The RCVS has announced the members that will comprise its new Audit and Risk Committee, which was set up following recommendations in the RCVS Overspend Review Group's report (otherwise known as the McKelvey Report).

The Audit and Risk Committee will support RCVS Council in meeting its oversight responsibilities, including:

• Monitoring the Council's risk management arrangements
• Approving the internal audit programme
• Advising Council on the comprehensiveness and reliability of assurances and internal controls, including internal and external audit arrangements, and on the implications of assurances provided in respect of risk and control.

Its members are:

Non-Council members
Elizabeth Butler (Chairman) is a practising Chartered Accountant who has held a wide variety of non-executive appointments, bringing both professional expertise and a depth of understanding of risk and governance. Among other roles, she has chaired the audit committees of the Royal College of Nursing and Hyde Housing Association, and currently chairs the audit committees of the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, she is also chairman of Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust.

David Hughes is a chartered accountant and a former senior partner who has extensive expertise in financial reporting, accounting, auditing, risk management and governance issues. He is currently a Non-Executive Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee for the Highways Agency and a member of the Department for Transport Audit Committee.

Judith Rutherford has five years' experience as a Non-Executive Director and as a member of the Audit Committee in a community Healthcare and Primary Care Trust within the regulated environment of the NHS. She is currently Director of an organisation that provides interim management and consultancy to the private and public sectors.

RCVS Council members
Richard Davis is a Privy Council-appointed member of RCVS Council. He farms 104 hectares in North Bedfordshire and has been a director of First Milk Ltd for seven years. He has also been a director of Westbury Dairies Ltd, where he was Chairman of the Audit Committee. Richard has served on the audit committee of Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) for the last six years and served as the Chairman of Assured Dairy Farms for six years (the scheme sets, audits and monitors production, welfare and environmental standards for most UK processors, and over 12,000 dairy farms).

Lynne Hill MRCVS is Chief Executive of Langford Veterinary Services Ltd, University of Bristol, and was previously Head of the Clinical Services Department at the Royal Veterinary College. Prior to that, Lynne was European Marketing Manager for Hill's Pet Nutrition. She is an elected member of RCVS Council and was President in 2005-6.

The non-Council members of the Committee were appointed by a panel chaired by Sir David Barnes, Chairman of the Governance Review Group.

The new Committee, which is accountable to Council and will report at least annually, will meet for the first time in early autumn.

Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "I am pleased that the new Audit and Risk Committee is now in place. It should offer reassurance to both members and the public that the framework via which Council's activities are scrutinised is robust."

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.

Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.

RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."

Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."

The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed charges of serious professional misconduct against a veterinary surgeon and former employee of Medivet (Watford).

Tomasz Nazimek, who qualified in Poland in 2001 before starting work in England in 2005, was alleged to have charged for the use of a blood pressure monitor during an exploratory laparotomy on a cat called Mitzi, whilst working at the Watford branch of Medivet in June 2009, when he knew, or ought to have known, it had not been used.

Despite his previous signed statements to the contrary, Mr Nazimek admitted at the outset of the hearing that no blood pressure monitor had in fact been used.

Accordingly, the Committee only had to establish whether Mr Nazimek himself had entered the fee for its use into Mitzi's records and, if so, whether this was done dishonestly.

The alleged incident came to light as a result of a covert investigation into Medivet conducted by the television production company Fulcrum TV in 2008/9, and subsequently commissioned by the BBC and broadcast in July 2010 as part of the Panorama programme 'It Shouldn't Happen at a Vets''.

Former dental nurse Alexandra Lee was employed by Fulcrum TV as an undercover reporter to work as a 'trainee veterinary nurse' at Medivet, in order to record audio and video footage of her experiences there.

The case against Mr Nazimek was based partly on a conversation overheard by Miss Lee following the operation on Mitzi, where she maintained that Guy Carter, a senior Medivet partner and veterinary surgeon, told Mr Nazimek (who was sitting at the practice computer typing up Mitzi's records) not to forget to include a fee for use of the blood pressure monitor.

