Headed by Esteban Gonzalez-Gasch, a European Specialist in Small Animal Surgery, the new department enables the practice to undertake a wide range of complex small animal procedures.
Injuries and conditions treated include fracture fixation, including complex and simple fractures; cruciate disease, including tibial osteotomies and extracapsular repair; arthroscopy; arthrodesis of chronically painful joints; elbow dysplasia; lameness investigation in adults and juveniles; treatment of growth deformities including distraction osteogenesis; osteoarthritis and musculo-skeletal neoplasia.
Esteban, who joined Southfields earlier this year from the leading Spanish veterinary hospital Ars Veterinaria, in Barcelona, said: "These new facilities really do put Southfields at the cutting edge of 21st century veterinary science and practice in the UK."
Southfields is also carrying out a full refurbishment of its existing facilities and recruiting a number of additional specialist veterinary surgeons, nurses and support staff.
Southfields’ operations manager Daniel Hogan said: "This is a very exciting period for us. We are growing in every possible area and working more closely with referring practices to continue to develop our bespoke and exceptional service for patients and clients.
"Our aim is aspiring and simple: to create the very best referral centre possible by bringing together the expertise of the very best of veterinary professionals supported by the very latest in technological innovation."
As well as orthopaedics, the practice accepts referrals in soft tissue surgery, internal medicine, oncology, neurology, feline medicine and cardiology. For more information, go to www.southfields.co.uk.
A new infographic and educational webinar are now available to share on social media, to increase farmer awareness and provide best practice guidance.
The infographic and webinar explain how vaccination is considered best practice for control of the disease, giving better disease control whilst ensuring responsible use of antibiotics.
Independent sheep veterinary consultant Dr Fiona Lovatt, who leads the cross-industry Sheep Antibiotic Guardian Group, said: "Despite EAE being responsible for over 35% of all abortion diagnoses, only one million of the 3.5 million replacement ewes in the national flock each year are vaccinated against EAE. Any sheep farmer that either buys in ewes for replacements or has close neighbours that also lamb sheep, risks bringing enzootic abortion into their flock.
"Once the disease infects an unvaccinated flock, some ewes are ‘programmed’ to abort at their next lambing, leaving no choice but to put remedial measures in place – usually including both vaccination and antibiotic treatment.
"This means EAE is a disease that, once in a flock, carries high costs both financially and emotionally in terms of lamb losses and farmer stress. Hence it is important that flocks receive appropriate vaccination at least four weeks before ewes go to the ram and avoid the inappropriate use of antibiotics closer to lambing."
Fiona points out that a single dose of EAE vaccine costs about £2.40 and is an investment that effectively lasts the ewe for her lifetime in the flock, protecting against losses. In contrast, abortion or stillbirth – which accounts for around a quarter of all lamb losses each year – costs over £25 for every single lost lamb.
Fiona added: "Every injection of antibiotics also costs an additional £1. But is just a ‘sticking plaster’ with short-lasting effectiveness in terms of disease control but long-lasting damage in terms of mounting resistance."
Ceva says it will continue to work closely with veterinary practices to secure stock of Cevac Chlamydia vaccine to ensure farmers can purchase and use the vaccine at the right time. Ceva also provides subsidised blood sampling for diagnostic purposes.
For further information, call Ceva Animal Health on 01494 781510 or email cevauk@ceva.com.
Photo: Mike Benjamin
Medivet owns 245 veterinary practices in the UK and its rate of practice acquisition had tripled in the last 12 months.
CEO, Arnold Levy said: "The 25 strong Regional Directors Team is a key strategic line of management and support for all our existing practices, and they are central to the successful integration of our new practices into our hub and spoke model. Even though each of our Regional Directors is an experienced, qualified veterinary surgeon, it is vital that they have time, knowledge and understanding of the Medivet business and operation to confidently support their practices in line with our model, in the right way.
"With the support of the Leadership Team, we will be using these next few months to ensure this newly formed group have all the skills needed to do just that."
