The exciting programme for our satellite meeting in 2010 is attached! Please register early to avoid disappointment.

Our 2010 satellite meeting will include a session which will be particulalrly useful to candidates preparing a medicine case book.

The meeting remains very good value for money (£65). If you wish, subs for 2010 can be included with your payment for the meeting (Total cost =£90).

Lunch will be included  if registration forms and payment for the meeting are received BEFORE March 15th (catering deadline).

Best wishes

Yvonne

Do you have an interesting or unusual small animal medicine case that would be suitable to present as an oral abstract? The Small Animal Medicine Society (SAMSoc) is currently inviting submissions for the case report session during the pre BSAVA satellite meeting on April 1st 2009.

This Competition is open to anyone with an interest in canine or feline medicine. Suitable cases should have interesting discussion points but need not necessarily be so unusual that they would be considered publishable.

Three case reports will be selected by the SAMSOC committee for presentation during the meeting (12 minutes plus 3 minute for questions).

Successful selection entitles the author to free registration for the meeting.

At the end of the session the audience will vote by ballot for their favourite case report. Each presenter will then be awarded a prize which has been kindly donated by Vetoquinol: 1^st place £300, 2^nd place £150, 3^rd place £50.

If you are interested in submitting a case report for consideration please contact Alison Ridyard (Alison.Ridyard@ed.ac.uk.) for details.

The deadline for submission is February 1^st 2009

Exocrine Pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) Treatment Study 

Aran Mas, P-J.M.Noble , A.J.German

EPI is a common condition in dogs with early response to therapy being critical for positive outcomes (Batchelor et al, 2007). Pancreatic enzyme supplementation is the key component of therapy in EPI. Numerous enzyme preparations exist for use in dogs, some of which are enteric-coated and some uncoated.  Although one retrospective study on treatment of EPI suggested a better response with uncoated preparations (Hall et al., 1991), there was no difference in response amongst preparations in a more recent study (Batchelor et al., 2007).  However, prospective clinical trials, on treatment of EPI, are lacking.

The Small Animal Teaching Hospital, University of Liverpool, is performing the first randomised double-blind trial to examine the effect of enteric coating on efficacy of pancreatic enzyme supplementation in the treatment of canine EPI. We are aiming to recruit dogs recently diagnosed with EPI for inclusion in this trial. Enrolled patients will undergo clinical evaluation, two months of treatment and follow-up advice, all free of charge.

Inclusion/exclusion  criteria and contact detail can be found in the SAMSOC Wiki

Other Projects listed in the SAMSOC WIKI

Angie Hibbert at the Feline Centre (Bristol)- Congenital PSS in Birman Cats - DNA Project

Harriet Syme and Colleagues RVC - are recruiting cases for a clinical trail evaluating  the use of oral phosphate binders in Feline Chronic Kidney Disease

Stijn Nelson’s- Diabetes Treatment Survey for vets, nurses and owners

Brain Catchpole and Lucy Davidson - are collaborating with a number of centres to investigate the genetic basis of several canine endocrine disorders. They are keen to recruit samples (serum and EDTA blood) from dogs suffering from a number of endocrine disorders 

NOTE- If you would like to announce recruitment details for a clinical trial, please logo onto to the SAMSoc Wiki or contact a member of the SAMSOC committee.

FOUR great case reports have now been selected for the case report competition at the SAMSOC meeting (see finalised programme below), complementing an exciting & thought provoking programme.

Please note: Registration deadlines for your yearly shot of grade A medicine are approaching....if you are in any way serious about your medicine, don't get left out and register ASAP.

Pre-BSAVA SAMSOC Satellite Meeting - Wednesday April 7th 2010, Hall 10, ICC, Birmingham 

Satellite meeting fees (lunch is included if you register before March15th 2010)

Members £65, Non members £95. SAMSOC annual membership - £25

If you are interested in joining the society and/ or attending the meeting contact yvonnemcgrotty@hotmail.com

or iab@vetspecialists.co.uk. Details can also be found on the SAMSOC webpage (log onto www.vetsurgeon.org).