However, Miss Lee's equipment had not recorded this exchange, due to a fault, and her video diary of that day's events was not put in evidence before the Committee. Miss Lee also accepted in evidence that she had not actually seen who entered the fee into the records, but had assumed it was Mr Nazimek.

Despite giving serious consideration to all of Miss Lee's evidence, the Committee found it of limited value.

The Committee considered the statements signed by Mr Nazimek, but prepared for him by the Medivet senior management in December 2009 and October 2010, which stated that he had used the monitor, consulted Mr Carter about charging for it and then added the fee himself.

The Committee also considered a third statement provided to the College (September 2011), in which Mr Nazimek recalled that Mr Carter had priced up the operation himself, but not asked for his input.

When questioned about the discrepancies in his statements, Mr Nazimek told the Committee that he had confused different operations and now knew his earlier statements to be wrong.

He indicated that he had been under pressure from his then employers to sign the statements, that his attempts to change them were ignored by Medivet's managing partners and that he was depressed and under stress at the time.

He was not told that the statements could be in relation to charges against him, or that he was entitled to legal advice when discussing them with his employers.

The Committee found Mr Nazimek's oral evidence to be persuasive, his manner open and his responses under cross-examination frank.

In the absence of satisfactory and reliable evidence to the contrary, and in view of supportive testimonials provided from his current employer and former colleagues as to his honesty and integrity, the Committee found Mr Nazimek's repeated assertion that he did not make a charge for the monitor "entirely plausible" and believed that he told the truth.

Nevertheless, the Committee emphasised that a charge for the monitor had been entered into the records when no such device had been used, which it regarded as unacceptable.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is not satisfied by the evidence so that it is sure that [Mr Nazimek] entered into the records for Mitzi a charge for the blood pressure monitor. [It] believes that [Mr Nazimek] told the truth when giving his evidence and the character references support his honesty.

"In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the charges further and the allegations against [Mr Nazimek] are dismissed."

The Kennel Club has announced that the Crufts Best of Breed (BOB) winners in two of the high profile breeds - the bulldog and the Pekingese - failed their veterinary checks, so the breeds were not represented in the utility and toy group judging.

The British Veterinary Association says it welcomed the Kennel Club's initiative to put the veterinary checks in place for the BOB winner in the 15 high profile breeds at all championship dog shows starting at Crufts this year.

The 15 breeds have been identified as having particular health problems often due to poor conformation as a result of having been bred with exaggerated characteristics. The veterinary checks ensure the BOB winners are not suffering as a result of their conformation, such as eye problems, skin disease, lameness or breathing difficulties, which should have been identified by the judge.

Carl Padgett, President of the BVA, said: "Breeding dogs with exaggerated features must be tackled robustly. The veterinary checks are sending out a strong message that dogs with health problems will not win in the show ring, and only visibly healthy dogs will be rewarded.

"Dog showing can be a force for good for dog breeding and education but the veterinary checks on the first two groups at Crufts have highlighted the health problems that all too often affect man's best friend.

"We hope this strong action by the Kennel Club will be a wake-up call to those breeders and judges that still need to embrace the message that health should always be at the top of the agenda."

The RCVS has confirmed that surgical insemination in dogs is prohibited by animal welfare laws and amended Section 27 of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct so that it now sits alongside tail docking, dew claw removal, prosthetic testicles and feline renal transplantation from living donors on the list of banned procedures.

RCVS Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson said: "Changes to the chapter of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct titled ‘Miscellaneous procedures: legal and ethical considerations’, specifically in regards to surgical artificial insemination in dogs, were discussed at a meeting of the Standards Committee on 30 January 2019.

"The proposed changes to the guidance were to clarify that surgical artificial insemination (AI) in dogs is prohibited by animal welfare legislation – specifically the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which prohibits mutilations. Prohibited procedures are defined as those which interfere with sensitive tissue or bone structure. Surgical AI in dogs is not one of the exemptions permitted within the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.

"Due to an unfortunate oversight, the guidance had not been updated following this legislative change, although, in the interim, the guidance still made it clear that surgical AI in dogs was unlikely to be in the animal’s best interests and could only be carried out and justified in very limited circumstances and for exceptional reasons.

