The RCVS has extended the deadline for nominations for the RCVS Queen's Medal to 31 January, to allow time for the nominations paperwork to be completed on return from the Christmas and New Year break.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace said: "We received more enquiries about the Queen's Medal over the Christmas period but appreciated that people might welcome a little extra time in the new year to complete and submit their nominations. We're certainly keen to allow anyone who wishes to make a nomination for this very special award the chance to do so."
The Queen's Medal, launched at the House of Lords last November, is a new Honour that will be awarded to a veterinary surgeon for a lifetime of outstanding contributions to the profession and who has dedicated their career to working above and beyond the call of duty in the fields of veterinary medicine or science, or related areas.
It is the most prestigious Honour that the RCVS can bestow, and will be awarded at RCVS Day in London in July.
Full details about the nominations process are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/Queensmedal). Nominations should be received by the RCVS no later than 5pm on Friday, 31 January 2014.
According to the RCVS, 86% of veterinary surgeons, and 92% of veterinary nurses have so far failed to vote in this year's council elections.
There's still time: voting for the RCVS Council and VN Council doesn't close till 2nd May and 28th April respectively.
Voting can be done online: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=205006, where you can also read each candidate's manifesto.
The College points to data gathered from its 2024 VN Vision workshops which showed that many nurses believe their skills and capabilities, and the scope of tasks that can be performed within the current legal framework, are not being fully used.
This new project aims to gather insights and empower nurses to play a more central role in the sector by promoting greater involvement in:
Session dates, times and locations are as follows:
Julie Dugmore RVN, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “Informed by conversations with professionals across the sector and a deep understanding of current practice, this new project recognises that achieving meaningful change requires a fundamental cultural shift.
"Clear guidance, structured support and open dialogue will be key in empowering veterinary teams to adapt to a new way of working.
“An additional crucial focus will be on enhancing public understanding of the Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN) role, alongside support for developing stronger interprofessional and public-facing communication.”
Jill Macdonald RVN, VN Futures Lead, added: “These interactive sessions will play an important role in this new branch of VN Vision work, helping to define long term goals, identify the practical steps needed to achieve them, and determine how success will be measured and shared with the wider public.
“We were honoured to have so many fantastic nurses come together last year to help shape the future of the profession, and we’re looking forward to many more engaging conversations with vet team members this time around.
"This is more than just a conversation though – it’s a national effort to strengthen the RVN role through collaboration, clarity and confidence.”
The ‘A vision or a necessity: strengthening the role of veterinary nurses in team-based veterinary healthcare’ workshops are open to all practice team members, including, but not limited to, veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons, practice support staff, directors, managers, and practice owners.
Workshops will be informal, informative and made up of small groups.
Supper will also be provided.
https://www.eventbrite.com/cc/vet-nursing-vision-events-3253639
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/vn-vision-the-future-of-team-based-veterinary-healthcare/
The Committee had found Dr Elefterescu guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to a number of charges which covered issues such as dishonesty, poor record-keeping, and failure to carry out adequate clinical examinations.
The full charges and findings of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held the appeal hearing in October last year with three Justices of the Supreme Court - Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Kitchin – comprising the Board.
The basis of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the Committee’s findings on the facts of the case were flawed, with his counsel saying that Dr Elefterescu 'strenuously disputes the findings by the Committee of his dishonesty and lack of professional competence and submits that there is no adequate basis for them in the evidence’.
His counsel also told the Board that the Disciplinary Committee’s sanction failed to take into account mitigating factors and that the decision to remove Dr Elefterescu from the Register was disproportionate.
In relation to the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings on the facts, the Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Elefterescu. These arguments included that the RCVS had failed to call relevant witnesses and had failed to make Dr Elefterescu aware of the significance of some evidential matters, disclosed to him.
In respect of the sanction, the Board was also unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, namely that it was too harsh in its assessment of aggravating factors, did not give adequate weight to mitigating factors, and that it failed to distinguish lack of competence from misconduct.
In its judgment on the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, the Board said: "It is the opinion of the Board that these criticisms are not well founded. The Committee considered with care Dr Elefterescu’s proven and admitted conduct in relation to each of the charges and whether it fell below or far below the standard to be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that a number of the charges which were either admitted or upheld were not the subject of any challenge on this appeal.