Arnold added: "We have taken this deliberate decision to ensure we can maintain the very highest standards of client and patient care. Where our management team and support structures are already in place we will continue with our new acquisitions program, and once our Regional Management operation is fully embedded, we will confidently continue to grow our business in a sustainable, people and patient-first way."
Vétoquinol has announced the return of Navilox powder (isoxsuprine hydrochloride), the only medication specifically licensed in the UK for use in cases of navicular disease in horses.
Navicular disease is a chronic degenerative condition of the navicular bone and associated structures. It is a syndrome with a complex pathogenesis which combines various underlying causes. Vétoquinol says it is a common cause of lameness in the middle aged riding horse.
Robert Simpson, Navilox Product Manager said: "Navilox has been sorely missed by equine vets in the UK which is why I am thrilled to be able to announce that it is available again."
To order Navilox powder, call Vétoquinol on 01280 825424 or contact your wholesaler directly.
The Association says that the total cost of claims, which was up 17% on the previous year, largely reflects the cost of veterinary treatment, drugs and diagnostic equipment, resulting in more expensive claims.
Three quarters of the claims were for dogs, and the most common high-value claim was for spinal surgery, costing £8,000 - £10,000.
One fifth of the claims were for cats and the remainder were for other pets.
Meanwhile, Go.Compare pet insurance has calculated that if all pet owners had been insured, the total cost of claims for veterinary treatment and other emergency fees could have reached over £11bn1.
Over the same period, the ABI says pet insurance premiums only rose by 1% to £327.
Centaur Services' veterinary wholesale business has been acquired by AHN International. Centaur was founded in 1964 by a group of veterinary surgeons who wanted to increase their buying power and the range of products available to them. Over the next 44 years the business, which was owned by its veterinary surgeon shareholders, grew to a turnover of nearly £140m. The company has recently completed a 3 year programme of modernisation making it one of the most technologically advanced wholesalers in Europe. In September 2007, Centaur Services announced its intention to list its shares on the Alternative Investments Market (AIM). These plans were initially postponed and finally cancelled when the Centaur shareholders accepted the offer from AHN. Paul Gerring, Centaur Services' Managing Director said: "There has been considerable consolidation in the veterinary market over recent years, particularly amongst manufacturers, and this partnership with AHN provides us with an increased presence in the market. Like Centaur, AHN is a vet-focussed business with plans to be active in the veterinary supply market on a European and global basis. We see plenty of exciting opportunities out there". AHN International was established to form the first global coalition of leading animal health wholesalers and distributors. With nearly 700 employees worldwide, AHN International is committed to presenting the veterinary surgeons with an advanced level of product and services. Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, AHN International will actively build it's network of leading trading companies around the world through acquisitions and business associations.
Vetswap was set up by Luke Ramsden and Euan McKee MsRCVS, two globe-trotting veterinary surgeons who saw the opportunity for colleagues in the profession to combine work and travel without losing the security of their long-term job.
As part of the partnership, VetSurgeon Jobs now includes a dedicated section for VetSwap which contains a link to job swap opportunities posted by the company.
VetSurgeon.org Editor Arlo Guthrie said: "Job swapping sounds like a great way to get a fresh-perspective and gain some CPD, not to mention a holiday in the sun.
"VetSwap is a natural fit with VetSurgeon Jobs, broadening the range of opportunities we can offer.
"On top of that, VetSurgeon.org exists to support veterinary surgeons, so when Euan and Luke contacted me, I was only too pleased to do what I can to try and give them a leg up."
VetSwap is now running a competition to win £200 worth of Amazon vouchers and a free VetSwap. All you have to do is visit their Facebook page and share this post with a colleague: https://www.facebook.com/VetSwapTM/videos/1881120178807211/
The RCVS has extended its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial until October 2015 and broadened its remit, allowing more cases to be considered.
