This week, the RCVS will be sending every veterinary surgeon its Survey of the Profession, designed amongst other things to help the College and other organisations prioritise the issues they tackle and the support they offer.

The survey is conducted every four to five years and asks vets to answer questions about a variety of subjects including demographic data (for example, socio-economic background, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, disability), work-related data (for example, employment status, location of workplace, type of workplace, hours of work, position in practice) and information about professional achievement (for example, hours of continuing professional development (CPD) undertaken and extra qualifications earned).

The survey, which is conducted on the College’s behalf by the Institute for Employment Studies, also ask respondents about their views on different aspects of their profession, including career plans, challenges facing the profession, and wellbeing. 

This year, the survey also asks for your view of the RCVS, including its values, how it should communicate, and what it should prioritise in future years.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO (pictured right), said: "The results of the Surveys form a very important ‘snapshot’ of the profession at a given point in time, but they also prove useful for years to come in terms of how the College develops its regulatory and educational policy, the areas it chooses to focus on and the issues it chooses to tackle. 

"The ensuing reports are also used by a myriad of other individuals, such as those in academia, government and representative bodies, as well as journalists. It’s therefore really important that we have as accurate a picture as possible. So although completing the Surveys is entirely voluntary, we strongly encourage members of the professions to take the time to complete them. It will, ultimately, help the development of appropriate and supportive policies for your profession."

In addition to the main survey, there will be an additional survey for MsRCVS who practise overseas. This survey aims to better understand why they continue to retain their MRCVS status, what this status means in the countries in which they work, global attitudes towards the RCVS and how the College could improve its communication with them.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to postpone its decision on the sanction against Dyfed-based Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS for various drink-related charges, after she voluntarily entered into undertakings.

The Committee heard a number of charges against Dr Davies.

Two of the charges related to convictions for drink driving in March 2014 and October 2015, for which she received driving bans for 17 months and 45 months respectively.

The third charge related to her breaching a number of undertakings she had entered into as part of the College’s Health Protocol, including her consuming alcohol on four occasions between May 2015 and January 2016 and missing a pre-arranged appointment.

The fourth charge related to being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016 which was also in breach of her undertakings under the Health Protocol.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Davies admitted all five charges against her and that this meant she was unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.

In considering the sanction for Dr Davies, the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals in her care; the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time; the fact that her conduct contravened the advice issued to her by the Preliminary Investigation Committee upon entering the Health Protocol; and the fact that Dr Davies was in a position of trust and responsibility during the occasions she was under the influence of alcohol in December 2016 as she was the sole veterinary surgeon on duty.

In its consideration of sanction the Committee heard a submission from counsel for Dr Davies for the decision on sanction to be postponed for six months on the basis of Dr Davies complying with nine separate undertakings, including one not to practise as a vet. In making this application Dr Davies’ counsel told the Committee that her client was remorseful over her conduct and that she had been abstinent from alcohol since August 2017 after referring herself for treatment.

The Committee decided to postpone the hearing for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ fulfilling her undertakings. These include not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement.

Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepted Dr Davies’ evidence and found her to have genuine remorse. Further it recognised that Dr Davies was fully committed to understanding and addressing her alcohol problem. Her efforts to avoid any repetition of misconduct were evident from the detailed undertakings which she had volunteered.

"The Committee took into account that Dr Davies had a hitherto unblemished career prior to her alcohol problem, having qualified in 1996. Further it noted that she had not worked as a veterinary surgeon since December 2016.

"The Committee therefore decided to postpone judgement so that Dr Davies could continue to demonstrate her improved insight and her abstinence from alcohol.”

Gordon Hockey has been appointed Acting Registrar at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

He succeeds Jane Hern, who had been Registrar for 15 years before deciding to move on to pursue other interests.

Gordon, who is a qualified pharmacist and barrister, has been at the College for the last 13 years as Head of the Professional Conduct Department and Assistant Registrar.

Meanwhile, the College says it is giving consideration to the future scope of the Registrar and Secretary's roles, as the Officer team begins the recruitment process.

