are further advised (paragraph 28.6, a – f); to be respectful of the privacy of others and to comply with data protection laws, consider whether they would make the comments in public or other traditional forms of media and if not, to refrain from doing so, and to maintain and protect client confidentiality by not disclosing information about a client or a client’s animal which could identify them on social media without explicit consent.

 

Scenario 2: Using an online forum

Rich, a vet, was participating in an anonymous online forum discussion about houseplants, and was asking for advice on keeping houseplants healthy. Another member of the forum suggested using an essential oils diffuser saying that it allowed her houseplants to breathe natural remedies and her cats loved it too. The member said that due to a disability, she was unable to get outside much and her houseplants gave her such joy.

Rich responded to the other member’s suggestion cautioning against the use of such diffusers and suggesting that they can cause breathing issues for the cats and that they are “useless” anyway. The discussion between the other forum member and Rich became more heated with insults being thrown.

Rich, believing his anonymity on the website would protect him, became more abusive and as the argument escalated Rich directed his comments at the other member’s disability. As a result, the other member reported the original post and comments to the website’s admin team. The website decided to ban Rich from the forum and passed his account details to the police, who began an investigation in to the matter. Rich was also reported to the RCVS.

What does the RCVS advise?

In accordance with Chapter 28 of the supporting guidance, Rich should have been aware that he had a responsibility to behave professionally and responsibility online, irrespective of any anonymity granted by a website (paragraph 28.3) and that abuse or discrimination about another’s disability may amount to a ‘hate crime’ and can be reported to authorities, such as the police, which can lead to prosecution in a criminal court.

 

Scenario 3: Vet-client communication via social media

Rachel, a senior veterinary surgeon at a rural veterinary practice, was reviewing appointment figures with senior RVN Paul one day, when they noticed there had been a noticeable increase in the number of ticks they were seeing on patients and the number of tick removal appointments booked in.

Rachel, who was keen for the practice to engage with clients more via social media, suggested the practice launch a social media campaign the next month, during which they would try to educate their clients on the importance of checking their animals for ticks and how they can be treated.

Paul and Rachel agreed that this educational advice would really benefit the practice’s mixed client base (small animal, farm and equine).

The next month the practice published a series of advisory notes and guidance on how to check for ticks on and all available treatments. Rachel and Paul ensured product or brand names were not mentioned.

The practice received hundreds of hits on their Facebook and Instagram pages during the campaign and also received a large number of thankful comments. A number of clients also contacted the practice during the campaign with photographs of suspected ticks on their own animals and were able to arrange appointments for their animals to be treated.

What does the RCVS advise?

As set out in Chapter 28 of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, the RCVS recognises social media is likely to form part of veterinary professional’s everyday life and they are free to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that social media can offer.

The RCVS understands social media can be a valuable communication tool, used to establish professional links and networks, to engage in wider discussions relating to veterinary practice, and to facilitate the public’s access to information about animal health and welfare.

The RCVS does, however, remind veterinary professionals that the use of social media is not without risk and they should be mindful of the consequences that may arise from its misuse.

Educational information offering a balanced overview of a disease and all available treatments is not considered advertising and may be made available to the public, provided product/brand names of prescription medicines are not mentioned and all other relevant advertising restrictions are met – for further information please see the VMD’s guidance on ‘Advertise veterinary medicines legally’.