Client perception and satisfaction
Alongside animal welfare, client perception and satisfaction are essential to establishing a good relationship between the practice and the client. Good communication develops trust between the public and the veterinary profession, allowing better care and welfare of the animals presented to the practice. Introducing VNPs and granting RVNs prescribing rights could help build continuity and trust in care, resulting in better patient outcomes.
RVNs currently conducting consultations within their practice have received a positive response, with clients tending to be more open towards RVNs than VSs. Clients are frequently satisfied with RVNs ' clarity, advice and time spent during the consultation [ 5 ]. Building on this foundation with a VNP role can only enhance the client experience.
For example, an owner bringing in their pet for a recurring ear problem could see a VNP. The VNP could follow an already existing care framework, examine the patient, perform cytology and, based on the findings and what the care framework indicates, prescribe topical ear medication. In addition, they could have a more in-depth discussion with the owner about ear aftercare and how to properly clean their animal ' s ears, even potentially having the time to demonstrate this to the owner. In doing so, the VNP could treat the presented problem and help prevent flare-ups in the future.
The consultation model improves the perception of clients through more individualised care. Additionally, it showcases the expertise of the VNP, more clearly demonstrates the contribution of RVNs to the veterinary team and increases their visibility to the public. Introducing the role of a VNP would free up the time of VSs and reassure the client that their animal is receiving the prompt care of a veterinary professional. This would promote client satisfaction and improve client – practice relations.
Initially, some clients may prefer to see a VS rather than a VNP. However, it is interesting to note that in a study of human patients ' perceptions of seeing a non-medical prescriber( NMP) compared with a physician, patients reported high satisfaction when seeing an NMP [ 6 ]. In a further study, patients reported they received the same level of care for their condition from an NMP as a physician [ 7 ]. The study elaborated that patients were highly satisfied with the assurance of NMPs, continuity of care, and receiving information and advice. It was also highlighted that patients expressed satisfaction as consultations tended to be longer than the average appointment with a general practitioner( GP), and they perceived that all their concerns were listened to and discussed. Therefore, when applying this evidence to clients ' perceptions of consultations with a VNP rather than a VS, it could be theorised that client satisfaction may increase, as clients could benefit from quicker access to a VNP, extended consultation times and potentially reduced costs, leading to an overall positive impact on the client experience.
Practice efficiency and economics
Introducing the role of a VNP could boost practice productivity and have a positive effect on economic factors for the practice and its clients. VNPs could take on straightforward cases, manage chronic diseases and boost preventative care. This would free VSs to see more serious and complex cases that specifically require their expertise. By having a VNP manage chronic cases that often require multiple follow-up appointments and potential medication adjustments, practice productivity could increase.
The same is true for more acute, less severe conditions such as vomiting and diarrhoea; a practice could easily see at least six or seven of such cases a day, especially if there is a‘ bug’ going around. Such cases take up consultation slots with the VS that could be used for more serious cases, thus limiting practice productivity. The VNP could help mitigate such a bottleneck, allowing these patients to be seen quickly( resulting in better welfare), and simultaneously free up consultation slots and utilise more members of the veterinary team, ensuring the practice is operating at maximum efficiency.
The benefits of this approach are evidenced in a study in human healthcare by Carey and Stenner [ 8 ], which showed that NMPs increased the use of professional skills, improved service efficiencies and provided better access for patients to the treatment they required. This also had the added benefit of more flexible teamwork, resulting in better overall patient care.
Consideration should be given to the pricing of consultations. It is essential not to overlook the expertise that the VNPs would be providing. This does not mean, however, that VNP consultations should be charged at the same rate as VS consultations, but rather that there should be a transparent approach to charging.
For example, if the client were to see a VNP for a nail trim, then the consultation could be charged as a standard nurse consultation for a nail trim; however, if the VNP were to see a patient with vomiting and diarrhoea, then the fee could be in line with that of a gastrointestinal consultation. Essentially, the pricing would be tiered based on the service rather than a fixed‘ vet fee’.
Similarly, for VNPs who see chronic cases, the price could be adjusted to reflect the service, rather than charging a fixed consultation fee each time, such as an arthritis consultation charge or a repeat-injection consultation charge. This may foster trust among clients, as the costs will be more transparent and they will be better able to understand what they are paying for.
18 Veterinary Nursing Journal