Eleanor Ferguson has taken over as Acting Head of the Professional Conduct Department.

Northamptonshire-based Gabor Nemes MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, after posting derogatory remarks about his employer, Mate Toth MRCVS, on Facebook.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard two charges against Dr Nemes, the first being that he had posted comments on social media about another veterinary surgeon, his employer, Dr Toth, which were offensive and/or derogatory and/or inappropriate.

The second charge was that Dr Nemes had posted his comments without having sufficient regard to maintaining their confidentiality and/or privacy. 

Dr Nemes admitted the charges, though he did inform the Committee that his admission with respect to the second charge was caveated by the proposition that the comments were posted in private messages on Facebook with a limited membership, namely employees of Healers Veterinary Centre (Dr Toth’s practice).

The Committee noted the Respondent’s admissions as to the charges raised against him and pronounced the facts found proved.

In relation to the first charge, the Committee found that the comments on social media were, without a doubt, highly unprofessional. They included offensive language, were gratuitously personal against Dr Toth, and were made within an online chat which included junior lay staff, all employed by Dr Toth.

This behaviour was seen to directly contravene a numbers of parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, in particular Paragraph 5.3 that states: "Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Nurses should not speak or write disparagingly about another Veterinary Surgeon or Veterinary Nurse."

In relation to the second charge, the Committee found that Dr Nemes had paid no regard to maintaining the confidentiality and/or privacy of his malicious and damaging entries to the chat. 

At the outset of his evidence, Dr Nemes admitted that the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee noted however that the question of whether he was guilty of serious professional misconduct or not was in fact a matter for it to decide, notwithstanding his admission.

The Committee considered the fact that the period of time that Dr Nemes was involved in making postings was effectively about two weeks, that his involvement followed his wife’s dismissal from employment (representing a breach of Dr Nemes’ resignation conditions), and that he was very stressed at the time.

It also considered Dr Nemes’ point that he had never anticipated that Dr Toth would see the Facebook Messenger conversation, and that the relevant RCVS supporting guidance to the Code concerning good practice when using social media and online networking forums was only published in late November 2014 when Dr Nemes’ involvement in the conversation was virtually at an end.

In summing up, Ian Green, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the Facebook Messenger entries which the Respondent posted from 13 November 2014. It noted that at the time he had handed in his resignation, morale at the practice was very low. The Facebook Messenger chat site had been started amongst the receptionist/animal carers. A perusal of the entries before the Respondent joined on 13 November 2014 demonstrates that morale was low among that group.

"…Notwithstanding the nature of the remarks posted on the Facebook Messenger, which the Committee deplores, it has reached the conclusion that, whilst the Respondent’s behaviour amounts to misconduct and falls short of the standards expected of a member of the veterinary profession, it does not amount to serious misconduct and does not fall far short.

"In the circumstances it has reached the unusual conclusion that, notwithstanding the Respondent’s admission, the appropriate finding is that he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

Matthew John Makepeace has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after a conviction for assaulting his ex-partner.

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:

• that Mr Makepeace’s actions in relation to the assault were premeditated, in that he pursued his ex-partner;
• that there was an increased position of trust between partners and co-habitants, and that his ex-partner was entitled to trust him;
• that his conduct in relation to the assault was exacerbated by alcohol consumption;
• that, in relation to the WhatsApp messages there was a course of coercive, intimidating, and abusive behaviour over a significant period, despite Mr Makepeace’s abstention from alcohol at that time and the prior completion of an anger management course and therapy;
• that there was a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the profession in that his actions in charges 2, 4, and 5 were intended to subvert that process and were dishonest towards the RCVS;
• that his dishonesty towards his regulator was for personal gain in order to present himself in a more favourable light before his regulator;
• and that he demonstrated inadequate insight into his actions.

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 

Essex-based Anne Mullen has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for a series of clinical failures and failing to respond to requests from the regulator.

Mrs Mullen faced four charges against her.