Willows Referral Service

Locum Internal Medicine Clinician required

During 2010 Willows Referral Service has opportunities for part-time Internal Medicine locum cover.  The successful applicant(s) should either hold an RCVS, European or American Diploma (or equivalent) or have undertaken Residency training and be ready to take their final Diploma examinations.  Candidates must share our aim of providing the best possible levels of care for clients, their pets and for referring veterinary surgeons.

We have an excellent team of support staff who give our clinicians the opportunity to concentrate on their clinical caseload and to work in a pleasant, supportive and good humoured atmosphere.  Facilities include a superbly equipped intensive care unit, kennelling for over 100 in-patients, all-new GE imaging equipment, including 1.5T MRI, top-end 16 slice CT with in-room CT fluoroscopy, two general digital X-ray rooms, mobile image intensifier, high-end ultrasound and Olympus video endoscopy. Our medicine clinicians, Jane Eastwood DSAM and Kirsty Roe DipACVIM, work alongside specialists in the disciplines of soft tissue surgery, neurology, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, imaging and anaesthesia, and our philosophy is very much one of friendly co-operation between clinicians in every specialism.

For further information about Willows internal medicine service please visit http://www.willows.uk.net/en-GB/specialist-services/specialisms/internal-medicine 

If you are interested and would like an informal chat about the position, please contact Jane Eastwood on 0121 712 7070

Willows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, West Midlands   www.willows.uk.net

SMALL ANIMAL MEDICINE SOCIETY Case Report Competition 2010

Sponsored by Vetoquinol

Do you have an interesting or unusual small animal medicine case that would be suitable to present as an oral abstract. The Small Animal Medicine Society is currently inviting submissions for the case report session during the pre BSAVA satellite meeting on April 7^th 2010.

This Competition is open to anyone with an interest in canine or feline medicine. Suitable cases should be have interesting discussion points but need not be so unusual that they would be considered publishable.

Three case reports will be selected by the SAMSOC committee for presentation during the meeting (12 minutes plus 3 minute for questions).

Successful selection entitles the author to free registration for the meeting.

At the end of the session the audience will vote by ballot for their favourite case report. Each presenter will then be awarded a prize which has been kindly donated by Vetoquinol.

1^st place £300,

2^nd place £150

3^rd place £50

 If you are interested in submitting a case report please contact Stijn Neilson ( sniessen@RVC.AC.UK )or Sheena Warmen (Sheena.Warman@bristol.ac.uk) for details. Deadline for submission is February 1^st 2010

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

Do you have an interesting or unusual small animal medicine case/series of cases that would be suitable to present as an oral abstract? The Small Animal Medicine Society (SAMSoc) invites submission of abstracts for short communications at the pre-BSAVA Satellite Meeting on 7^th April 2010 in the ICC, Birmingham.

This Competition is open to anyone with an interest in canine or feline medicine. Suitable cases should have interesting discussion points but need not be so unusual that they would be considered publishable.

Three case reports will be selected by the SAMSOC committee for presentation during the meeting (12 minutes plus 3 minute for questions).

Abstracts will not be published for this meeting, so cases/case series that may be presented in final form at other meetings in the future may be presented.

Cases/ case series of interest to the group that have been presented at meetings other than major internal medicine meetings (e.g. ACVIM, ECVIM, BSAVA) may be considered.

Abstracts should be written in Microsoft Word using Times Roman 12-point font. The first line should contain the title in all capitals; the second line all author(s); the third the institution(s) the author(s) are affiliated with; followed by the actual abstract starting as a new paragraph. The print must be black, and the abstract should be no more than 500 words in length (including title, author names and institutions). The line spacing should be 1.5.

Deadline for submission of abstracts is 1^st February 2010. Notification of acceptance will be provided by 1^st March 2010.

Abstracts may be submitted electronically to Sheena.Warman@bristol.ac.uk or sniessen@rvc.ac.uk  (Stijn Niessen)

If an abstract is accepted for presentation, the presenter will receive free registration for the SAMSoc satellite meeting.

