Garth McGilvray, President
Well, after a very interesting 16yrs on the Board, this is my last report as President of the NSW Practitioners Board as I am not applying for appointment to the next Board from July 1st.
Most of the changes I wanted to see implemented have been achieved and I firmly believe that it is important for the profession to replenish the membership of the Board.
Among the major changes are the acceptance of National Recognition of Veterinary Registration (still in the process of enactment), variation of the hospital inspection system to one based on ‘fit for purpose’, replacement of the previous Veterinary Surgeons Investigation Committee (VSIC) by the current Complaints Committee, and the international recognition and Australasian acceptance of the value of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC). One change still to come is the addition of a mechanism to the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 to allow for the management of the increasing number of colleagues that show evidence of an impairment problem.
The standards of veterinary practice are changing continuously. Not only due to new techniques but also due to increased public knowledge and expectations. The standard of veterinary services expected by the public of NSW is quite demanding and to handle complaints that come before the Board requires an intimate understanding of not only the technical skills of veterinarians but also the expectations of the animal owners, especially in the area of communications. I believe the changes to the complaint handling process, introduced in the new Act in 2006, have now shown themselves to be a far more transparent and practical approach than the previous constraints of the VSIC.
As mentioned elsewhere in this issue of Board Talk – the process of inquiry of professional misconduct complaints from the public, as created within the Act, places a requirement for cooperation by the veterinarian. A frank, open an honest approach from the veterinarian to the committee’s inquiry is crucial. The basis of the initial inquiry is to discover what happened and if the standards were met. It is understood that when dealing with biological situations, the outcome is not always as expected or anticipated. Also there are times when an honest mistake can lead to an untoward outcome. Assessment by peers is designed to allow for these unexpected outcomes to be measured against normal standards of practice. It is not possible for this kind of judgement to be performed by the legal profession. The stage for legal involvement is at the serious professional misconduct level. This is when the Board determines at the end of the initial inquiry that the veterinarian is not practicing to the standards for one reason or another and may be guilty of serious professional misconduct. It is then referred by the Board to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) for determination and that inquiry is conducted in public with legal representation by both sides as the orders of the ADT include the possibility of suspension or removal of a veterinarian from the register.
Talking of legalities, there is a ‘practical element’ to the code of conduct and it always needs to be interpreted in the context of everyday veterinary practice – not some high level academic or legal context. Currently, on a parliamentary counsel level, there may be a need to address some issues whereby the veterinary speak in the code requires some clear definitions to avoid legal argument as to the meaning of the terms used. As the Code is part of the legislation, the veterinary terms can become a matter of legal argument whereby lawyers and judges end up trying to interpret these terms in legal speak for us veterinarians after the event. The intention is to address any of these issues within the review of the Act which is currently taking place (all Acts are reviewed after 5 years), although it is always difficult to know what needs further definition. Within the Board itself and the Complaints Committee, it is constantly kept in mind, that it is the ‘standard of practice’ that is the yardstick by which to measure the complaint. This is done using the veterinary practitioner’s code of professional conduct.
As a practical example of interpretation of the Code, when an animal dies, the standard of record keeping, which is based on the principle - are there adequate records and is it possible for another veterinarian to understand the history and take over the management of the patient? - But obviously there is no patient to manage. However, it is often the death of an animal that triggers a complaint, which may not come to the Board until considerable time has passed, years in some cases. In this situation, the Board finds (as well as the veterinarians who have made them) contemporary notes extremely valuable in assessing the standard of practice. There is no need to write up the death of every animal as though it is a case for publication, but it can be extremely valuable later on, to have made notes as to what happened, what was said, who was contacted and when.
A point of clarification from my December Board Talk report. Under communications between veterinarians, I mentioned ‘contacting the other veterinarian’ and ‘if the owner is not happy with that’. To be clear, I meant if they are not happy to give consent for the other veterinarian to release the records then ‘I am reluctant to proceed....’. It is quite clear under Clause 10 of the Code of Conduct that the veterinarian releasing the records needs the consent of the owner or person in charge of the animal.
Over the years there have been many colleagues who have given me support as a member of the Board and I thank them all. In particular I would like to thank Dick Jane and Geoff Reed who both helped steer the ship through troubled waters and Prof. David Hutchins for his incisive advice and suggestions. Angela Haynes and Margaret Francis, the first two non-veterinarians to be appointed to the Board under the new Act, I would like to thank for the harmonious and effective way they have contributed to the function of the Board. The successful addition of non-veterinarians to the Board owes a great deal to the way they have approached the position.
I wish to thank the Honourable Iain MacDonald, Minister for Primary Industries and the staff in his office for the considerable support given over the years and in particular with the introduction of the new Act over the last 5 years.
Finally it gives me great pleasure to thank the office staff, Mary Lydamore, Des Lyttle and Clare Nathan. Each of them have valuable skills and work together as a great crew under their skipper Glenn Lynch. Glenn brings an extremely valuable skill to the position of Registrar – common sense and the ability to see the bigger picture and not just the bureaucratic detail. I wish the new Board every success and thank previous Board members and particularly the current Board members for the way they have all contributed to the very important functions of the Board.
Regards,
Garth McGilvray, President.