The first was that she failed to provide information to her clients about her practice OOH provision.

She was also charged with discharging a Labrador, called Cleo, that was unfit to be discharged following spay surgery, with an inadequate abdominal dressing and inadequate information given to the dog's owners regarding complications from surgery, the risk of post-operative haemorrhage and arrangements for out-of-hours care, as well as failing to make adequate clinical records.

The third charge alleged that she had failed to obtain informed consent for anaesthesia/ surgery performed on an English Bulldog, called Boycie, from his owners, failed to ensure the dog had adequate monitoring whilst recovering from anaesthesia, failed to offer an adequate range of overnight care for the dog, left the dog alone overnight when it was not in a fit condition to be left, failed to provide information to its owners on post-operative care at home and out-of-hours emergency arrangements, and failed to make adequate clinical records relating to its treatment.

Finally, she was charged with failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) or equivalent arrangements in place or failing to provide details of it, failing to respond to requests regarding her continuing professional development records and failing to respond adequately to reasonable requests from the College for details and documents regarding her treatment of the two dogs.

Mrs Mullen indicated to the RCVS before the hearing that she would not be engaging with the disciplinary process.

The Disciplinary Committee therefore granted the RCVS permission to proceed in her absence on the basis that Mrs Mullen had made it clear that her absence from proceedings was deliberate and voluntary, that there was no indication she would attend any future hearing if it was adjourned and that the charges were of sufficient seriousness that it was in the interests of animal welfare to proceed with them. 

The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the animals’ owners, an expert veterinary witness and College staff.

In the evidence, the Committee heard that the Labrador had died while undergoing treatment at another veterinary practice from complications arising from blood loss following Mrs Mullen’s surgery.

The Committee also heard that the English Bulldog had suffered brain damage and had lost its sight due to post-operative hypoxia, although it had otherwise recovered.

Having heard all the evidence, the Committee found all the charges against Mrs Mullen proven.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so it considered the aggravating factors, including that there was actual injury to animals, that the misconduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, that the conduct directly contravened advice issued by the RCVS, and the blatant disregard of the RCVS’s regulatory role.

It also considered that Mrs Mullen had previously been suspended from the Register by the Disciplinary Committee for two months in April 2017 for failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance arrangements in place.

It considered that there were no mitigating factors in the case and accordingly found serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.

The Committee then considered what the most appropriate sanction would be. 

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Animal welfare lies at the heart of the veterinary profession.

"The Committee considers that  [Mrs Mullen’s] treatment of Cleo and Boycie constitutes a breach of this fundamental tenet of the profession.

"Other serious findings of disgraceful conduct against [Mrs Mullen] are her failure to provide informed consent, failure to provide details about out-of-hours cover, failure to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), continuing professional development (CPD), and failure to respond to the College’s request for information.”

The Committee considered that the conduct was so serious that the only means of protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the profession was to direct the Registrar to remove Mrs Mullen’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

Judith added: “The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen] has displayed a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her actions or their consequences.

"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] conduct raises serious clinical concerns, shows disregard of obligations in relation to out-of-hours care, indicates deficiencies in making decisions, demonstrates an obstructive attitude to her regulator and creates a potential risk to patients.

"She has not engaged with the regulator, she has not demonstrated insight into her misconduct, has learned nothing from her previous suspension in relation to PII, and has done nothing to remediate her disgraceful conduct.

"There is no evidence that [Mrs Mullen}  has complied with any of her obligations in relation to CPD."

“In the view of the Committee, if [Mrs Mullen] were permitted to remain on the Register, there would be a serious risk of harm to animals. She has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the obligations of a registered veterinary surgeon.” 

Mrs Mullen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

The Registrar and Secretary of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Jane Hern, has announced that she will be standing down at the end of the year. 

After 15 years in the job, Jane says she has been pleased to oversee a number of significant reforms and new initiatives in her time leading the organisation, but has decided that it is time to move on and pursue other interests.

