RCVS practice standards in 2026: what UK veterinary practices need to know

A practice can be clinically well run and still be exposed when someone asks for evidence. The prescribing decision may be sound, the overnight-care arrangement may be understood by the team, and the wellbeing policy may exist somewhere in a folder. The question in 2026 is whether those standards are documented, current, and clear enough to stand up to inspection, complaint, or accreditation review.

RCVS PSS accreditation is voluntary, but that does not make the underlying standards optional. This guide explains what every UK practice should understand, what changed in 2026, and where independent practices most often fall short.

What every practice should understand in 2026

Every UK veterinary practice, accredited or not, is expected to meet the following as a baseline.

A clinical assessment before prescribing POM-Vs, with the animal under the vet's care. For antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitic POM-Vs, this generally means a physical examination, with any exception justified and recorded in the clinical notes. This comes from the Code of Professional Conduct, not from PSS membership, so it applies whether or not your practice is accredited.

A practice-specific suicide prevention plan, if your practice is PSS-accredited. From 1 April 2026, this became a formal Core Standard requirement for accredited practices. Even outside PSS, practices should treat the same risk assessment seriously, because RCVS guidance links the requirement to minimum practice standards under the Code.

Infection control measures, including risk-based deep cleaning and active steps to minimise cross-infection, strengthened in the 2021 five-year PSS review and checked at every PSS inspection.

Policies and practical support for staff wellbeing, including ensuring breaks and annual leave are genuinely taken.

Signed client consent confirming the level of overnight care provided for in-patients, with provisions for animal welfare if patients are left unattended overnight.

PSS-accredited practices at General Practice level face a further layer: a computerised PMS with transferable records across branches, written discharge instructions, regular bodyweight and body condition score recording, and demonstrable clinical audit. More on what that adds below.

The difference between mandatory and voluntary

PSS accreditation itself is voluntary. Around 69% of eligible UK practices have chosen it. But the RCVS is explicit that meeting Core Standards is a legal requirement for every UK veterinary practice, accredited or not. Being outside PSS means no inspection. It does not mean no duty.

That distinction matters more this year than it has in some time. Two changes since September 2023, and a third from April 2026, have moved the practical baseline. Practices that have not reviewed their position since then may be assuming a narrower set of obligations than actually applies to them.

What changed in 2026

The most significant new requirement this year is the suicide prevention plan for PSS-accredited practices.

From 1 April 2026, accredited practices must implement a plan that assesses potential risks within the practice setting and sets out measures to address each one. It applies across small animal, equine, and farm practice types, and aligns with BS 30480, the British Standard on suicide and the workplace published in 2025.

The context matters and is specific. The RCVS responded to two prevention of future death reports from coroners' courts, both involving veterinary professionals who used medicines to take their own lives. The requirement was shaped by those cases and by the wider need to manage known workplace risks in veterinary settings.

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative has published a guide, checklist, and implementation toolkit. Starting from these rather than building a plan from scratch is the sensible route.

What the profession's own CVO thinks

Nick Lloyd is Chief Veterinary Officer at Lupa and a former practice owner. On the suicide prevention plan, his view is direct.

"Veterinary suicide rates are among the highest of any profession, and access to medicines is a significant factor. This makes the practice environment specifically relevant, and it is right that practices take ownership of that risk. The danger is that a plan becomes a document that gets written once, filed away, and never revisited. Real risk reduction comes from psychological safety and workload management, from the culture of the practice. The document should reflect that culture, not substitute for it."

That scepticism does not mean the requirement is wrong, in his view.

"It legitimises wellbeing conversations that managers previously found hard to start. The practical approach is to start from the RCVS Mind Matters toolkit rather than building from scratch, and to treat it as sitting on top of existing wellbeing obligations, not replacing them. An assessor can verify a plan exists. They cannot verify whether it's genuinely lived. That part is on the practice, not the paperwork."

On the PSS Core Standards more broadly, Nick's position is grounded in how practices actually behave under assessment.

"Almost any requirement can be genuinely protective or pure box-ticking, depending on how a practice treats it. The scheme is sound. The variation is in the practices. The way standards are assessed affects how practices respond: standards that can only be evidenced by producing a document invite box-ticking, while standards evidenced by observing real practice resist it."

For practice owners who have been running a good practice for years without PSS accreditation and assume the standards simply do not apply to them, his response is patient but clear.

