Vet Times

wormsFTR

Corporate vet school

—

by

The announcement of a corporate veterinary group’s collaboration with the new Keele University/Harper Adams veterinary school struck a few chords, and seemingly opened a figurative can of worms that (like their literal parasitic counterparts) just doesn’t sit well in my gut.

A few points to consider here, the first of which I have written about before, although not about this particular arrival on the vet school scene.

More vet schools needed?

Do we need more vet schools? The short answer, in my opinion, is no. The employment crisis in the veterinary industry as it stands is multi-faceted – pluck a reason out of the air and it almost certainly has some impact on why practices are begging for vets:

  • compassion fatigue
  • poor working conditions
  • work-life balance
  • salary
  • lack of long-term prospects
  • Brexit
  • client pressure
  • under-supported young vets

I could talk about any one of these reasons at length (and have done), but, for the purposes of discussing the above gem of veterinary news, I will focus on the last point: support for new graduates or young vets.

Vicious cycle

circle
“This lack of support leads to high stress levels, young vets becoming fed up and looking elsewhere for a different career that provides them with the mental stimulation they desire, but with better support, hours and pay to go with it.” Image © Michael Brown / Adobe Stock

Some practices are excellent at providing a nurturing environment for young vets, but many are not and often not through any fault other than lack of staff.

This lack of support leads to high stress levels, young vets becoming fed up and looking elsewhere for a different career that provides them with the mental stimulation they desire, but with better support, hours and pay to go with it – thus the vicious cycle of extremely talented young people leaving the profession after a few years begins.

Problem solver?

Will opening more vet schools help the staffing problem? No. It is a short-sighted, temporary solution to fill a gap nobody seems to be able to plug. But the more graduates that accept jobs from practices who ideally wanted an experienced vet and can’t source one, the worse the retention problem will become. It is unfair on both parties to take on a new grad if a practice does not have the resources to sufficiently train and help them through their first few years.

To solve the retention problem, the profession needs to improve working conditions and encourage vets to stay, not just find more avenues to farm out new grads to try and bridge the gap.

Are corporates good for the profession?

I could (and probably will) discuss corporates at great length, but there is no clear answer for them being good for the profession. Having been stung with the sore end of the corporate tail once before, I’m inclined to say no, but that would be based on my experience of one particular practice. Conversely, I have colleagues who work for corporate practices that seem to be very well run and provide a great environment for learning.

My opinion is not fact and, to keep it short and sweet, is summarised below:

  • The idea behind corporate practices is often well meaning, but does not always work when put into practice. For example, the graduate schemes sound great, but only work if they are implemented correctly on an individual practice level.
  • Some corporates are extortionately priced compared to independents – there is a fine line between charging appropriately and taking the biscuit. This is likely exaggerated because many independents have been selling themselves short for years; however, it is not okay to triple prices in a week when an independent practice is taken over. All it does is feed the myth that vets are only in it for the money.
  • Long-established corporately owned practices seem to have better client satisfaction than practices newly acquired under a corporate brand as the shock of takeover, staff changes and price increases are long gone.
  • Corporates aim to provide better working hours (a four-day week, for example) and flexible working patterns, but, again, this varies on an individual basis.
  • The hand of many partners in independent practice has been forced as the profession continues to change. Young people do not have the disposable cash to buy into partnerships, as was the tradition. Corporates have taken advantage of this by buying out those wishing to retire without any new blood coming through.

Corporate practices can vary wildly even within the same group – much of it comes down to the individual practice, as with independents. As much as corporates offer many benefits with their nice shiny contracts, many independents match or better these. Likewise, an independent or corporate practice can be an equally catastrophic place to work in if managed badly at the practice level.

Now, to the elephant in the room…

Should a corporate group be running a vet school hospital?