The College says it is now embarking on a comprehensive review of its governance, committee and management structures, during which the Officers and Council will consider how best the executive should be led in future.  

Jane said: "I have greatly enjoyed my time with the College and the Trust. Working with a profession held in such high regard by the public has been a real pleasure. I wish veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and all my colleagues all the very best for the future."

The President, Dr Jerry Davies said: "The Royal College has been very fortunate in having the benefit of Jane's wisdom and guidance for so many years, and we wish her every success in the future."

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has paid tribute to past President Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, following news of his death on Monday, aged 90. 

Chris Tufnell, current President of the RCVS, said: "We are very sad to hear of the death of Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, a figure who had a truly exceptional career, unique in its achievements and one dedicated to bridging and bringing together the worlds of medical and veterinary science.

"His dedication to the concept of One Health is demonstrated by the fact that, during his life time, he was both President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (from 1984-85) and the Royal Society of Medicine (1998-2000), the first veterinary surgeon to be elected to that position, as well as being a founding Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

"He was the recipient of numerous honorary degrees and prizes including Honorary Fellowship of the College and, at RCVS Day in 2015, received the Queen’s Medal, the highest award that the RCVS can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon. This was given in recognition of his contribution to One Health but also his international work as a Fellow and Professor in numerous countries across the world and his political work as the first veterinary surgeon to enter the House of Lords in 1990.

"He gave an outstanding service to the profession, to veterinary science and to animal welfare but was known for his endearing personality as much as his intellect. He will be missed by many colleagues in the veterinary world but his legacy will live on through inspiring veterinary surgeons from all walks of life to work more closely with other healthcare and medical professionals and through his numerous published books and papers. Our sympathies are with his family and friends."

Photo: Lord Soulsby getting a standing ovation at RCVS Day 2015. Courtesy RCVS. 

The new President of the RCVS), Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, has promised to spend much of the year listening to veterinary professionals and communities across the UK, to better understand the issues affecting them.

Melissa, who was invested at the RCVS AGM last week, graduated from the University of Glasgow School of Veterinary Medicine in 1987, starting her career as a food animal intern at Iowa State University in the United States before moving into mixed veterinary practice in Ayrshire in 1990.

Over the next 25 years, she and her husband Kenny developed Oaks Veterinary Centre into a small animal practice with a focus on dentistry.

Melissa was first elected to Council in 2016, was re-elected in 2020 and has served on a number of committees including the Education Committee and Finance & Resources Committee.

Since 2019, she has served as Chair of the Standards Committee, leading the development of proposed new guidance on under care and out-of-hours emergency care and pain relief.

Melissa has also been President of the British Veterinary Association’s Scottish branch and the Ayrshire Veterinary Association and, outside of work, enjoys running, and caring for her dogs, cats and sheep.

In her opening speech as RCVS President, Melissa outlined her sense of community with her fellow vets, as a relatively small but prominent profession that punches above its weight, and how she intended to strengthen this as President.

Melissa said: “When I looked this up in June, there were over 300,000 doctors registered with the General Medical Council.

"We, the veterinary profession, have around 30,000 registered with the RCVS to look after farmed, pet, lab animal, exotic, zoo and wildlife species.

"In other words, all animals EXCEPT the human, and we protect humans too, with public health work!

“Even excluding farmed fish, over 300 million animals are being cared for by 30,000 professional veterinary surgeons and their teams.

"That is the scale of our small but mighty community.

"Being part of a community doesn’t mean we all have to be clones of each other, but a group that can agree to disagree, and is there for each other in times of need.

“With this close proximity to each other, communication is key.

"My mother has offered me many wise words over the years, most frequently being ‘engage brain before opening mouth’ but just as important as speaking is listening and actually hearing what is being said.

"So, over this year I will try to get out and about as much as possible, focus on hearing what our community is saying and engage in many conversations as we work together."

The RCVS has published a summary of the consultation phase of its review of telemedicine within veterinary practice, revealing a profession divided over the risks associated with remote consultations and whether it would be appropriate to prescribe medicines without a physical examination.