"However, we apologise for the oversight, and as soon as the College was made aware that the guidance on surgical AI did not conform exactly with the legislation and regulations, a paper was prepared for the Standards Committee to consider as soon as possible and update the guidance accordingly.

"As always, if any members of the profession or the public have any questions about any aspect of our Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance, they are welcome to contact our Standards and Advice Team on advice@rcvs.org.uk."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended London-based veterinary surgeon Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq for six months, and found no misconduct against Mr Oscar Perez Maillo in the hearing of a case in which two newborn puppies were taken from their owner.

The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.

Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.

The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.

There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest. 

The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.

As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.

The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.

The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.

However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.

In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.

The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.

The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.

Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.

In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.

"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.

"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.

"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."

The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.

CPD Solutions has launched a PgCert in Small Animal Diagnostic Imaging, which takes 12 months starting in March 2020. 

The new programme includes ten days of practical imaging sessions based at CPD Solutions' training centre in Studley near Birmingham, where participants will develop their existing imaging skills and learn additional techniques that they can use directly in small animal practice.

CPD Solutions says its PgCerts have unique benefits and key differences from other PgCert options available to vets, namely a strong emphasis on practical training (all attendance days are practical, with no lecture days), the way the attendance days are grouped into three sessions for convenience, and the 12 month duration of the programme.

Susie Coughlan, veterinary surgeon and MD at CPD Solutions has 21 years’ experience in providing practical training for vets. ‘Our experience is that vets get the most out of hands-on practical training in a structured and supportive environment, combined with reflective application of their new skills in practice. The new PgCert in Small Animal Diagnostic Imaging follows the same format – all attendance sessions are practical, and the course provides support for developing reflective work based learning that vets can use with all of their patients.’

For more information, contact CPD Solutions on 0151 328 0444 or visit www.pgcert.com 

The RVC has published a study which shows that the age at which female dogs (bitches) are neutered is associated with early-onset urinary incontinence¹.

The researchers say that urinary incontinence affects around three per cent of bitches in the UK, and whilst the link between urinary incontinence and neutering in bitches has been suspected, this study provides new evidence on the extent of the relationship.

The research was carried out by the RVC’s VetCompass programme, supported by BSAVA Petsavers. Apparently, it was the largest cohort study on incontinence in bitches carried out worldwide to date, using the anonymised veterinary clinical records of 72,971 bitches.

The research indicated that bitches of certain breeds including Irish setters, Dalmatians, Hungarian vizslas, Dobermans and Weimaraners are more prone to early-onset urinary incontinence than other breeds. Special care therefore needs to be taken when deciding whether to neuter these breeds.

The results identified an increased risk of 2.12 times of urinary incontinence in neutered bitches compared with entire bitches. However it also identified an increased risk of 1.82 of urinary incontinence within the first two years of being neutered, in bitches neutered before 6 months of age compared with those neutered from 6 to 12 months.

Other findings included:

• The average age at diagnosis of UI was 2.9 years.

• The average time from neuter to UI was 1.9 years.

• Bitches weighing over 30kg had 2.62 times the risk of UI compared with bitches weighing under 10 kg.

• Increasing body weight was also associated with an increased risk of early-onset urinary incontinence.

Camilla Pegram, VetCompass epidemiologist and lead researcher on the study (pictured right), said: "Neutering is something that every owner will need to consider at some stage but there has been limited information on the risks of urinary incontinence following surgery up until now. The decision to neuter a bitch is complicated but the results of this study suggest that early-age neuter should be carefully considered, particularly in high-risk breeds and bitches with larger bodyweights, unless there are major other reasons for performing it."

Reference:

1. Pegram, C. , Brodbelt, D. C., Church, D. B., Hall, J. , Owen, L. , Chang, Y. and O'Neill, D. G. (2019), Associations between neutering and early‐onset urinary incontinence in UK bitches under primary veterinary care. J Small Anim Pract. doi: 10.1111/jsap.13072

The RCVS has announced two changes to its CPD policy as it switches from the rolling three year requirement to the annual one, starting in 2020.