"Overall, the Committee found that Dr Elefterescu’s clinical failures were very serious, involved failures in the basics of animal care, resulted in animal suffering and involved widespread breaches of the respondent’s [RCVS] code of professional conduct. It also expressed particular concern about its findings of dishonesty, and rightly so. That conduct was, in its view, ‘at the top end’ of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. What is more, Dr Elefterescu had a lack of insight into his failings and a wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities which constituted an ongoing risk to animal welfare."
"These were findings which the Committee was clearly entitled to make and, in the light of them, the Board is firmly of the view that the decision of the Committee to direct the removal of Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register cannot be impeached. The Board rejects the criticisms made of the Committee’s reasoning and the conclusions to which it came. The direction that Dr Elefterescu’s name must be removed from the Register was appropriate and proportionate."
The Judicial Committee’s full findings can be found at www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2018-0060-judgment.pdf.
Prior to the start of the hearing, the RCVS received correspondence from Mr Kombert confirming that he did not intend to attend the hearing, either in person or via a video-link, nor did he intend to send legal representation in his stead.
The Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Kombert and any legal representation, on the basis that it was in the public interest and the interests of justice to proceed and that Mr Kombert had been given the opportunity to attend or be represented.
The Committee heard that staff at the practice where Mr Kombert was working as a locum had undertaken a check of the medicines kept in the practice’s controlled drugs cabinet and discovered that 5.5ml of ketamine and 1.5ml of methadone was missing. After the code to the controlled drugs cabinet was changed, Mr Kombert was observed taking an additional 3ml of methadone, which he then administered to himself while on duty at the practice.
After Mr Kombert was confronted with the evidence, he was given the details of the Vetlife charity for support and asked not to return to the practice.
The police were contacted and, on 4 January 2019, Mr Kombert was arrested and interviewed. He received a police caution for theft, with conditions that he should attend and complete a drug-use awareness course, and engage in a restorative justice process, which involved attending the practice to discuss his offences. At this meeting, Mr Kombert admitted stealing the drugs and administering them to himself while on duty, which meant he was not in a fit state to see patients. He apologised for his actions and the matter was then also reported to the RCVS.
In relation to the fact that Mr Kombert had accepted the police caution, made the admissions at the restorative justice meeting and had emailed the RCVS apologising for his actions, the facts of the case were found proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if Mr Kombert’s actions amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect (henceforth called ‘serious professional misconduct’), something which Mr Kombert had admitted to in correspondence with the RCVS.
The Committee found that Mr Kombert’s actions did amount to serious professional misconduct. Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s conduct was dishonest; it constituted both a breach of trust and an abuse of his position with regards to access to veterinary medicines; it risked animal welfare and jeopardised the reputation of colleagues. It fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then considered what the appropriate sanction against Mr Kombert should be, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of harm to animals, his dishonesty, the premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of trust and the fact it was repeated.
It also took into account three previous matters recorded against Mr Kombert in the United States of America.
These were: a letter of admonition from the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine for practising when his licence had expired; a stipulation order from the same body in which he agreed to relinquish his licence in that state following an allegation that he took controlled substances from a veterinary practice and self-administered them; and a criminal conviction in New York State for obtaining an opioid controlled drug by deception, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation. The Committee was made aware of the New York State criminal conviction after Dianne Norris, a Probation Officer based in that state, had contacted the RCVS after hearing about the inquiry and informed the College that Mr Kombert was in breach of his probation conditions.
Dr Whiting said: “The Committee has considered the witness statement of Ms Dianne Norris, a probation officer employed by Putnam County Probation in New York, who was responsible for supervising the respondent as part of his probation. Ms Norris explained that the respondent breached his probation on numerous occasions, which took place from November 2017 to 2018…. As a result of the breaches, Ms Norris required the respondent to increase his attendance at support groups to an inpatient treatment program for 28 days from 13 July 2018. He failed to attend.
"Ms Norris explained that warrants were issued for the respondent’s arrest…. The Committee noted that the conduct of the respondent in relation to obtaining controlled drugs from his employers for his own use while in the United States of America was similar to his conduct … [described in] the charges."
In mitigation the Committee considered that Mr Kombert had consistently admitted the charges against him as well as accepting and agreeing with the evidence against him.
However, the Committee decided that in light of the seriousness of his misconduct, including dishonesty and risk of serious harm to animals, removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Summing up, Dr Whiting said: "The respondent has failed to uphold the requisite standards to be expected of him on multiple occasions. The Committee considers that the only sanction that is sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct is one of erasure."