The consultation, which was held by the College early in 2017, asked for the views of veterinary surgeons and nurses, animal owners, and stakeholders on the use of telemedicine in veterinary clinical practice.

The consultation was designed to help identify potential risks associated with telemedicine, identify areas where it may help address the needs of both clinicians and the public, and support the potential development of new professional standards and guidance.

The online survey of veterinary professionals received 1,230 responses, while the public consultation received 229 responses and the survey of organisations/stakeholders received eight responses. 

The headline question asked of veterinary professionals was whether RCVS 'supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct' should be amended to allow remote examination to take the place of physical examination in certain circumstances. 41% said 'Yes', 40% said 'No' and 18% were unsure.

Veterinary professionals and organisations were then asked a series of questions in order to establish how they rated the risk associated with telemedicine according to activity type, practice type, clinical sign or syndrome, mode of technology, and familiarity with client, animal or environment.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority felt that providing just general advice presented a low risk. At the other end of the scale, most felt that the use of telemedicine to diagnose disease or injury would be either 'high risk', or 'not appropriate at all'. 

Likewise, the majority said the risks would be low or medium where the client and environment were known and the animal seen before, for the same problem. By contrast, the majority said telemedicine would be either 'high risk' or 'not appropriate at all' when the client, animal and environment were all unknown. 

When asked whether the current definition of 'under care' should be extended to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines where there has been no physical examination of the animal, 69% said 'No', 16% said 'Yes' and 15% were unsure.

However, when asked whether certain types of veterinary medicines should be able to be prescribed without a physical examination of the animal, the majority of respondents to the professional survey (52%) were in favour.

The results of the consultation were first considered at a special meeting of the Standards Committee in August 2017, where it was noted how the consultation had revealed significant confusion around current supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and that, at a minimum, clarification as to what was currently permissible was needed.

The Committee determined a key issue going forward was whether to change the Supporting Guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct regarding 'under care' to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V medicines based on telemedicine alone.

Given the complex nature of the issues and the wide-ranging implications, the Standards Committee presented a range of options for amending RCVS Guidance to RCVS Council at its meeting in November 2017. After discussion, Council asked the Standards Committee to continue their review and to present more detailed proposals to Council regarding the future of telemedicine in clinical veterinary practice.

Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership and Innovation, said: "We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation – although Council has not yet made any firm decisions, we felt it would be useful to share our research so far.

"The use of telemedicine is growing rapidly in human healthcare and it is only right the RCVS assesses the opportunities it could bring to improve access to veterinary services. It is critical, however, that we understand the issues it presents 'at the coal face' and consider all the available evidence before making any changes to our Guidance. The RCVS should ensure its regulatory framework fosters innovation and maximises the opportunities to improve the quality, efficacy and accessibility of veterinary services, whilst at the same time protecting animal health and welfare."

The Standards Committee will meet again in April 2018 to take further evidence and develop proposals to take the issue forward.

Meanwhile, the full summary is available on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/telemeds-summary/.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Aberdeenshire-based James Gracey from the Register for six months after he was found guilty of conduct that risked undermining procedures designed to promote  public health and animal welfare.

At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.

There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.

The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.

Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:

• that he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow without declaring that there was a conflict of interest because the cow belonged to his father and without including his and his practice’s contact details with his signature
• that he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow, also without declaring a conflict of interest or leaving sufficient contact details;
• that he signed an Emergency Slaughter form for a cow without declaring a conflict of interest as above, and that he stated that he hadn’t not administered any treatment to the cow within the previous seven days of signing the form when he himself had
• that he signed a Food Chain Information form stating that a cow was fit for travel when it was not;
• that his conduct in relation to the proven charges risked undermining public health and animal welfare, and in relation to the Emergency Slaughter Form his conduct was dishonest and misleading. 

Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.

The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.

Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.

"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.

"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.

"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.

"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”

“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.

"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”

In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.

The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.

Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.

Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.

"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.

"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.

"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.

“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.