The first is that the College will allow veterinary surgeons and nurses to carry over some of the CPD hours they have accrued in 2019 into 2020, to smoothen the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

Vets will be allowed to carry over 25 hours and VNs 10 hours of accumulated CPD from 2019 through to 2020.

This will apply once, in 2020 only, and is only applicable to vets and VNs who have been CPD-compliant from 2017 to 2019 and have a surplus number of hours to carry over.

Secondly, the College is going to allow vets and VNs to take a six-month 'CPD pause' for planned periods away from work, such as parental leave, and exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or unforeseen changes to family responsibilities, without the need to make up the hours when they return to work. This will reduce the burden on vets and VNs returning to work after a break.

RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements said: "We hope that these changes to the CPD policy will support vets and VNs to make the transition to an annual hourly requirement.

"We received a sample of feedback from some members of the veterinary professions regarding the move to annual hourly CPD requirements and these additions have been introduced support members during this transition and to mitigate some of the concerns raised."

For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit our dedicated page: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.

Voting has now opened in the 2019 RCVS Council election. Eligible veterinary surgeons can now vote online or by posting their paper ballot.

There are nine candidates standing in this year’s elections, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:

• Dr Linda Belton MRCVS
  At a glance: Equine clinician. Director of George Veterinary Group, a 40-vet independent practice. Wants to safeguard veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom and prevent it being eroded as a result of corporatisation. 

• Dr Niall Connell MRCVS
  At a glance: After a career largely in small animal charitable practice, Niall had to retire from clinical practice as a result of MS. Has been a council member since 2013 and now RCVS President-elect. By all accounts, something of a national treasure. Wants the College to: "regulate compassionately in partnership with our profession".

• Mr John C Davies MRCVS
  At a glance: Small animal practitioner who, having had his fingers burned in a failed joint venture arrangement and parts of his election manifesto redacted by the RCVS (it can be read in full here: http://www.johndaviesvet.com), now campaigns for justice, integrity, accountability, freedom of speech and due diligence at the College and in the wider profession.

• Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVS
  At a glance: Small animal locum practitioner who was first elected to council in 2015 after successfully lobbying for changes to the CoPC Guidance following Chikosi. An all round good egg. Argues passionately against changes to the Code of Conduct to allow remote prescribing of POM-Vs.

• Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVS
  At a glance: Widely-published equine practitioner and past-pres of BEVA, BVA and WEVA. In favour of RCVS regulation of para-professionals. Argues that whilst technology is to be welcomed, diagnosis and prescribing must be restricted to animals 'under our care'.

• Professor John Innes FRCVS
  At a glance: RCVS Specialist in small animal orthopaedics (with 85 peer-reviewed papers to his name) and Referrals Director at CVS. Pledges to speak as an independent veterinary surgeon - not a corporate representative - if elected. On record as being pleased that the proposed RCVS telemedicine trial was delayed pending further consultation. In favour of 'nurse practitioner' becoming a regulated option for RVNs.

• Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVS
  At a glance: Single-issue candidate with a 23-year history of standing for election to draw attention to the supposed evils of commercial pet foods. Based in Australia. 2000-1 outsider. 

• Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVS
  At a glance: 15 years in farm animal practice before taking up various positions in industry and government. Champions a healthy work-life balance, fair pay, workplace flexibility and supportive work practices.

• Mr Peter Robinson MRCVS
  At a glance: A long career in independent farm, equine and small animal practice, followed by a stint in sole practice in Dubai. Has been on Council for 4 years. Like Jo Dyer, argues that when it comes to remote prescribing and telemedicine, "we must not change the standards of ‘under our care'."

Ballot papers and booklets containing candidates’ details and manifestos have been sent by post to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a unique link to a secure voting site has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services, which runs the election on behalf of the College.

All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019. 

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we saw another very strong turnout for the RCVS Council election with over a fifth of the profession casting votes. The turnout was again helped by regular email reminders and the fact the voting website can be easily accessed by just clicking on a link.

"I would like to remind the profession that, following last year’s changes to our governance structure after a Legislative Reform Order was passed through Parliament, you can now only choose up to three candidates. I do hope members of the profession take this opportunity to influence the governance and policies of the RCVS."

Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.

The BVA has launched a flowchart designed to help veterinary surgeons in England know when and how to report suspected cases of illegal pet imports to relevant authorities.

The flowchart, which was produced in partnership with the National Animal Health and Welfare Panel (NAHWP) and with support from Dogs Trust, outlines what vets should consider when a client presents an animal with a pet passport and aim to help them navigate client confidentiality, how to report concerns of illegal imports, and an overview of how local authorities are likely to respond.

The Association says that in recent years, vets have mentioned finding it 'difficult' or 'very difficult' to report concerns to Trading Standards in the BVA Voice of the Veterinary Profession surveys. Other concerns included breaching client confidentiality, a lack of proof or sufficient evidence to investigate, a perceived lack of interest from local authorities if a case was reported, and uncertainty about whom to contact and how to report suspicions. 

Findings released by Dogs Trust earlier this week show broadly similar concerns about reporting suspected illegal pet import cases.

BVA and NAHWP have issued the following advice for vets: 

1. Report any suspicions that the animal in your care does not comply with Pet Travel Scheme requirements to your Local Authority Animal Health Function – either Trading Standards or Environmental Health Services. 

2. Find out how to contact your local authority via a pre-agreed number for your practice. Find a direct contact number for your local Trading Standards or call Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline on 03454 04 05 06, who will refer you directly to the relevant local authority.

3. Note this number down on the joint BVA and NAHWP compliance flowchart and put up the poster in visible locations around your practice for staff to refer to.

BVA is also in talks with local authority forums in Wales and Scotland and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to launch similar guidance and compliance resources for vets in the devolved administrations.

BVA President Daniella Dos Santos said: "Veterinary teams can often be the first to suspect that an animal may have been illegally imported when an owner takes their pet for its first check-up. But our surveys have identified a compelling need for clearly defined routes and mechanisms for vets to more easily report suspected cases of illegal import.

"Our flow chart and supporting guidance aim to empower vets to report any such cases, thus helping to tackle the scourge of illegal importation and protecting animal welfare, both of the imported dogs and the larger canine population in the UK.

"I would encourage veterinary teams to put up the poster in their practices and use it to help report any suspicions to relevant authorities with ease."

The flowchart is available as a pull-out poster in this week’s Vet Record and can also be downloaded along with accompanying guidance notes here:  www.bva.co.uk/illegalimportguidance

Sainsbury’s Bank Pet Insurance has launched has launched an online tool to help people pick the right pet, after it conducted research which found that 22% regret their choice of breed. 

The survey found that 51% of cat and dog owners didn't research their pets breed before buying. Of the 22% who then regretted their decision, 31% said it was because they didn’t have enough time to look after the animal, 18% because they turned out to be allergic to the animal, and 16% because they didn’t like their pet’s personality.

Apparently dog owners were more likely to regret their new pet (26%) than cat owners (16%).

Sainsbury’s has therefore launched the Pawfect Match tool, designed to help future pet owners to make informed decisions when choosing the most suitable breed for them. The pet picker asks you a number of questions about your circumstances and makes a number of suggestions based on how you answer. 

Sainsbury's campaign is being fronted by Scott Miller MRCVS, who said: "I am saddened to hear that so many pet owners are regretting the animals they have chosen as companions. Dogs and cats come in all shapes and sizes, and have different temperaments. Looking after a pet is a huge commitment so it is important that people undertake adequate research before buying a pet to ensure it is a happy experience."

COMMENT

I tried Sainsbury's pet picker and it recommended a Basset Hound as the first choice. Fair enough. I always think they look like the living embodiment of the word 'hangdog', which is not really my cup of tea. Luckily, the tool makes more than one suggestion. One of the criteria I'd specified was 'quiet and calm', so the second recommendation, a whippet, was fine. But the third caught my eye. A Border Collie. What? Whaaaaaat? Quiet and calm? A Border Collie. Are you having a laugh? I thought Border Collies usually need to be sent to some sort of asylum.

Still, if Sainsbury's tool encourages more people to think harder about their choice, that's no bad thing. But they might like to rethink the Border Collie recommendation.