"Not assessed is not the same as not applicable. Being outside PSS means no inspection, not no duty. The under-care prescribing rules, medicines safety, and now suicide prevention risks apply to your practice either way. Twenty years of running a good practice usually means you already meet most of this. The standards largely codify what good practice already does. The risk isn't your clinical care. It's whether you can evidence it when someone asks."

The broader Core Standards picture

The suicide prevention plan sits within a larger set of Core Standards that PSS-accredited practices are assessed against, many of which reflect wider professional obligations. Some have been in place for years. Others were strengthened in the 2021 five-year PSS review and have been actively assessed since then.

Infection control requirements were tightened in the 2021 review. All accreditation levels now include obligations around risk-based deep cleaning and active steps to minimise cross-infection, checked at every inspection.

On staff health and wellbeing, the five-year review placed specific obligations on practices to have policies and support mechanisms for team mental health and to ensure breaks and annual leave are demonstrably taken. The suicide prevention plan sits on top of these requirements, not instead of them.

Animal owners must also provide signed consent confirming they understand the level of overnight care provided for in-patients, with provisions for the welfare of animals left unattended overnight.

The under-care requirement and prescribing

Since September 2023, RCVS guidance has required a clinical assessment before prescribing POM-Vs, with the animal being under the vet's care. This obligation comes from the Code of Professional Conduct and applies to every veterinary surgeon regardless of PSS status. It was subsequently reflected in PSS Core Standards, but the duty predates and sits outside the PSS framework.

For antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitic POM-Vs, the clinical assessment should generally include a physical examination. Any exception needs to be justified and recorded in the clinical notes. Remote consultation can satisfy the requirement for other POM-Vs where appropriate, but the decision and its rationale still need to be documented.

Practices not currently logging prescribing justifications as a standard workflow step are carrying a gap regardless of PSS status, and one that would surface under inspection or complaint.

What General Practice accreditation adds

Beyond Core Standards, practices pursuing General Practice accreditation take on a further layer focused on clinical records and clinical governance.

At this level, practices must run a computerised PMS with patient records accessible from and transferable between all branches, provide written discharge instructions, and record bodyweight and body condition score regularly as part of the clinical record. A PMS that cannot support complete, transferable patient records makes this standard difficult to evidence.

General Practice accredited practices must also demonstrate clinical audit, significant event audits, and documented protocols around clinical governance. For practices that have not previously run formal audit processes, this is a meaningful shift in how clinical work gets reviewed.

Nursing requirements are more specific too. Practices must have sufficient nursing staff, with expectations around nursing involvement in patient care explicitly defined. At Veterinary Hospital level, all patients should have a nursing plan.

For independent practices weighing whether to pursue or maintain accreditation, this is where the strongest return sits. Clinical audit done properly produces better decisions. It also leaves a paper trail that matters far more when something goes wrong than when an assessor happens to visit.

Where independent practices most often fall short

Prescribing documentation is the most common gap, and the least visible one. Since the under-care guidance took effect, practices have been expected to record prescribing justifications in the patient record, particularly for antibiotic and antiparasitic POM-Vs. Many do not do this consistently. If your practice cannot show the reasoning behind a remote prescribing decision, that gap would surface under inspection or complaint, regardless of PSS status.

For practices at General Practice accreditation level, clinical records completeness is often the second pressure point. The PMS, discharge instructions, and bodyweight recording requirements are clear in principle but need a configured system and a consistent clinical workflow to evidence reliably.

The suicide prevention plan is the newest requirement for accredited practices, and the most addressable. A plan that has never been discussed with the team is the kind of thing an assessor spots in about thirty seconds.

Where compliance and practice systems overlap

Compliance with RCVS standards is not, at root, a software question. The decisions about clinical governance, team wellbeing, and under-care prescribing are made by people. What a well-configured PMS changes is whether those decisions are consistently recorded, retrievable, and usable when an assessor asks for them. Software supports evidence. Practice leadership remains accountable.

The overlap with the CMA's incoming obligations is worth naming. Written discharge instructions and clear documentation of clinical decisions serve both sets of requirements. Structured invoicing follows the same logic. Practices that build these into a single connected workflow do less work than practices that treat them as separate compliance tracks.

For the detail on CMA requirements and their timelines, read CMA pricing transparency: how to get your practice compliant before the deadlines and what the new CMA prescription fee cap means for your practice.

To see how Lupa's clinical records, billing, and practice management tools support both sets of requirements in a single workflow, book a demo.