How hard can it be to change the culture of care in the veterinary profession? Pretty hard, really, and that should be neither surprising nor unusual. It’s all very well to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, that a different matter.
Having said that, though, there are real signs of change taking place, and some of those signs are evident from the way Bob Partridge and Dr Freda Scott-Park, both senior figures at the BVA, have been talking over the past couple of months about MRSA and veterinary practice.
It started with a press release from The Bella Moss Foundation late in March, which prompted Bob Partridge to comment that vets needed to look at changing their practice. This was followed almost immediately by Dr Scott-Park telling anyone who would listen that there was no need to be concerned and that the risks from MRSA were being exaggerated.
The sentiments behind these two positions were not entirely incompatible as they could be seen as simply reflecting differing priorities. One was the need to reassure through a demonstration of action; the other sought to reassure by putting the authority for dealing with issues such as MRSA in pets firmly in the hands of the veterinary profession. But the louder message, from Dr Scott-Park, was clear; we are the only ones who know the facts and we say there is no problem.
Now that seems to have changed. Or rather, Dr Scott-Park’s comments were not a real reflection of the state of play. The BSAVA had already formed a working group to look at MRSA in pets and research by Tim Nuttall and Robert Duqette had examined the growing prevalence of MRSA in domesticated animals. Mick Rich and Larry Roberts at Idexx Laboratories had documented over 200 cases (that figure soon to be updated) of MRSA in pets, and Professor David Lloyd at the Royal Veterinary College had documented colonisation by MRSA of vet hospital staff.
Events were catching up with those who believed that MRSA in pets was a myth that needed to be debunked. Now, in a three-page article on the Foundation and the veterinary profession’s response, we see real evidence that the change necessary is beginning to form.
Where once the concerns voiced by the Foundation through its website PETS- MRSA.COM had been routinely dismissed, now both Bob Partridge and Dr Scott-Park were agreeing that this is an issue of great importance that needs systematic attention. Vets in practice have begun to contribute regularly to the Foundation’s website forum, and others have agreed to contribute to other areas of the content.
Where once vets refused to accept that non-vets had any knowledge, now they agree that perhaps they are not necessarily the best informed and that perhaps it is possible for other to have more current and relevant information than they. And this is welcome not because vets are wrong and owners right, but because no profession can achieve progress in isolation from the real world, however expert it believes itself to be.
Pet owners need vets to be knowledgeable and competent, but they also need them to be understanding of the limitations of their professional knowledge. Vets, on the other hand, need pet owners to be aware of the limitations of science, that there is not a cure for every ill and that sometimes things go wrong for no understandable reason.
Changing the culture of veterinary practice, as Bob Partridge agrees, will benefit everyone, even though for some it may seem to go against the grain. If practice and understanding of respective roles is good then the chance of conflict will diminish. In the latest statements from the BVA and the RCVS we see healthy signs of that change.