Mr Kombert has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Miss Davies faced four charges:
Miss Davies made no admissions to any of the charges.
Miss Davies wrote to the College prior to the hearing stating that she would not be attending and she was not represented.
The Committee found all charges bar one proved.
Charge 1a, relating to the anaesthesia increase, was found not proved due to lack of evidence.
In deciding on whether the proven facts amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that all charges caused risk of injury to an animal or human.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee found that Miss Davies’ conduct indicated an unwillingness and inability to act according to the veterinary surgeons’ instructions/directions.
It noted that Miss Davies acted on at least seven occasions contrary to the instructions given or without seeking direction or authorisation, despite her position within the surgical team.
It also found that Miss Davies had breached multiple areas of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, including the Code obligations that veterinary nurses must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals and that veterinary nurses must communicate with veterinary surgeons and each other to ensure the health and welfare of the animal or group of animals.
It therefore found that, with the exception of administering intermittent positive-pressure ventilation without direction or authorisation, the remaining proved facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
In doing so, it took into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included that the conduct was sustained over a period of approximately eight months and took place during four separate surgical procedures, and that Miss Davies posed a risk to animals on each occasion.
The Committee considered that there were a number of mitigating factors including the fact that Miss Davies had been on the Register of Veterinary Nurses since 17 January 2006 with no previous disciplinary findings against her, positive testimonials from a colleague working with Miss Davies at the time of the incidents, and the fact that Miss Davies had expressed some remorse in a letter regarding her conduct in relation to charges 3 and 4.
Colin Childs, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that the charges represented a serious departure from the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses and also that there was evidence that Miss Davies had put her own interests before the health and welfare of animals either by not following the instructions of veterinary surgeons or by acting unilaterally, in relation to the administration of medicines or the placement of a catheter or feeding tube during four surgical procedures.
“Since the Committee could not assess Miss Davies’ future risk or her insight in her absence, it therefore decided that removal was the only proportionate sanction because any other sanction would not protect animals or the public in the future without those matters having been adequately assessed.
Such a sanction also met the wider public interest.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Davies from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.
The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.
In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.
On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.
He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.
When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.
Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.
In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.
The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration. However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.
The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.
The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.
In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.
The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.
“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.
“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.
“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.
The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.
Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.
The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.
The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.
Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.
Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).
Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."
Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.
Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.
Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.
Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
The Horse Trust provides a range of services to support working horses, while Medical Detection Dogs trains dogs to alert their owners to cancers and other medical conditions, providing pre-emptive non-invasive warning.
Stephen said: "These two charities' work in strengthening and supporting the human-animal bond is truly remarkable. Though The Horse Trust was originally founded in 1886 as a retirement home for working horses, and this remains a core focus of theirs to this day, it has now evolved to provide a whole range of services, from education to research to rescuing neglected equids.
"Medical Detection Dogs, though founded much more recently in 2008, has already done an incredible amount in its short history - 76 of its dogs are now partnered with people with critical medical conditions, ensuring essential emotional as well as medical support."
Jeanette Allen, CEO of The Horse Trust, said: "The Horse Trust is extremely grateful to the RCVS for this enormously generous donation. We care for 130 horses, ponies and donkeys that have either retired from public service or been rescued from appalling conditions. We also provide dedicated training programmes for first responders who have to deal with horses in crisis situations, as well as being the second largest funder of equine specific veterinary research in the UK. We survive as a charity on donations, and this one is most welcome and greatly appreciated."
Claire Guest, co-founder and chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said: "We are so grateful to the RCVS for their very generous donation. We receive no government funding for our work, so we rely entirely on the generosity of organisations like the RCVS. Thanks to this donation, we can continue our pioneering research into the detection of human disease using the extraordinary smelling power of dogs."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Riding for the Disabled Association, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and Vetlife.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion exploring the issue of mental health problems.
The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Rosie Allister, Chair of the Vet Helpline and a Director of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
Rosie, who is also a researcher at the University of Edinburgh specialising in veterinary wellbeing, writes that members of the profession should be more willing to open up about their own mental health problems and intervene by talking and listening to colleagues who may be suffering from mental ill-health. She said: "Looking to the future, we need to better understand who is most at risk, how to reach out to them, and how we can start to change our culture so that it is OK to ask for help."