Is a corporate running a vet school hospital any different from the outsourced rotation format of the other newest veterinary schools – Nottingham and Surrey – whereby they have no on-site university clinic, but rotations are undertaken in nearby hospitals?

nocash
“The hand of many partners in independent practice has been forced as the profession continues to change. Young people do not have the disposable cash to buy into partnerships, as was the tradition.” Image © MHChristine / Adobe Stock

The concern with new veterinary schools popping up and proposing this sort of final-year teaching is the associated practices are then less available to provide EMS placements for local students. The purpose-built corporate hospital that is to be partnered with the new veterinary school avoids this particular hurdle in part, at least (there’s no mention of an equine hospital or farm clinic), but is it still a good idea?

Remaining impartial

It comes down to whether the corporate presence is going to be ingrained into the teaching. Will the graduate scheme offered by the group be heavily recommended? Would the business structure and branded drugs be taught to the students?

At university, we were always told to learn drugs not brand names to remain impartial. Would that impartiality be maintained appropriately in a hospital that uses own-branded drugs and whose bigwig advisory boards dictate which products should and shouldn’t be offered?

Encouraging research into all available treatment and diagnostic options is a key aspect of learning and practising evidence-based medicine on rotations.

Familiarity breeds

Even if no direct corporate emphasis exists, surely the undercurrent is going to sway the students into applying for jobs in sister practices under a graduate scheme.

As a new grad, you are bewildered by everything and getting a heads-up on even the smallest of obstacles can make a huge different to your day in the first few weeks. Therefore, simple things, such as the practice management system used in every practice the group owns, may be enough to sway the decision between accepting one of two jobs, simply because using a system you’ve gotten used to on rotations will make your life that bit easier during day-to-day practice.

Conclusion

It remains to been seen if a corporate partnership with the new vet school will be a success for the students under their care and the profession as a whole, and I’ll withhold judgement for now.

However, with predictions corporate takeover will saturate at 70% of practices in the profession, it is undeniable the veterinary landscape is moving further adrift from its once independent roots as the corporate giants continue to tighten their grip.

Comments

3 responses to “Corporate vet school”

  1. Rose Unsworth Avatar
    Rose Unsworth

    The spectre of brain washing and removal of an individual’s ability to think objectively as a result of group mantras has to be seen as a possible outcome. My way is the only way and this is how we do it. We are potentially seeing a monopoly situation developing before our graduates even set foot in their first practice role.

    Reply
  2. Sarah W Avatar
    Sarah W

    Goodness! Where to start? When can we start working as a team of veterinary professionals rather than fuelling fires of discontent in the ‘corporate versus independent who is best’ debate?
    Indeed the recruitment crisis we all experience is multifaceted but my personal experience is that corporates are working extremely hard to combat all of the factors that you mention- it is in their interest after all! I assume that independent practices also do so.
    Part of this is also to ensure that a stream of good resilient new graduates are being assisted to their degree or should we stop training vets?
    New graduate schemes exist as a surety that new grads get a guaranteed level of training and support overseen by the head office of the corporate and stand as method of safe guarding the new graduate with overseen mentoring and proof of support being required- obviously in larger systems as in independent practices on site practice support may vary – corporate or not, but in corporates this will have a level of monitoring not seen in independent sites.
    Corporates do indeed buy practices from vets wanting to retire if they don’t have an option to sell to new blood- where is the issue with this ? Presumably those practices would close otherwise if there was not an alternative and jobs would be lost? If there was an opportunity to sell to a private buyer there is no obstruction to do this.
    Then the concept that a corporate sponsored first opinion university hospital would somehow brainwash students into using branded drugs seems ridiculous! At university we were not taught drug names to remain impartial but simply because that is what they were called! Were all the branding labels blanked out on the pharmacy shelf? No of course not, how patronising to any vet to suggest that because they used one brand of drug at their university hospital that they became then incapable of thinking of any other brand or using the drugs name!
    ‘Bigwig’ advisory boards exist not to demand vets use particular drugs – they look to examine the evidence base behind their use – I have never in my over a decade in corporate employment had any restriction in my choice of drug if I felt it indicated in a patient! In the brand perhaps but not the drug. How very presumptive of the author to imply this.
    The last preposterous suggestion here in my opinion is that the use of a particular PMS in university plays a direct role in a new graduates choice of future employment. I am certain that modern new grads will make their choices as I did, according to experience and feel of the practice and the people within it. Computer systems can be learned – ethos, ethic and people you feel comfortable with cannot.
    I would be glad if the author did ‘withhold judgement for now’ but clearly this was tricky and in my opinion this article was entirely about unfair pre judgment – perhaps from a previous bad experience in one practice? Please don’t tar all corporate practices or groups with your one bad experience – it Ian in my opinion most unfair.

