ABSTRACT
Introduction: In the Netherlands, the veterinary disciplinary system is governmentally executed and was originally designed to provide an educational effect on veterinarians as part of maintaining quality standards. Methods: Over 900 veterinarians were questioned (20% of the total number of veterinarians working in veterinary medicine in the Netherlands). It was ascertained whether or not they were aware of the disciplinary system, if it affected their way of working and what impact it had on their way of working after having faced a disciplinary case. Respondents were given the opportunity to express their opinions about the system and possible improvements. Results: The risk of complaints was found to be significantly greater when a veterinarian owned a practice compared to veterinarians who were employees. Veterinarians with their own practice were generally older (male) veterinarians. Whether this was a direct effect or just the effect of having a longer career could not be answered. Multiple disciplinary procedures appeared to have no influence. In 13%, veterinarians indicated that the disciplinary system had led to a more defensive way of practicing medicine to avoid complaints. Discussion and conclusions: Most veterinarians supported a disciplinary system as a tool for maintaining and improving the integrity and reputation of the profession as a whole. Recommendations to improve were (1) shortening the length of the procedure, (2) screening for validity, (3) using online systems for communication with the disciplinary council, (4) the option of mediation before getting involved in a full procedure and (5) instituting a complaint fee.
ABSTRACT
In most countries, a veterinary disciplinary system is in force to ensure the quality of the veterinary profession and to offer an objective platform for complaints. We present an analysis of 15 years of veterinary disciplinary verdicts (2001-2016) to compare facts and figures and identify which factors are of major influence on the outcome of the verdicts. Rulings were collected from both paper files and the digital database of the veterinary disciplinary council (VDC), categorized, and used to create a database that enabled a statistical analysis. The results showed that complaints pertaining to companion animals are filed predominantly by owners, whereas complaints about livestock are mostly filed by the governmental civil servant (CS). CS complaints mostly address compliance issues. For the complaints made by owners (client complaints, CCs), reporting, communication, and veterinary mistakes appeared to be of statistical significance. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of the complaints on veterinarians in general and how we can improve the veterinary disciplinary system.