"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary  

The RCVS and the Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) have launched a joint survey of new grads from UK vet schools to determine if and how the coronavirus pandemic has affected them.

The survey has been sent to 984 veterinary surgeons who graduated from one of the UK’s eight vet schools in 2020 to measure how the pandemic may have affected graduates’ employment prospects, clinical & non-clinical skills, and resilience in the workplace.

The survey has a deadline date of Wednesday 16 December 2020 and all responses to it will remain anonymous while helping to inform future policy on graduate support.

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We know that the coronavirus pandemic has had a disruptive impact on the final stages of education for the 2020 cohort, in terms of clinical placements for extra-mural studies as well as teaching. This survey aims to gauge whether this has, in turn, had a deleterious impact on their confidence with both clinical and non-clinical skills as well as their resilience, for example, in asking for help and support from colleagues, managing their time effectively, and managing complex and stressful situations.

“Employment is another area of concern and in any typical year almost all graduate vets would find work or go on to further study after their veterinary degree had finished. Some anecdotal reports have suggested a perceived or real change to employment prospects this year and so we are hoping to gather some further data to see if there has been a discernible impact on this cohort.

“We are mindful that the pandemic is having a significant impact on all students and we are keen to understand how best we can support them moving forward. I would strongly encourage those graduates who have received the survey, which should only take around 10 minutes to complete, to take part, because the results will help the RCVS and the VSC inform future policies on how we can better support veterinary graduates in 2021 and subsequent years.”

Any graduates who have not received the survey or require further information can contact the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk. 

East Sussex-based Maria Elena Marin Crespo MRCVS has been reprimanded by the RCVS DC for twice failing to declare a conviction for failing to provide the police with a specimen of breath for analysis.

Dr Crespo appeared in front of the Disciplinary Committee earlier this week with two charges against her. The first was that, in November 2015, she dishonestly and falsely made an online representation to the College that she had no criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings despite having been convicted, in January 2015, of failing to provide a specimen of breath. The second charge against her was that, in March 2016, she once again dishonestly and falsely failed to declare her conviction when renewing her registration.

During the hearing the Committee had two main considerations in respect of both charges – as to whether Dr Marin Crespo had been dishonest in failing to declare the conviction and as to whether the respondent ought to have known that her representations were false. Regarding the dishonesty element, the Committee found the College had not sufficiently proven this, as it accepted Dr Marin Crespo’s evidence that she did not believe she needed to declare a motoring-related offence as it was not relevant to her professional practice.

However, the Committee found it proven that the respondent ought to have known that the representations were false, taking into account that Dr Marin Crespo made admissions that she ought to have checked the guidance on declaring convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings and ought to have been aware that making such declarations is a requirement of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.

Having found the parts of the two charges relating to false representation proven, the Committee then considered whether this constituted serious professional misconduct. 

Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:"The Committee considers that the false declarations made by the respondent were born of a careless disregard for the disclosure process. The Committee notes that the respondent could easily have checked online, and/or by telephone, as to what she was obliged to do when making the relevant declarations. She failed to do that.

"In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct fell far short of that which is to be expected of the veterinary profession. Therefore, in the judgement of the Committee, on the facts found proved, the respondent is guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

In considering Dr Marin Crespo’s sanction the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including her full cooperation with the College’s investigation, her hitherto unblemished career, her testimonial evidence which it felt demonstrated her dedication and professionalism, and the fact that she has displayed remorse and insight into her conduct.

Judith Webb concluded: "The Committee notes that the respondent’s conduct caused no harm, or risk of harm, to animals or humans. The Committee also notes that there is no charge arising out of the criminal conviction itself. The Committee considers that, if the respondent had answered the online questions correctly, it is unlikely that the respondent would have appeared before the Committee.

"Every veterinary surgeon must ensure that they adopt a careful and accurate approach to the self-certification exercise, which is crucial if the public and the College are to have trust in that process. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the proportionate sanction in this case is that the respondent be… reprimanded for her conduct."