Enforcement

Scenario

Taylor is a veterinary surgeon who works remotely and advertises their services on social media.

After seeing one of Taylor’s ads, Sylvia contacts Taylor about her cat, Whiskey, who has an upset stomach. Whiskey is not currently registered with any veterinary practice.

Taylor listens to Sylvia’s concerns, asks a number of questions and, with Sylvia’s help, visually assesses Whiskey over a video call.

Taylor prescribes anti-sickness medication and tells Sylvia that although they have an arrangement with a veterinary practice, it would 'probably be better' to take Whiskey to a local vet if he does not improve over the course of the next week.

Three days later, Whiskey has visibly deteriorated and is very lethargic.

Sylvia contacts Taylor and asks for the details of the vet they have an arrangement with. Taylor says they will ring straight back with the details.

Sylvia waits for 30 minutes and, in that time, tries calling Taylor back on several occasions with no answer. Sylvia then spends over an hour telephoning local practices and eventually finds one that is able to see Whiskey straight away.

On arriving at the practice, Whiskey crashes and although the veterinary team rush to help, they cannot save him.

Sylvia is devastated and believes that, had she been able to access veterinary care immediately through Taylor, Whiskey might have been saved. She therefore raises a concern with the RCVS.

Taylor tells the RCVS that the practice they have an arrangement with were not picking up the telephone when they tried to get in touch about Whiskey and that they did all they could to arrange for him to be seen in person.

They also say that the reason Sylvia couldn’t get through to them was because they were on the phone trying to sort things out.

As part of the investigation, the RCVS requests that Taylor provides a copy of the written agreement with the other practice in respect of 24/7 follow-up care.

Things to think about

Under the new guidance, when taking cats and other small animals under their care, veterinary surgeons must be able, on a 24/7 basis, to physically examine the animal.

Vets should also be prepared to carry out any necessary investigation in the event the animal does not improve, suffers an adverse reaction or deteriorates.

If a veterinary surgeon is unable to provide this service themselves, they are required to make arrangements for another veterinary service provider to do so on their behalf.

The guidance is clear that it is the veterinary surgeon’s responsibility to make these arrangements and it is not sufficient for the client to be registered at another practice.

When arrangements of this nature are made, this should be done in advance before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client.

The guidance also states that 'veterinary surgeons should provide clients with full details of this arrangement, including relevant telephone numbers, location details, when the service is available and the nature of service provided'.

It is clear from this scenario that Taylor has breached the guidance.

Although the question of whether there was actually an agreement is in place has yet to be answered (this will be determined by whether Taylor can provide evidence of such an arrangement having been made in advance), Taylor did not provide details of this provider to Sylvia before offering treatment for Whiskey and indeed never disclosed to Sylvia who the 24/7 follow up care would be provided by.

It should be noted that, had Taylor complied with the guidance on 24/7 follow-up care, the remote prescribing itself in this case may have been appropriate.