Her blog also proposes that, due to the caring nature of the occupation and high client expectations, members of the profession routinely put work and animal welfare ahead of their own needs and that, in order for there to be wider cultural change, individuals need to change their own attitudes towards asking for help. This includes the discussion of 'taboo subjects' such as suicide: "Perhaps all of us have to start trying to change our culture to one that is more accepting and supportive and looks out for those in need even when they aren't able to reach out themselves."
As part of the discussion, Vet Futures is running a poll which asks: "Could you recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague?"
To read Rosie's blog and take part in the poll, visit and take part in the poll, visit: http://goo.gl/EmLhhF
At the same time as paying the fee, all veterinary surgeons must annually confirm their Register and correspondence details, declare any convictions, cautions or adverse findings and confirm they are compliant with RCVS continuing professional development (CPD) policy.
The deadline for completing the annual renewal, 1 April 2019, has now passed and all veterinary surgeons who are yet to pay their fees must do so before the end of May 2019. As of 1 June 2019, any non-payers will be removed from the Register.
If paid by 30 April 2019, the annual fee is £340 for UK-practising veterinary surgeons, £170 for veterinary surgeons practising outside the UK, and £56 for non-practising veterinary surgeons. Following this date, the fee goes up by £35 across all these groups and veterinary surgeons will have until 31 May 2019 to pay.
If the renewal fee is not received in full by 31 May 2019, then non-paying veterinary surgeons will be removed from the Register. In order to restore their name to the Register, a restoration fee of £340 will need to be paid, in addition to the appropriate retention fee. During this time they will not be able to use the postnominals MRCVS and UK-practising vets will need to cease practising.
Annual renewals can be completed online on the RCVS website and all the information needed to complete the annual renewal is in the renewal notice that has been sent to veterinary surgeons. Those who need any help or have any questions about completing their renewal and paying fees should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Mrs Cole pleaded guilty to fraud in July 2024 at Crawley Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, 20 days rehabilitation activity and a £187 victim surcharge.
The College opened its own disciplinary investigation against Mrs Cole after receiving the certificate of conviction, which related to more than £13,000 of pet insurance fraud.
It then proceeded with the hearing in Mrs Cole’s absence as she had not responded to any of the communications sent to her by the College on the matter.
Having found the charge against her proven by the certificate of conviction, the Committee then determined that the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct… was plainly dishonest and contravened a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"She abused her professional position in order to commit the offence.
"The dishonest conduct in this case related directly to the respondent’s professional life, as she was working as a veterinary nurse when she completed and submitted the fraudulent claims.
“Her conduct also constituted a breach of the trust owed to her employer and to the insurance company to which her dishonest claims were submitted.
"She put her professional colleagues at risk as their names were used on the clinical records which purportedly supported her dishonest claims.
“Her misconduct was repeated and sustained over a period of many years.
"Her modus operandi was sophisticated and premeditated.
“The respondent’s conduct clearly had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public trust in the profession.
"A member of the public would be rightly appalled to learn that a veterinary nurse had abused her position by submitting false claims in this way.”
The Committee found that there were no mitigating factors, and that aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of Mrs Cole’s fraud, the clear breaches of trust in respect of her colleagues, her clients and the insurance companies, the significant financial gain made from her fraud and the fact that the fraudulent activities were sustained and repeated over a period of four and a half years.
Kathryn added: “Taking into account the gravity of her misconduct, the need to maintain standards of probity in the profession, especially in relation to practice records and the submission of insurance claim documents, as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the Committee has resolved to direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register.
The trial is the result of a six-week consultation held by the College in June 2016, asking for the profession’s views on a proposed new system of CPD - one that concentrates less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
The College says that while an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
The RCVS Education Committee and VN Council therefore agreed that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 before making a recommendation to RCVS Council. The RCVS Council approved this proposal at its meeting on 10 November 2016, after which 117 volunteers were recruited, 60 of whom were able to attend the training days.
A veterinary surgeon who signed up for the pilot and works in veterinary industry, Gina Dungworth, said: "I really appreciate the acknowledgement of non-clinical CPD practices, and while I was originally sceptical of the proposed system the pilot day has so far been clear and helpful."
A veterinary nurse volunteer, Lindsey Raven Emrich, said: "CPD is such a varied part of a veterinary professional’s career, and it very much depends on the person how easy it is to do. I find myself doing a lot of reflection as a natural part of reading articles, and I’m hoping this new system will expand that way of thinking into other areas of CPD."
The volunteers will now pilot the new proposed system and report to Education Committee, VN Council and RCVS Council.
Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows:
Despite being served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors.
The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it.
The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner.
Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee.
It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to five of the sub-charges which the Committee therefore found proven.
She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.
After hearing a wide range of evidence, both written and oral, from Ms Bowler, the College, from clients and from an expert witness, the Committee found all charges proved except for four sub-charges.
On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account.
In mitigation:
In all, the Committee decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.
When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this.
It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.
It then went onto consider whether a sanction of ‘suspension’ was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.
The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.
Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.
“The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.
“Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.
“The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.
“These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest.
"It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The webinar will discuss the importance of self-compassion and provide an overview of Katherine and Sarah’s research into the effectiveness of an online compassion focused therapy (CFT) intervention in improving the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also go into more detail about how to get the most out of a CFT course they have created, which will be made freely available for veterinary professionals on the Mind Matters website and on the RCVS YouTube channel .
Katherine said: “Our recent randomised control trial has shown the course to significantly improve resilience and self-compassion and reduce rumination and self-criticism amongst veterinarians.
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary professions, so that as many people are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource as possible.
“Even though our research was conducted on veterinary surgeons, we hope that the course will be useful to all those working in the veterinary team as the content can be applied in a number of contexts.
“Our webinar will explain more about our research, as well as some of the science behind the effectiveness of the course in a veterinary context.
"So, if you are interested in learning more about how CFT may be able to help you and your team, both in a personal and professional capacity, please do come along.”
Katherine and Sarah’s compassion focused therapy course will be made available on the Mind Matters website in due course. In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one 10-15 minute video each day for 14 days, with the aim of the video intervention being to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism.
https://vetmindmatters.org/events/
Underlying the plan are three 'Brexit Principles', devised by the College and formally adopted by RCVS Council, which will guide the College’s relationship with the Government during the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.
The College says each Principle is supported by a number of specific policies that the College will lobby for in the coming months, all designed to positively engage with the post-referendum reality and with government policy.
The Principles are:
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "It is crucially important for the College and the profession as a whole to think boldly about the post-Brexit future; we cannot expect government to give us all of the answers, instead we must work to find solutions ourselves so as to shape the future of the profession from within."
The College has also asked the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake research into the attitudes and intentions of all EU-graduated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses currently working in the UK. They will all have receive a personalised email from IES with a link to this online survey, and their answers will help inform the College’s approach to Brexit. This research will help the College to understand better the impact that Brexit may already be having, how it can support EU veterinary professionals working in the UK, and build an evidence base regarding the potential impact that Brexit may have on the veterinary workforce.
For more information on the College’s Brexit activities, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.
However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.
Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use.
He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.
In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.
The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.
At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.
The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.
Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.
Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.
The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.
Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.
“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.
"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order and for a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on 20th May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s seventh application for restoration. Previous applications had been heard but refused in July 1995, June 2010, February 2015, March 2016, May 2017 and April 2018. However, as the Committee makes its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its current decision.
The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr Seymour-Hamilton and were shown clear bottles with liquid, a container with tablets and petri dishes with grown cultures as detailed documentary evidence. In respect of any concerns regarding keeping his veterinary practice up-to-date, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that “you never lose that skill” and explained that he kept up-to-date through extensive reading and conversations with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
However, the Committee had significant concerns as to his fitness to practise safely as a veterinary surgeon for a number of reasons, including that nearly 25 years had passed since he was last in practice and that there was little, if any, evidence of him keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills required to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The applicant worryingly did not accept that he was in any way deskilled by the passage of time. The evidence that the applicant has provided showed limited interaction with other veterinary surgeons and there is no documented evidence of the discussions or structure of the meetings he had with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
"There is no evidence of a prolonged and intense period of re-training by way of relevant study to demonstrate that a sufficient level of competence to return to practise has been achieved. In the absence of such evidence the Committee was of the view that there would be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if the applicant was restored to the Register.
"Further, it was a grave concern to this Committee that the applicant demonstrated worrying attitudinal issues towards individuals of a different religion and his attitude to employing a minor when he knew it to be against the law. Such attitudes are incompatible with professional standards the public would expect of a veterinary surgeon."
Finally, with no evidence of public support for the applicant, the Committee concluded that the application for restoration should be refused.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Co. Tyrone veterinary surgeon from the Register for ten months, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct relating to three convictions for contravening animal export regulations.