In addition, like last year, Vetoquinol are kindly sponsoring prizes for the best abstracts. At the end of the session the audience will vote by ballot for their favourite case report (1^st place £300, 2^nd place £150, 3^rd place £50).

We hope many could contribute to this valuable part of our programme, which could also provide a valuable presenting experience to our young and talented colleagues, yet is open to colleagues of all ages and backgrounds!

We would like to announce a new facility in the SAMSoc website. We are inviting members to list details of any clinical trials that they are currently undertaking, within the SAMSoc Wiki.

Our hope is that by distributing this information to our members, case recruitment for your study will increase. It may also lead to collaboration with other groups.

In time, it will also build into a valuable, searchable database of research work carried out by our members.

After completion and successful publication of any trails you have posted, we would appreciate it if you could post an abstract of the work (within the Wiki with an appropriate journal citation)  for our members to view. 

Details of how to upload your trail data and the information required in the post can be found in the Wiki section of the SAMSoc page (you will find Wiki in the quick links menu on the right of the page). If you have any problems please contact us.

 A "News" feature will be distributed intermittently to all members to summaries deatils of recently posted trails

Our first research post is from Stijn Niessen of the RVC. He is inviting vets, nurses and owners to complete a short questionnaire on patients undergoing therapy for diabetes mellitus. Further details on how to source the questionnaires can be found in his post in the SAMSoc Wiki.

Membership renewal information attached.

Brain Catchpole and Lucy Davidson are collaborating with a number of centres to investigate the genetic basis of several canine endocrine disorders.They are keen to recruit samples (serum and EDTA blood) from dogs suffering from the following disorders:

·        neonatal diabetes mellitus (i.e. diabetes onset < 1 yr of age)

·         diabetes in high risk breeds (Samoyed, Cairn terrier, Tibetan terrier, Polish Lowland Sheepdog)

·        dioestrus diabetes

·         lymphocytic thyroiditis / hypothyroidism

·        hypoadrenocorticism

Further details can be found in the WIKI of the SAMSOC website

Other  projects posted on the SAMSOC website

Stijn Nelson’s Diabetes Treatment Survey for vets, nurses and owners – further details for case recruitment can be found in the WIKI

If you would like to announce recruitment details for a clinical trial, please logo onto to the SAMSoc Wiki or contact a member of the SAMSOC committee.

Feedback Form Responses pre-BSAVA Satellite Meeting SAMSOC 2009

Below you will find feedback from people attending the 2009 SAMSOC satellite meeting. You'll find that the great majority of people had a great day. We hope to use positive and negative comments to make the 2010 meeting even more worthwhile! Do you still want to provide feedback? (even if you did not attend, i.e. why not?), please drop a line on: sniessen@rvc.ac.uk or simply respond to this news item on this website, by hitting the reply button.

Regards,

SAMSOC Programme Committee

Administration/facilities:                                                            Responses                                          (%)

Registration procedure

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            0                                                              0%

3.       Good                                                                                     7/22                                                       32%

4.       Excellent                                                                              15/22                                                     68%

Lecture room facilities

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            5/22                                                       23%

3.       Good                                                                                     13/22                                                     59%

4.       Excellent                                                                              4/22                                                       18%

Comments: too cold (6/22), noisy at times (1/22), chairs too close to screen (1/22), liked set-up with tables more (1/22)

Quality and quantity of refreshments

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            1/22                                                       4.5%

3.       Good                                                                                     11/22                                                     50%

4.       Excellent                                                                              9/22                                                       41%

Comments: nice biscuits (1/22); excellent lunch (1/22), cold tea (1/22)

Value for money

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            0                                                              0%

3.       Good                                                                                     9/22                                                       41%

4.       Excellent                                                                              13/22                                                     59%

Programme/lectures

1.       Thoracic CT

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     8/22                       36%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              13/22                     59%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     7/22                       32%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              14/22                     64%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     10/22                     45%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              9/22                       41%

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     8/22                       36%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              13/22                     59%

Comments: 1/22: very educational and helpful to have images

2.       Thoracoscopy for medics

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     9/22                       41%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              13/22                     59%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     11/22                     50%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              10/22                     45%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     17/22                     77%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              4/22                       18%