The idea of the ADR is to provide an alternative form of resolution for the many concerns raised with the RCVS which do not meet the College's threshold for serious professional misconduct and are, therefore, not taken through its disciplinary process.
The trial, which was originally due to end in May 2015, aims to gather evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme.
As well as the time-frame being extended, the trial will now also be widened to include concerns raised about the treatment of horses and other equines - in addition to those raised about small animals.
The RCVS has also lowered the maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services, a not-for-profit complaints resolution service which is administering the trial, to £3,000 for small animal cases. The maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services in relation to equine cases remains at £10,000.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "The trial got off to a slower start than we expected and so we have decided to extend its length and breadth to allow more time and scope to gather the evidence and testimonies which we need to assess the trial.
"It's important to stress again that the trial is free, voluntary, as both parties must agree to take part, and that the recommendations made by the Ombudsman Services are not binding - it is up to either party as to whether they accept them."
The results of the trial will now be reported to the November 2015 meeting of RCVS Council. For further information about the ADR trial please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
EnteroZoo is a dietary supplement composed of organic mineral and purified water in a gel suspension. Enteromed says it works by binding bacterial toxins as it passes through the animal's digestive tract, thereby helping to maintain a healthy gut and intestinal balance.
Enteromed says that compared to old classic adsorbents, such as clay or charcoal, EnteroZoo can be used long-term and is gentle on an animal's intestines.
The company points to a new in-vitro study from Brighton University School of Pharmacy & Biomolecular Sciences which has shown that EnteroZoo adsorbs E. coli, Shigella and C. difficile toxins1 – common causes of gastrointestinal infection and diarrhoea.
EnteroZoo is suitable for all animals including pregnant and nursing females. It is tasteless and odourless and the company says animals generally accept it without any problems. It can be administered in various ways: directly into the mouth, mixed into feed, put on a treat, mixed in an appropriate amount of water or administered with a plastic syringe into the oral cavity.
For more information, contact: enterozoo@enteromed.co.uk, or visit: www.enterozoo.co.uk
Reference
Mr Makepeace faced five charges.
The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.
He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.
The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.
The fourth charge was that was a repetition of the second.
The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.
Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.
In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.
This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.
The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.
With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.
The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.
All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.
Aggravating factors taken into account were:
Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.
Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.
"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.
“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.
"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
There were two charges against Mr Staton, the first being that he failed to comply with eight requests from the RCVS sent by letter between November 2014 and August 2017 in relation to his continuing professional development (CPD) records.
The second charge was that between 1st January 2012 and 7th November 2017 he failed to have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements in place.
Mr Staton’s request to adjourn the hearing and agree undertakings was not opposed by the RCVS. The Committee had regard to advice of the Legal Assessor and submissions from both counsel for the RCVS and legal advisor for Mr Staton. In accepting Mr Staton’s request for adjournment and his undertakings no admissions have been made in respect of the charges against him.
In deciding whether to accept the adjournment and undertakings, the Committee was asked to consider a number of factors including Mr Staton’s age and health, his unblemished career of more than 50 years, the fact that he had closed his practice and retired from clinical practice on 31 March 2018 and that he had no intention of practising as a veterinary surgeon again. For those reasons the Committee felt it would be disproportionate to take Mr Staton through a full hearing.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to this decision the Committee considered the respondent’s application to adjourn this inquiry in the light of the evidence he adduced. It had regard to the interests of justice, the public interest in ensuring high standards are maintained by veterinary surgeons and the need to ensure the protection of animals and their welfare."
Should Mr Staton seek to apply to rejoin the Register then the proceedings will become active again and a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be scheduled.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Elanco Companion Animal Health has launched Trifexis, an oral tablet to provide dogs with three-in-one protection against fleas, intestinal nematodes and heartworm.
Trifexis contains two active ingredients: spinosad, which is active against fleas, and milbemycin oxime, which is active against intestinal nematodes and heartworm.
Pointing to a survey which found that two out of three owners prefer administering medication in tablet form, Elanco says it is offering the prescription-only product in a beef-flavoured tablet format that delivers vet practices with an exclusive solution many pet owners would choose.2
Matthew Rowe, senior brand manager at Elanco Companion Animal Health said: "By combining spinosad with milbemycin oxime, Trifexis provides the fast speed of flea kill already experienced with Comfortis (killing 100% of fleas within four hours), but now with the added protection against the hidden danger of intestinal nematodes and heartworm disease; of specific concern for owners whose dogs travel to or from heartworm endemic areas."
Prof. Patrick Bourdeau, Dip ECVD-Dip EVPC, of the Veterinary School of Nantes (Oniris), France, added: "Until now, the treatment of intestinal nematodes has often been overlooked. Recent independent research shows that in Europe a majority of dogs (70%) are treated against fleas; whereas the year-round (and potentially zoonotic) threat of intestinal nematodes is commonly overlooked, with only 49% of dogs being treated.2 The benefit of Trifexis is that it aids treatment compliance against these important yet overlooked worms by providing a tablet format, combined with flea control."
In addition, Elanco highlights the fact that the tablet format satisfies a need for those owners who prefer the cleanliness and assured efficacy of tablet administration, have young children or pets in the home, dogs that swim or are bathed frequently or dogs with skin sensitivity or dermatological issues.
For further information about Elanco's new Trifexis three-in-one oral tablet treatment, contact your local Elanco Companion Animal Health key account manager or telephone 01256 353131.
References
A man who worked as a veterinary surgeon in Wiltshire, despite being neither qualified nor registered with RCVS, has received a 20-month sentence at Swindon Crown Court.
Peter Keniry (also known as Patrick Keniry), from Great Yarmouth, had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon, and was arrested on 23 August. At his initial hearing in Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr Keniry pleaded guilty to charges of fraud by misrepresentation and unlawfully practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was released on bail.
At the Crown Court on Friday, Mr Keniry also pleaded guilty to additional charges before being sentenced. It is understood he will serve a number of months in prison, before being released on licence for the remaining period.
The RCVS assisted Wiltshire police in their apprehension of Keniry in August, having been alerted the previous day to his fraudulent activities. Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, having already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees to pick up a problem.
Commenting on the recent sentencing, Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "We are satisfied that the Court has clearly recognised the risk posed to both animal welfare and public safety by bogus veterinary surgeons. Anyone working as a veterinary surgeon when not qualified to do so, risks a custodial sentence.
"Mr Keniry's continued pattern of re-offending shows him to be a very convincing fraudster. By publicising his photograph, we hope to help any potential employer or locum agency reduce the chances of this happening again," he added.
Cortotic contains hydrocortisone aceponate (HCA), a diester glucocorticosteroid to reduce inflammation.
In a clinical field study, published in Veterinary Dermatology, Cortotic was shown to be as effective in treating acute otitis as a fixed-combination product containing a corticosteroid, an antibiotic and an antifungal, with an equivalent improvement of clinical and cytological scores1.
A secondary reduction of bacterial and yeast overgrowth was demonstrated and a concomitant treatment with an antimicrobial was unnecessary.
The product was shown to provide rapid relief from clinical signs, pruritus and pain1.
Virbac says the lipophilic nature of the HCA diester provides enhanced penetration into the skin, a reservoir effect and low plasma availability for high local activity with reduced systemic secondary effects2.
Chris Newark, Product Manager at Virbac said: "With Cortotic we’re excited to offer clinicians the ability to reduce antimicrobial usage when treating otitis externa in dogs, whilst offering the same efficacy as a fixed-combination product.
"The product’s easy administration also makes it an attractive choice for pet owners with 94% of owners stating that they would choose to use Cortotic again3".
Cortotic is presented in an ear spray device with atraumatic cannula, which delivers a fine mist spray for even application.
Dosing is 2 pumps per application, whatever the dog’s size, once a day for 7-14 days.
It is believed to be the first time the Royal Society of Medicine Pain Section Council, which comprises medical practitioners and consultants, has appointed a veterinary surgeon as President.
The Royal Society of Medicine is one of the country's major providers of postgraduate medical education and presents a neutral platform for informed debate about important, often controversial, healthcare topics.
The RSM has 56 Sections, encompassing all medical specialties. Membership of the RSM is diverse and whilst primarily catering for the needs of Medical Doctors its membership includes nurses, dentists, veterinary surgeons and other health professionals such as physiotherapists.
Louise took over the two-year Presidency on 1st October. Her immediate predecessor was Dr Anthony Ordman, Consultant in Pain Medicine and founder of the Pain Medicine Clinic at the Royal Free Hospital, London.
Louise said: "I am delighted to have the honour of serving as Section President and together as a Section Council we hope to build the profile of the RSM as a source of education for veterinary as well as medical specialists."
Dechra says that Dexacortone, which is presented as a flavoured double-divisible tablet, is approximately 25 times more potent than short-acting substances such as hydrocortisone.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: “Dexamethasone works to suppress the inflammatory response and should be combined with treatment of the underlying disease.”
The chewable tablets have been developed with a chicken flavour to encourage greater acceptance by animals and have Dechra’s double divisible SmartTab format to help accurate and flexible dosing.
Dexacortone is available in blister packs.
Carol added: “The dose and duration of treatment should be determined by the veterinarian based upon the desired effect and on the nature and severity of each individual case and our SmartTab format makes Dexacortone tablets easily divisible. The tablet portions have a six day shelf life that also reduces the wastage of medicine.”
For more information visit www.dechra.co.uk
For the research, the medical histories of 188 Basset Hounds and 270 Dachshunds presenting to CVS’ Dovecote Veterinary Hospital and Chestergates Veterinary Specialists, and the University of Ghent were retrospectively assessed.
Information included signalment, whether the dog had received a diagnosis of TL-IVDE, the duration of clinical signs, affected discs and anatomical region and the neurological grading at presentation and discharge.
Basset Hounds and Dachshunds are both chondrodystrophic breeds which are predisposed to IVDE.
However, the study found 77.4% of Dachshunds had presented with IVDE, compared to only 36.2% of Basset Hounds.
Dachshunds also presented earlier (66.5 months) compared to Basset Hounds (median 87.5 months).
Dachshunds had a lower proportion of midlumbar IVDE and were more frequently non-ambulatory at discharge than Basset Hounds.
In addition, Dachshunds were more likely to be paraplegic without sensation at presentation than Basset Hounds (16/154 Dachshunds compared to just one Basset).
The Basset Hound is the largest chondrodystrophic breed and the physical characteristics of this larger body conformation may have benefits, with previous studies suggesting the protective effects of being a larger dog2.
One hypothesis is whether breed conformation and anatomy – the relative height/weight ratio - influences the severity and occurrence of IVD and points to a link between the size of the patient and the space in the vertebral canal.
A smaller spinal cord versus vertebral canal ratio in the Basset Hound may indicate a less compressive lesion.
Sergio Gomes, Head of Neurology and specialist in veterinary neurology at Dovecote Veterinary Hospital, who led the study, said: “This is the first time that IVDE data for Basset Hounds has been directly compared with that for Dachshunds.
“We now need to look closely at the conformation and anatomy of the Basset Hound to see what learnings we can take.
"This could have positive future implications for Dachshund breeding programmes, so that longer term we can try to minimise this painful and common canine condition.”
Morally injurious events are defined as experiences which violate one's moral or ethical code.
The research will consider the types of moral injuries veterinary professionals might encounter, their prevalence, the perceptions amongst professionals around how these moral injuries come about, and what support is needed when they occur.
The project is being led by psychologists Professor Neil Greenberg, Dr Dominic Murphy and Dr Victoria Williamson.
The research revolves around an online questionnaire which the researchers say should take no more than 20 minutes to complete: https://tinyurl.com/y7ue5ezw
Victoria said: “If you have experienced an upsetting event in your veterinary role, it would be really helpful if you could fill in our questionnaire which is anonymous and confidential. As part of this study, we are particularly interested in hearing about experiences that may have caused you to question the kind of person you are, or the kind of world we live in. These are things that you feel you may have done or failed to do, or things that others did or failed to do.
"We hope our results will help us to find better ways of meeting the needs of veterinarians in future so we would encourage veterinary professionals to also circulate this study to colleagues. Some participants may be invited to take part in a follow-up telephone interview; however, we would like to assure you this element of the project is completely voluntary.”
The survey will be followed by 1 hour telephone interviews with those who have indicated they are happy to be interviewed about their thoughts, feelings and beliefs since their challenging experience and how the event may have affected them.
The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and summaries will be made available for the relevant stakeholders with the aim of informing future research studies to support veterinary wellbeing, as well as clinical practice and policy.
Those who wish to find out more about the study before completing the survey can contact Victoria at: victoria.williamson@kcl.ac.uk
Following the news on Friday that a Bulldog and Pekingese had failed their vet checks at Crufts, a further four animals have failed: Chervood Snowsun, a Clumber Spaniel; Secret Charm Avec Dibest, a Mastiff; Ithani, a Neapolitan Mastiff and Ch Buzz Lightyear At Dereheath, a Basset Hound. All were disqualified from winning Best of Breed, or representing their breed for the remainder of the competition.
The veterinary checks have been introduced by the Kennel Club to ensure that Best of Breed awards are not given to any dogs that show visible signs of problems due to conditions that affect their health or welfare.
Dog World magazine appears to have got hold of a copy of the Clumber Spaniel's Veterinary Health Check Record, and interviewed the owner:
The vet checks have, predictably, polarised opinion. The owners of the Bulldog Mellowmood One In A Million have already setup a facebook page: 'A group dedicated to honoring the win of Ch Mellowmoods One in a Million AKA Jenny who was wrongfully stripped of her Best of Breed win at Crufts based on a political move by the Kennel Club.'
Elsewhere, there has been a considerable amount of support for the vet checks:
Hysolv says the vaccine, which was developed by IDT Biologika, has been used successfully in Germany, where 1.7 million doses have been prescribed. The company says field trials have shown that vaccination not only protected against clinical signs of influenza but also resulted in improvements in reproduction and piglet performance.
Two 1 ml doses of the inactivated vaccine can be injected intramuscularly three weeks apart to pigs from 56 days old, providing immunisation to the majority of animals within seven days.
Hysolv director, Geoff Hooper said: "Swine flu can be devastating to a herd and this vaccine will broaden protection, particularly when used with our existing vaccine Respiporc FLU3, which we are strongly advising."
Respiporc FLU3 protects against three other strains of swine flu (H1N1, H1N2 and H3N2). Hysolv says that when used together, the two vaccines protect pigs against the most relevant strains in the British Isles.
Geoff added: "There have been several flu pandemics throughout the years – the latest in 2009. It is not possible to predict the emergence of a pandemic strain accurately but this vaccine combined with Respiporc FLU3 will greatly decrease the chance of pigs becoming infected."
Ceva Animal Health has launched Amodip, described as the first ever cat-friendly amlodipine licensed for veterinary use for the treatment of hypertension in cats.
Amodip is a chicken-flavoured, two-way break chewable tablet; its 1.25mg tablet size is designed for accurate dosing of cats, with a two-way break for administering 0.625mg to smaller cats. Each box contains 100 tablets in blister packs.
Ceva says these features should make it easier for pet owners to be compliant with the recommended treatment protocol and ensure that each cat is getting the right dose, reducing the risk of side-effects.
Amodip will be supported by videos and literature on how to measure hypertension in practice easily and with less stress, written by the International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM).
For further information or to request copies of the ISFM hypertension materials, contact your local Ceva Animal Health territory manager or call 01494 781510.
The new service was reported in The Times, in an article titled "How much should your vet cost? Pet owners bitten by untamed fees."
Since launch, VetHelpDirect has offered owners information to help them pick a veterinary practice, including reviews, ratings (including a value for money score), RCVS accreditation, cat/ rabbit friendly status, health plan details and how out of hours cover is provided.
It has now added some basic information about each practices' charges, specifically the first consultation fee, a dog castrate and health plans, and then categorised them according with £££££ signs to indicate how far above or below the average they sit.
Susie Samuel said: “Most practices will give out these prices over the telephone, but there’s no way for the client to find them without directly getting in touch, something people are less and less likely to want to do nowadays.
"Our research data suggests that people want to find this information online, just as they would in any other service industry.
"When they can’t find any information at all on pricing, there can be a perception of secrecy that can do damage to the vet-owner relationship.”
Susie added: “True comparison for vet practices is of course very complex and no basket of services is ever going to capture the whole complexity.
"Every practice is different, from facilities and team qualifications; to the time allotted for consultations; to monitoring equipment for surgery; and of course the level of investigations undertaken which can also vary from vet to vet.”
“We can’t solve all this straight away but we started from a good place, over the years we have built up more information about vet practices than any other website.
"The aim is to provide commonly requested prices for owners to easily access and to add more and more detail on the vet practices over time so that owners can make the most informed choice on the vet that's most appropriate for them and their pet”.
VetHelpDirect says it will soon be adding prescription fees and out of hours consultation, and a much wider range of species-specific fees in the near future.
The company also points to the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into pricing in the UK, highlighting that in its 2019 Report into Funerals in the UK, the CMA noted that weaknesses in the sector included the fact that less than 40% of funeral directors posted any form of pricing online, and those that did were frequently not in a form that made for easy comparison.
Susie says the veterinary sector has an even lower rate of online pricing transparency.
To add your pricing information to VetHelpDirect, email: info@vethelpdirect.com.
COMMENT
Whilst greater transparency over pricing in almost any field is surely to be welcomed, it seems questionable whether comparing prices for consultations and standard procedures will be of much help to pet owners, because things like the level of investigations, how defensively a clinician practises and the owner's own relationship with risk are likely to have a far greater impact on the bill than whether a consult costs £20 more or less up the road.
There is perhaps also a risk of practices rated as '£££££ / more expensive than average' will be seen as just that. Expensive and nothing more.
It's not like a restaurant where £££££ usually means particularly delicious.
Whilst this may not matter much whilst so many practices are having to turn away business, it may become more important in the future.
Discuss here.
One of the consequences of veterinary price inflation has been a backlash from owners against vets, vet nurses and receptionists, so the first film kicks off by explaining why large vet bills are not the fault of the vet standing in front of them when their dog gets ill.
Currently, a further eight films are now in production, each looking at a different reason why the costs of veterinary care have increased and suggesting ways that owners can mitigate the impact. They are:
VetSurgeon.org Publishing Editor, Arlo Guthrie, who presents the films, said: "Above all, the aim here is to foster a better understanding between veterinary professionals and owners.
"I do hope the vets, nurses and support staff who have been bearing the brunt will feel my films are helpful.
"If you do feel they make useful points, then you need to share and 'like' the hell out of them on all the different social media platforms, in order that they reach the largest number of people.
"And if you have feedback about the content, or ideas for other topics we should cover, then come and post here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/non-clinical-questions/31062/why-have-vet-bills-gone-up-so-much/245723"
The film is available here:
TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@vetsurgeon.vetnurse/video/7426457335880617248
YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lg_EeamSbSI
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/reel/927062139289036
LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vetsurgeon-org_veterinarysurgeon-veterinarynurse-activity-7252420794004205568-LzE3/
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBM5i2XtfOB/