Whilst working as an Authorised Veterinary Inspector in Castlederg for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), William Manson had falsely certified that he had inspected three consignments of sheep presented for assembly at Plumbridge Export Assembly Centre on 16 and 23 August 2009. At this week's two-day hearing, Mr Manson admitted that the convictions he had received at the Strabane Magistrates Court on 26 November 2010 made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery, but said in mitigation that he had examined the sheep nearby at Landahussy, a site he considered more suitable for a large number of animals.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Manson believed the Landahussy site to be more suitable for large deliveries; the Committee also was satisfied that he did carry out a visual inspection of the sheep at the Landahussy site on 16 and 23 August 2009. However, the information Mr Manson provided on the three certificates was false and misleading. Mr Manson had also been reminded of the importance of complying with government regulations in a disciplinary case in 2004, following convictions for failing to notify DARD about changes in the number of sheep for which he was claiming a premium. The then Committee dismissed the case, deeming the convictions a result of his "genuine but regrettable oversight".
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman, Prof Peter Lees said: "Mr Manson's actions in certifying that he had examined the sheep at an approved assembly centre when he had not done so amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. If there had been a disease outbreak on either the Plumbridge or Landahussy site, such actions would have rendered contact tracings unreliable and inaccurate."
In mitigation, the Committee accepted medical evidence and Mr Manson's testimony that he was at that time under exceptional stress. He was working long hours in difficult circumstances without an assistant, and was under considerable personal pressure as a result of his wife's serious illness. It also took into account his age (66), exceptional testimonials produced on his behalf, and the impact on the community he served.
Prof Lees said: "The Committee has concluded that the removal of Mr Manson's name from the Register is neither proportionate nor necessary in the public interest nor to protect the welfare of animals. A proportionate sanction in this case is to suspend Mr Manson's name from the Register for a period of ten months."
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has approved an application for restoration to the Register from an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been struck off for false certification.
In November 2007, the Committee decided that Mr John Williams, of the Avonvale Veterinary Practice in Ratley, near Banbury, should have his name removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. Mr Williams had admitted signing export health certificates for three horses in October 2006 to state that they had received negative test results for the contagious equine metritis organism, before these results were actually available.
At the time, Mr Williams was working in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for DEFRA and he had previously been suspended from his official duties on three separate occasions, on the basis of export certification irregularities. It was accepted that Mr Williams had not been dishonest, but his approach to certification was described by the Disciplinary Committee as "either irresponsible or cavalier or both".
In December 2007, Mr Williams appealed against this decision to the Privy Council but this was dismissed at a Hearing the following June. He was then removed from the Register in July 2008.
When the Committee met on Monday to consider Mr Williams' application, they heard oral and written supporting evidence from veterinary surgeons and equine clients, and oral evidence from Mr Williams himself. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams accepted its previous findings and fully understood their seriousness. He described his removal from the Register as a "salutary experience" which had been highly significant for him and his family, both financially and emotionally.
The Committee stated: "Although the decision of the Committee to remove [Mr Williams] from the Register sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of certification, it should be emphasised that his removal was the consequence of his actions in signing certificates which he could not verify. This followed three previous occasions on which he had similarly signed certificates when he should not have done so."
However, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams would not in future sign certificates when he should not do so, even under severe client pressure. It was impressed with the continuing professional development he had undertaken whilst off the Register and noted that no questions had been raised over his conduct during this time.
It concluded that Mr Williams fully understood the importance of accurate certification and that restoring his name to the Register therefore posed no risk to animal welfare. Neither the public nor the profession would benefit from Mr Williams staying off the Register for a further period.
Alison Bruce, Disciplinary Committee Chairman, said: "We would like to make it clear that we always find it distressing to remove clinically competent veterinary surgeons from the Register because of an irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards certification. This would not be necessary if veterinary surgeons were to follow the Twelve Principles of Certification annexed to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct."
The Committee then approved Mr Williams' application and directed that his name should be restored to the Register.
The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who is acting as witness.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.
“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.
“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.
“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”
David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.
“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.
“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."
This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:
RCVS Council
VN Council
*denotes existing Council member
For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.
Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).
To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.
There are 13 candidates standing in this year’s election for RCVS Council, the voting period for which will open on the week commencing Monday 14 March and close at 5pm on Friday 22 April 2022.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and manifesto statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote22.
To submit a question to the candidates, email: vetvote22@rcvs.org.uk or post it on the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote22.
Candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
You have until Monday 21 February 2022 to submit your question.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."