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            6/22`                      27%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     7/22                       32%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              8/22                       36%

Comments: 1/22 excellent images of thoracoscopy

3.       Case reports

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     15/22                     68%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              4/22                       18%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     14/22                     64%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              4/22                       18%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      n/a

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            n/a

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     n/a

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              n/a

Comments: 1/22: would like notes for this as well

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     8/22                       36%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              10/22                     44%

4.       Current management of diabetes mellitus in people

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            2/22                       9%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     12/22                     55%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              7/22                       32%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     7/22                       32%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              14/22                     64%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      n/a

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            n/a

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     n/a

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              n/a

Comments: 8/22: notes poor since missing

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     10/22                     45%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              11/22                     50%

Comments: 1/22: very interesting

5.       A logical approach to changed mental status

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     1/22                       5%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              20/22                     91%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     2/22                       9%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              19/22                     86%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     4/22                       18%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              15/22                     68%

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     3/22                       14%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              18/22                     82%

Comments: 1/22: Really excellent; 1/22: excellent presentation and case studies

6.       Interpretation of bone marrow cytology

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            7/22                       32%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     3/22                       14%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              12/22                     55%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            5/22                       23%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     9/22                       41%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              8/22                       36%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            3/22                       14%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     11/22                     50%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              6/22                       27%

Comments: 1/22: very entertaining!

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            3/22                       14%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     11/22                     50%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              8/22                       36%       

Comments: 1/22: very entertaining, excellent pictures of cytology; very helpful; 1/22: good choice for program but turned into a list

General individual comments

1.       I wonder if too many topics were quite specialist this year; ie maybe great for us academics but not so attractive for practitioners?

2.       Later start (10am – or even 9.30am); reduced registration fees for interns/residents; no lunch in place of reduced rate

3.       Really liked the human presentations; please continue with this tradition

4.       Might be worth concentrating on 1 or 2 themes for the day? Consider shorter talks? 45 minutes long enough per speaker?

5.       Enjoy the human presentation and comparative aspect – please continue this tradition! Excellent day – thank you!

6.       Superb meeting, all the practical tips and information were really useful and the speakers were all excellent – more of the same standard next year please!

7.       Appropriately pitched for medicine certificate level, would be great to have a specialist day.

8.       Initially dubious about the heterogeneous nature of the lectures but actually it worked very well. The case reports are a very good thing – enjoyable to give residents a forum to present cases.

Stijn Niessen 26 June 2009

The Small Animal Medicine Society is pleased to announce the launch of the SAMSOC Travel Scholarship

The scholarship, worth £250, can be awarded to any SAMSOC member undertaking CPD to study a particular aspect of Small Animal Medicine.

Applicants should describe how they would use the award in 300-400 words and are free to choose the topic to be studied. Recipients of the award are required to undertake the CPD within the subsequent 12 months.  

Following completion of their trip the winner is required to write a summary article (approx 1000 words) which will be submitted to the Veterinary press for publication and placed on the SAMSOC website.

The award is only open to SAMSOC members.

Applications should be sent to the Ian Battersby ( iab@vetspecialists.co.uk ) to arrive no later than 31^st December 2009, the successful applicant will be notified within 6 weeks. The award will be presented at the SAMSOC Meeting on 7^th April 2010.

The Small Animal Medicine Society is pleased to announce the launch of the SAMSOC Travel Scholarship

The scholarship, worth £250, can be awarded to any SAMSOC member undertaking CPD to study a particular aspect of Small Animal Medicine.

Applicants should describe how they would use the award in 300-400 words and are free to choose the topic to be studied. Recipients of the award are required to undertake the CPD within the subsequent 12 months.  

Following completion of their trip the winner is required to write a summary article (approx 1000 words) which will be submitted to the Veterinary press for publication and placed on the SAMSOC website.

The award is only open to SAMSOC members.

Applications should be sent to the Ian Battersby ( iab@vetspecialists.co.uk ) to arrive no later than 31^st December 2009, the successful applicant will be notified within 6 weeks. The award will be presented at the SAMSOC Meeting on 7^th April 2010.