    Reply
  3. Jordan Avatar
    Jordan

    Hi Sarah,

    I find the corporate vs independent debate very interesting, having worked in both and can appreciate the positives and negatives of both. I did, as you have pointed out, highlight the fact that the corporate model does seem to aim for a better work-life balance as a lot of them do implement things like the 4 day week.

    I do, however, strongly disagree with your point that new graduate schemes exist as a “surety that new grads get a guaranteed level of training”. I started on a new graduate scheme in a corporate practice and found that all they really guarantee is a set number of CPD days in the calendar year (of which, ironically, I only actually attended one because most of them were scheduled in the second half of the year, by which time I had already left that role). The idea behind the new graduate schemes are well meaning but they by no means guarantee any kind of support – the support that is provided at the practice level is still very much practice dependant. While I did indeed have 2 formal meetings with a “clinical coach” during the 5 months I worked at the practice, none of the points I raised were ever resolved, namely doing 4 days of TB testing a week and only the very occasional bits of small animal or equine work. I personally do not think turning new graduates into TB testers is good implementation of a new graduate support programme. Nonetheless, I appreciate that some of my colleagues in other corporately owned practices who partake in the new graduate schemes do receive adequate support on the ground. I believe that new graduate schemes are largely miss-sold to graduates as this guarantee of support when really, the support that is actually received varies just as much as in independent practices.

    My issue with corporate practices buying out partners is that these are often ridiculous offers the boss cannot refuse. These corporate groups have a seemingly bottomless pit of money and the independent senior vet who may be interested in becoming a partner but does not have a monopoly across the profession behind them will simply not be able to match the extortionate price tag. The corporates aim to acquire as many practices as possible and the staffing issues come as an afterthought. They can lack the ability to actually manage them properly without spreading middle management too thin (my previous clinical director was never there as they were directing several separate practices). This can very quickly tarnish the reputation of practices that have otherwise been well respected for many years.

    My own experience of corporate practice was that certain brands or types of drugs were used over others, and I did come up against a lot of resistance when I wanted to choose a treatment outside those on the health plans etc. Again, this will probably vary between the corporate groups and also within them, but I personally felt extremely restricted in what I was and was not allowed to use at that particular practice.

    As a recent new graduate, who changed jobs fairly quickly due to my poor experience in first role, I know the job hunting process only too well. While there are many factors to consider in choosing the right job, and the PMS being very low down on that list, I am merely indicating that should a new graduate have the choice between practices that otherwise tick all the same boxes, something trivial like the PMS or being part of the same corporate group therefore having recognisable drug branding may well be the factor that sways the decision. I suspect that any direct promotion of graduate schemes would have more of a profound effect in persuading new graduates to apply for corporate jobs.

    Yes, my experience in a corporate practice has heavily influenced my opinion of the corporate framework as a whole, but I do remain open to the fact that the different corporate groups work differently. My university colleagues work in a range of practices, including independents, corporates, recently acquired corporates and independents undergoing acquisition. Discussing our experiences has highlighted that independent practices can be disastrous workplaces just as much a corporate and likewise either can be great places to work if properly managed at the practice level.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *