On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
Mr Shillabeer faced five charges which largely related to his alleged prescription of contra-indicated NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
He was also charged with prescribing frusemide to a pregnant dog when there was no evidence of a benefit of so doing.
He was also charged with performing inadequate spay surgery.
Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges, engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.
He made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertaking to remove his name from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it.
His legal counsel also asked the Committee to consider the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had an unblemished 60-year career, has had no previous disciplinary findings against him, had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere, and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern or upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Shillabeer's counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that his undertakings would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice.
He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and Mr Shillabeer.
The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance.
She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry, that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return, that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense, that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer, and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.
The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.
The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.
In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.
Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.
In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."
In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both.
Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems.
In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.
Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The 2009 RCVS Continuing Professional Development Record Cards have been sent to all practising vets and Registered Veterinary Nurses.
Undertaking and recording Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is a mandatory professional requirement for these vets and RVNs. Vets must average at least 35 hours of CPD per year and RVNs 15 hours, although many will do far more.
The RCVS can ask to see CPD records - and they may be checked during practice inspections as part of the Practice Standards Scheme. For newly-qualified veterinary surgeons, completing the Professional Development Phase also fulfils the CPD requirements in their first year of practice.
Jill Nute, President of the RCVS, said: "CPD is about maintaining professional competence. Vets and RVNs are expected to make continuous improvements in their knowledge and skills, which will have benefits for their patients and clients, their own development and the profession at large. Undertaking CPD allows vets and RVNs to demonstrate their commitment to maintaining the highest professional standards."
As professionals, vets and RVNs are expected to evaluate what knowledge and skills they need to develop, and how they will do this. This may include activities such as going to particular case-conferences or asking for some in-house training. Getting together with other practices to organise training sessions or secondments or finding a mentor can also be useful.
Personal study - documented in a learning diary detailing the aims of the study, what was studied and the outcomes, for example, a change made to a practice protocol - can also be used. There is no limit on properly documented study, but vets cannot count more than 10 hours, and veterinary nurses five hours, each year of undocumented study.
All CPD activity should be systematically planned to meet identified professional needs, and clear records must be kept of what has been done.
Further information about CPD requirements for veterinary surgeons and Registered Veterinary Nurses can be found on the back of the CPD Record Card, and at RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk).
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS has launched a research project into the extent to which veterinary surgeons are able to meet its requirement that steps are taken to provide 24-hour emergency cover.
The College's 24-hour Emergency Cover Working Party (24-7 WP) has been considering the ongoing practicality of the current requirement in the Guide to Professional Conduct, and whether it should remain, be removed, or be amended in some way. The research aims to build a sound evidence base on which a decision can be made.
"Changes in practice profiles and owner demands, health and safety issues, the desire for an improved work-life balance, veterinary and animal density... all these factors affect the ability of veterinary practitioners to meet our 24-7 requirement. The Working Time Regulations - which prescribe maximum working hours and minimum rest periods - have also affected practices' ability to run out-of-hours services," according to RCVS President Jill Nute.
"However, we are frequently reminded by members that the profession is proud to offer a 24-hour emergency service to animals and their owners. There seems to be no single majority view in the profession, so we need to understand exactly how people are meeting the requirement before any changes are made," she says.
To ensure that the research is independent and representative, the RCVS has contracted a specialist market research agency, Cognition Market Intelligence.
The first step is to build a robust and unbiased questionnaire that takes account of all of the issues. To this end, in-depth interviews will be carried out over summer with a small number of veterinary surgeons from a range of different practice types, and across different gender/age/role categories.
The 24-7 WP will then meet in September to hear the findings and agree the questionnaire, which Cognition Marketing Intelligence will then use during autumn as part of a quantitative phone interview exercise with 440 veterinary surgeons, again covering a spread of individuals, practice types and geographies. The phone interview approach will ensure that the views of a range of different practitioners are heard, which is not always the case with a paper survey.
Should changes to the Guide to Professional Conduct be recommended by the Working Party on the basis of the findings, a consultation exercise may be undertaken.
The RCVS President has sent a letter to all home-practising members to explain the activities. She has urged veterinary surgeons to assist the research team, saying "your contribution will make a difference".
ViVet (derived from the Latin word ‘vivet’ meaning ‘it will thrive’) will, says the College, provide a variety of resources and support to help the professions keep pace with change and remain at the forefront of animal healthcare provision.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Senior Vice-President, helped develop the scope of the ViVet programme during his presidential year. He said: "This is an ambitious project for the College to embark upon but also very important for the future relevance and survival of the professions. Technology in the animal health sector is developing rapidly, such as the growth of telemedicine, wearable and implantable devices to gather health-related data from our animals, and low-cost genomic sequencing.
"These technologies could have a disruptive effect on the veterinary sector, so it’s important to encourage and support veterinary input at an early stage to enable the professions to shape their development and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
"ViVet will help veterinary professionals to engage proactively with innovation in animal health, so that they can embrace and drive change and are not side-lined by it."
The Vivet website (www.vivet.org.uk), which was launched simultaneously at the College's inaugural Innovation Symposium in London today, contains a number of resources to showcase new technologies and innovative business models.
Anthony Roberts, Director of Leadership and Innovation at the College, said: "The aim of these resources is to help veterinary professionals harness the immense opportunities that innovation can bring to animal health and welfare by providing practical advice on areas such as launching new products and services and, in turn, encourage innovators to think about how the expertise and knowledge of the veterinary professions could input into new technologies.
"Furthermore, the programme will also help the College gain insights into the animal health market and how it is evolving. This will allow us to develop a regulatory framework that is relevant and adaptable to 21st century technology, while continuing to foster and support responsible innovation."
ViVet will also continue to organise events like today’s live-streamed symposium, which brought together thought-leaders from across the animal health, technology and business sectors, and provided a forum to discuss the opportunities and threats presented by innovation in the veterinary sphere, the impact it may have on the professions and how they are regulated.
Further details about the RCVS Innovation Symposium, including the full programme and speaker profiles, are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/innovation. Videos of speakers and a written report of the proceedings will be available from www.vivet.org.uk in due course.
A project which aims to standardise the assessment of veterinary nurse practical training across Europe will have life beyond its pilot phase, thanks to European VN training network, Vetnnet.
The announcement was made in September at an Oslo-based conference to mark the conclusion of the pilot phase of the Pan-European Practical Assessment System project (PEPAS).
During its two-year pilot, the Leonardo da Vinci-funded project developed 111 new stations for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), including mark-sheets and examiner notes, and trained over 50 veterinary nursing examiners from eight countries across Europe. The new OSCE stations have been trialled across 250 students by seven European veterinary nurse schools.
Vetnnet has now committed to continuing the project, enabling its members to access the OSCEs and associated training.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was a main project partner in the pilot, with specific responsibility for training and quality assurance of the system. Victoria Hedges, RCVS VN Examination and Higher Education Quality Manager said: "It's great that the hard work put into the project by so many countries will continue to bear fruit.
"Feedback in Oslo was excellent and it was heartening to see that when examiners' marks were compared across countries, standardisation was very good. The feedback also helped us to see where students were not achieving the desire results, indicating where more training is needed."
See www.vetnnet.com for more information.
Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services.
The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.
At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."
Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.
The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition.
Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour."
Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has removed a veterinary surgeon formerly working in Lincolnshire from the Register, after finding him guilty of serious professional misconduct for drink-driving related convictions, failing to inform his employer of these convictions, and driving whilst disqualified.
Jaroslaw Slominski, a former employer of Grants Veterinary Services plc, chose not to attend the three-day hearing. The Committee considered whether to proceed with the case, using criteria identified by the Court of Appeal in R v Jones (Anthony) in 2002 and confirmed by the House of Lords. It concluded it was in the interests of justice that the hearing should go ahead.
The charges related to two convictions Mr Slominski received on 17 March 2010 at Lincoln Magistrates Court: failure to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and driving without due care and attention (after his vehicle collided head-on with another car). Mr Slominski failed to inform his employers of these convictions, as he was contractually obliged to do, and that he was now disqualified from driving.
Having heard evidence from Mr Slominski's line manager, the Committee also found that he had driven his employer's vehicle whilst disqualified, although it could not be sure that he had done so on all the occasions alleged. Therefore, the Committee did not go on to consider an alternative part of the charge - that Mr Slominski had dishonestly claimed money from his employer by falsely submitting expenses claims.
Disciplinary Committee Chairman Prof Peter Lees said: "The combination of factors in this case, namely, the serious nature of his conviction in failing to provide a specimen of breath, his subsequent premeditated conduct in not informing his employers and driving whilst disqualified should be treated by the profession very seriously. The Committee has concluded that the combination of the conviction and the conduct is incompatible with Mr Slominski practising as a veterinary surgeon."
The Committee directed that Mr Slominski's name be removed from the Register.
Earlier this year, the RCVS Council approved the roll-out of a more outcomes-based model of CPD to encourage veterinary professionals to engage in greater reflection on learning and development, and the impact that it has on their professional practice.
To support this approach, Council also approved the development of a new CPD recording platform designed to be more intuitive and to make it easy to record CPD in real time.
The College says the new platform – which has the working title of 'One CPD' – will be a ‘one stop shop’ CPD management solution for veterinary surgeons and nurses at all stages of their careers, including veterinary students and student veterinary nurses.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We’re excited to open up access to this powerful, next-generation, tool we’ve been building and welcome our members into an important phase of the development process. Testing with our members will be absolutely critical in delivering the very best experience possible for all those that use 'One CPD' in the future. Ease of use and truly valuable functionality are key deliverables for us and both these need the feedback of our members to perfect."
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), added: "The first stage of the development of the CPD recording platform is due to finish in October and so we are looking for a cohort of both veterinary surgeons and nurses who can spend a few months this autumn using the new platform to record and reflect on their CPD, in order to test out some of the new features which aim to make this process so much easier to do. We will consider their feedback carefully in order to improve the recording platform ready for launch in January 2020.
"The new ‘One CPD’ platform will ultimately replace the current Professional Development Record, and its use will become mandatory for recording CPD from January 2022.
"In addition to setting up the testing group, we are also looking to meet with key CPD providers for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over the coming months to discuss our plans for outcomes-based CPD and the development of the recording platform in greater detail."
Veterinary surgeons who'd like to take part in the testing for the CPD app, as well as CPD providers who want to discuss the College’s CPD policy plans, should contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
This compared with 339 who were removed for non-payment last year.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published and the College encourages practices to check the list (www.rcvs.org.uk/removals2018) to be sure that no employees are named.
Those who have been removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
Anyone removed from the Register can no longer call themselves a veterinary surgeon, use the postnominals MRCVS or carry out acts of veterinary surgery – to do so would be in breach of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and therefore illegal.
The College says it would also like to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the College’s Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Council members voted in favour of becoming a fully-appointed governing Council and to explore retaining elected representation on a future council or committee focussed on 'upstream regulation' and development of the profession
Council also voted to move towards greater parity between professional and lay RCVS Council members, but delayed a decision on the precise balance until it has the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.
Council voted to remove veterinary school appointees from Council, agreeing to discuss the future composition of the RCVS Education Committee at a later date.
Council then voted to further investigate a number of alternative governance arrangement suggestions, including independent oversight of the College, and to review term limits across all appointed positions.
RCVS President Linda Belton said: “Thank you to all who took part in the consultation and made suggestions on alternative and additional arrangements that might be made regarding our governance.
"Thank you also to Council members for a robust discussion of these proposals.
“We still have a number of important governance issues to discuss at a future date and the proposals that Council members have voted to approve today will not be brought into immediate effect, but will be included in our proposals to government for new veterinary legislation.
“As we seek reform of veterinary regulation via new primary legislation, it is important that our governance arrangements not only inspire public confidence and trust but also allow us, as a Royal College that regulates, to work with the professions on our upstream regulatory activities, not only to ensure that individuals are fit for practice, but also that we maintain a profession fit for purpose.
“The decision to explore retaining an elected element on a future veterinary council or committee, responsible for work dedicated to the development of the professions, gives a clear indication of the value of our ‘Royal College that regulates’ model.
"We have also made a further commitment to public assurance by agreeing to explore independent oversight of the RCVS.
“Any future appointments process developed by the RCVS will be committed to adhering to the Public Standards Authority’s principles on appointments; these are merit; fairness; transparency and openness; and inspiring confidence.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil-nov24
The original deadline for nominations for the three honours (the Queen’s Medal, Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship) was Friday 16 September – this has now been moved to Friday 21 October 2016.
Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Do you know someone who goes above-and-beyond the call of duty? Whose achievements have had a tangible impact on their profession or the veterinary and animal health and welfare sector at large? Then we would strongly encourage you to nominate them for an RCVS Honour. Those who are successful will receive their award at our Annual General Meeting and Awards Day where their achievements will be described and recognised in front of their peers."
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Finally, nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have had a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours. All awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk
Dr Dyson was removed from the Register after she was found to have fabricated a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector in support of a paper she had submitted to a journal, explaining why conducting her research had not required a Home Office Licence.
The original Committee made its decision on the basis that her conduct was knowingly dishonest, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in it, and, furthermore, risked undermining the Government’s system designed to promote animal welfare and research ethics.
In considering Dr Dyson’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors: her acceptance of the findings of the Committee at the original hearing; the seriousness of the original findings; public protection; risks to animal welfare if she were to be allowed to practise again; the length of time off the Register; her conduct since being removed; her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice; the impact of the sanction on her; and public support for her.
The Committee found that while Dr Dyson had demonstrated some insight into her misconduct, had expressed remorse and admitted dishonesty, it was undermined by her continuing denial that she had been knowingly dishonest in her conduct, having attributed her actions to being in a dissociative state at the time.
In terms of seriousness, the Committee considered that Dr Dyson’s misconduct was at the highest end of the spectrum, having involved being dishonest with multiple people on multiple occasions, and then inventing a fictitious Home Office Inspector to continue the deceit.
The Committee also considered that public confidence in the profession and the RCVS as the regulator would be undermined were Dr Dyson to be allowed to be restored to the Register without genuinely accepting full responsibility for her actions.
In her favour, the Committee considered that there was no risk to the health and welfare of animals and that she had provided ample evidence of her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice should she be allowed to practise again.
In addition, she had made some progress, for example she was able to show some insight by the steps she had taken to avoid finding herself in such a stressful environment in the future. The Committee also considered the many positive testimonials it received from professional colleagues and clients.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided to refuse Dr Dyson’s application.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession will not be maintained if a veterinary surgeon who has been found to have committed very serious acts of dishonesty refuses to genuinely accept that that is the case.
“Dr Dyson says that she accepts the original Disciplinary Committee’s finding that she acted dishonestly, but that acceptance carries little weight in light of what she said in her application and has said in her evidence to this Committee, because it involves a theoretical or objective concept of dishonesty which has no bearing upon her actual state of mind at the time of the actions in question.
“By not being truly accountable for her dishonest actions, Dr Dyson has thus far been unable to demonstrate anything other than limited insight into her disgraceful conduct.
“In such circumstances, the Committee considered there would be a real and continuing risk to the reputation of the profession and to public confidence in the profession if Dr Dyson were restored to the Register.
"Conduct of this kind is of a particularly egregious nature for a member of this profession and particularly so of one so eminent in her field and looked up to by so many.
"The Committee was of the view that if a veterinary surgeon, who has committed such serious offences and shown so little insight were nonetheless now allowed to practise, the public’s trust in the profession was liable to be seriously undermined.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
On Tuesday 15 January the RCVS will hold a 'Meet the RCVS Day' for those standing or considering standing for election to RCVS Council or the Veterinary Nurses Council.
The event offers prospective candidates an opportunity to find out more about what the role of a Council member involves, and what would be expected of them, if elected.
Candidates and prospective candidates will have the chance to meet the RCVS Officers and senior staff, and to find out what goes on behind the scenes. The day will start at 10.30am, and finish at approximately 3.30pm, to allow plenty of time for questions. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.
For further information, or to book a place, prospective candidates can contact Fiona Harcourt, Communications Officer (f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773).
Nomination forms for RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Council and VN Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week issued a reprimand to a veterinary surgeon for reckless certification of an equine passport, having found her to have been "wholly indifferent" as to whether the horse had been vaccinated properly against equine influenza.
Eleri Wyn Jones graduated from the University of Liverpool and qualified as a veterinary surgeon in 2006, before joining The Veterinary Practice on Bala Road in Dolgellau, Gwynedd, where she was also an authorised Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI). The principal of that practice is Iwan Parry, who himself was the subject of a DC hearing involving false certification earlier this year, for which he received a one-month suspension from the Register.
The Committee heard how, in late 2007, as Ms Jones was leaving the practice to begin her rounds, she was asked by a non-veterinary colleague to certify in a horse passport that two vaccinations for equine influenza had been administered. The horse in question was being liveried by a regular client of the practice, to whom the practice regularly dispensed veterinary vaccines (although Ms Jones was unaware of this), but had been recently purchased by someone who was not a registered client.
In evidence, Ms Jones admitted the certification process took her only 30 seconds and that she did not obtain any further information about the certification, either from clinical or non-clinical colleagues; nor did she check any other documentation before signing the passport, but assumed the vaccinations had been administered by a veterinary colleague. The Committee had to decide whether Ms Jones had acted recklessly, and to do so, Ms Jones' Counsel suggested the Committee would need to be satisfied that she "did not care less" whether or not the vaccinations had been given by a veterinary surgeon before signing the passport.
In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account the fact Ms Jones, on her own evidence, was generally familiar with RCVS guidance on certification and, as an authorised Local Veterinary Inspector, had certification training. It stated: "Whilst we recognise that Ms Jones received little or no mentoring from Mr Parry, we are satisfied that she would have been aware of the importance of veterinary certification. She was also aware that Mr Parry had been suspended as an LVI, due to certification issues, which had affected her own authorisation."
In view of these facts, and that Ms Jones made no attempt to obtain verification from any other source despite knowing she had not performed the vaccinations herself, the Committee decided that Ms Jones had been "wholly indifferent" to proper vaccination procedures and was therefore guilty of disgraceful professional conduct for reckless certification.
In reaching its decision on sanction, the Committee wished to remind members that cases involving improper certification would ordinarily result in suspension or removal from the Register. "We strongly disapprove of the circumstances in which Ms Jones certified this horse.
Clients, and external bodies, are entitled to rely upon the integrity of the veterinary surgeon in not certifying that horses have been vaccinated unless they have carried out the vaccinations themselves or have obtained full and proper evidence that vaccination has been carried out by another veterinary surgeon," it said.
In mitigation, however, the Committee took into account Ms Jones' age and inexperience, her previously good record, her good character and the significant number of supporting references from colleagues and clients alike. It was also mindful that any sanction's main purpose was to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession, rather than to punish.
Nigel Swayne, chairing the Committee, concluded: "This is not a case where undertakings for training or monitoring are required. This isolated incident was a fateful misjudgement on a single occasion. We consider that the sanction most proportionate to the nature and extent of the charge, the public interest and the interests of Ms Jones is a reprimand."
The Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) is co-chaired by the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer Nigel Gibbens, RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Chris Tufnell, and BVA Senior Vice-President Gudrun Ravetz. The project board also comprises the CVOs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Sheila Voas, Christianne Glossop and Robert Huey, as well as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
The project’s objective is to work with the veterinary sector to better understand the UK’s workforce needs and ensure that both the Government and veterinary businesses can continue to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard the food chain and maintain levels of public health and public services, and enable trade in animals and animal products.
The project will include a joint BVA-RCVS submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on workforce issues post-Brexit. Three working groups have been set up within the project to look specifically at issues of veterinary resources, recruitment and retention.
The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Nigel Gibbens, said: "Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity to develop gold standard policies on animal welfare. The UK Government is determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain and Ministers have been absolutely clear we will maintain our world-leading animal welfare standards.
"The VCCP is a great example of collaborative working between government, professional bodies and regulators to prepare for our exit from the European Union.
"I am pleased the Prime Minister has set out the government’s aim to secure the status of the veterinary workforce as a top priority as we leave the EU. The UK’s vets - both Official Veterinarians and those in the private sector - play a key role in protecting our country from endemic and exotic diseases, tackling outbreaks when they occur, safeguarding our animals and tackling global challenges like antibiotic resistance."
Chris Tufnell said: "Since the vote to leave the European Union last year the RCVS has been working in partnership with BVA to highlight to Government and others the potential workforce shortages that could arise from a loss of non-UK EU-qualified vets, particularly in public health work where they tend to predominate. Our position was highlighted in our Brexit Principles published earlier this year and at an event organised by us and the BVA at the Palace of Westminster for MPs and Peers.
"We are very glad that Defra is working proactively with us and BVA to understand the scale of the issues and map out the risks and opportunities and to help us plan for a number of different scenarios in advance so that we do not find ourselves in a position whereby animal health and welfare or public health might be compromised by workforce shortages."
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Vets provide the foundation for the UK’s high animal health and welfare, and make an essential contribution to the UK economy and wider society. Veterinary teams up and down the country support the UK’s 11 million pet-owning households; not a penny of the UK’s £12.7 billion livestock industry could be realised without vets; and vets are vital to facilitating UK trade, through health certification and controls, so that consumers have confidence in the food safety and welfare of the products they buy.
"Non-UK EU vets make up around 50% of our new workforce each year yet, since the EU referendum; we are facing increasing problems in recruiting and retaining EU colleagues to the UK. The impact of the loss of even a small percentage of the veterinary workforce could have serious repercussions on the practices, communities and industries that vets serve. This profession-wide project is pivotal to ensuring we have a veterinary workforce that can serve the UK’s needs post-Brexit."
The BVA’s Brexit and the veterinary profession report can be found at www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/policy/future-of-the-profession/brexit/
To read the College’s Brexit Principles in full visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The Prime Minister has set out the government’s offer for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU on their rights and status after the UK leaves the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu
The government’s response to House of Lord’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry into Brexit: Farm Animal Welfare also addresses veterinary capability post-Brexit:https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-energy-environment-subcommittee/Brexit-farm-animal-welfare/Gov-Brexit-farm-anim.pdf
Dr Kalisz faced a total of nine charges (including 41 sub-charges).
The first was that in July 2020, she failed to carry out a clinical examination of the dog, failed to adequately interpret test results, failed to ask for help interpreting the results, and undertook an emergency Caesarean section without sufficient need to do so.
The other charges related to undertaking a colotomy without sufficient justification and without exercising sufficient clinical judgment throughout the procedure.
For both the Caesarean section and the colotomy, Dr Kalisz faced charges that she failed to obtain informed consent from the owners and failed to inform them that the colotomy had been carried out, or of the potential risks of the procedure, and also failed to provide enough information about aftercare.
It was also alleged that Dr Kalisz had demonstrated continual lapses in professional judgement, including failing to appropriately manage the spaniel’s worsening condition when it was presented to the practice again later, and that the clinical records in relation to the surgery were dishonest and/or misleading.
Dr Kalisz admitted serious professional misconduct, admitting to 29 of the sub-charges, while the remaining 12 sub-charges were denied.
The Committee found 30 of the sub-charges proven, with the remaining 11 not proven.
The Committee the considered aggravating factors, including the fact that Dr Kalisz's conduct led to the spaniel’s death, the colotomy was reckless and Dr Kalisz did not take steps to inform anybody or make a clinical record for the colotomy.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that it was single and isolated incident (albeit one that spanned a number of days), that no other members of the clinical team involved raised concerns during the procedure, and the effect Covid had upon the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that of those charges proven, the ones relating to performing the colotomy, failing to manage the spaniel’s subsequent care and failing to mention the colotomy amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding the sanction, the Committee took into account the mitigation submitted on behalf of Dr Kalisz and the written testimonials produced including the fact that she was young and inexperienced, had admitted her failings at an early stage, had made subsequent efforts to avoid a repetition of such behaviour and that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident.
The Committee also considered that Dr Kalisz had shown an exemplary level of insight, showing remorse for her actions, undertaking substantial continuing professional development, and finding appropriate ongoing professional mentorship.
The Committee was impressed by the character testimonials from veterinary co-workers, both current and at the time of these events, as well as from clients.
It was, the Committee said, apparent from those testimonials that Dr Kalisz had been open and honest with them about the charges and was considered to be an excellent, committed veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved serious lapses of clinical judgement.
"It was therefore concluded that, despite Dr Kalisz’s actions being reckless, the extensive mitigation and the high level of insight, coupled with steps taken to avoid repetition, meant that there was negligible future risk to animal welfare.
“The Committee did not consider it necessary to issue a warning to Dr Kalisz about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is little risk of repetition, so considered that a reprimand would be an appropriate sanction in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The proposed framework has grown out of the VN Futures research project, run jointly with the BVNA, which identified developing a structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses as one of the key demands of the profession.
It has been developed by the VN Futures Post-Registration Development Group in conjunction with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Education Committee and Veterinary Nurses Council.
The College says the proposed framework is designed to provide accessible, flexible and professionally relevant post-registration awards for veterinary nurses in order to provide an enhanced level of veterinary nursing practice, while also providing specific modules that veterinary nurses at all career levels can study independently for their continuing professional development (CPD).
Julie Dugmore, Director of Veterinary Nursing at the RCVS, said: "One of the strongest messages that came out of the research we conducted with the British Veterinary Nursing Association prior to the publication of the VN Futures Report was that there was a need for a more structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses.
"Throughout the VN Futures roadshow events nurses felt they were often entering a career cul-de-sac after a certain amount of time in practice and so the need for further post-registration qualifications which promote excellence and recognise advanced knowledge, skills, competency and experience in designated areas were strongly expressed.
"We have taken this feedback and developed it into a comprehensive framework for two defined post-registration qualifications and are very interested in hearing what both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons have to say about all aspects of what we are proposing.
"Once we have collated the responses, we will incorporate the feedback into the framework for further consideration by the relevant committees and VN Council. The eventual aim is that these qualifications will, once sufficiently bedded in, lead to the development of an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status so that members of the VN profession with the sufficient skills and experience will get the recognition they truly deserve."
The two new qualifications included in the framework are a Graduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing and a Postgraduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing. Details of the courses’ structure, candidate assessment criteria, accreditation standards, student support, candidate eligibility rules, the RCVS enrolment process and the procedures for certification will be set out in a framework document as part of the consultation process.
The document also includes a prospective list of designations for the two courses covering areas of advanced veterinary nursing knowledge such as wellness and preventative health; rehabilitation and physiotherapy; anaesthesia and analgesia; triage, critical care and emergency nursing; pharmacology; animal welfare; education and teaching; management and leadership; research; and, dentistry.
The consultation will be launched in early July with an email sent to all veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons containing a link to the survey and asking for their views on the proposals. Details of the consultation, once launched, may also be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The VN Futures Report is available to download from www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures
The Committee's decision to recommend the addition of vets to the list is seen as a major win for the RCVS and the BVA which together submitted evidence as part of the review, which began in autumn last year.
Professions on the list are prioritised for visas required to live and work in the UK. Employers wishing to hire professionals on the list are not required to complete the Resident Labour Market Test, meaning they don't have to advertise vacancies locally before offering the role to an employee from overseas.
The RCVS/BVA submission focused on the need for the UK immigration system to recognise that the veterinary workforce is already under capacity and that this problem is likely to be exacerbated after Brexit. This is due to the potential for increased demand for veterinary surgeons in areas such as export certification, and also the likelihood that fewer veterinary surgeons from the European Union will be joining the Register. It also reiterated the importance of veterinary surgeons in areas such as public health, food safety, disease surveillance and control, as well as education, research, clinical practice and animal welfare.
RCVS President Amanda Boag said: "We are very pleased to see that our submission, made with our colleagues at the BVA, has been welcomed by the Committee and that this recommendation will now be going to the key decision-makers at the Home Office for consideration. While we are still unaware of how the process of the UK leaving the EU will pan out, this is a very important step in ensuring the future security of the profession and mitigating against worsening workforce shortages.
"We would reiterate to the Government that the UK is currently reliant on overseas registrants to meet the demand for veterinary surgeons, with veterinary surgeons from the rest of the EU making up around 50% of new registrants each year. By adding veterinary surgeons to the Shortage Occupation List, and therefore reducing the immigration requirements needed to live and work in the UK, the Government will be helping ensure vital veterinary work continues to be done particularly in areas such as food safety and public health."
Simon Doherty, BVA President, said: "MAC’s recommendation is a huge win for animal welfare and a resounding vote of confidence in the veterinary community and the multiple benefits it realises across the UK. We are absolutely delighted that the committee has heeded our calls and recognised the need to reinstate vets on the list to keep workforce supply and resilience high in the unpredictable times ahead."
The letter outlines how the organisations want to work with the government to ensure the best possible outcome for animal health and welfare, public health and the veterinary profession post-Brexit, but also voices concern that perceptions of ‘anti-foreigner’ rhetoric may already be having an impact on the veterinary workforce.
Here is the full text of the letter sent to the Prime Minister on the afternoon of Tuesday 18 October 2016:
Dear Prime Minister,
Like all professions and sectors, we are currently involved in detailed debates regarding how Brexit is likely to affect our members and how we can best harness the opportunities it may present. We are very keen to work with the government to make a success of Brexit within our sector. The veterinary profession plays a crucial role in protecting public health, relies heavily on EU graduates and is already feeling the impact of the EU referendum.
The UK veterinary profession is made up of over 26,000 veterinary surgeons and over 11,000 veterinary nurses, working to improve the health and welfare of animals, to monitor and control the spread of diseases, and to assure the safety of the food we eat. Each year around 50% of veterinary surgeons registering to practise in the UK are from overseas, with the vast majority coming from the EU. EU veterinary surgeons make a particularly strong contribution to public health critical roles such as working in the Government Veterinary Services. In the meat hygiene sector some estimates suggest 95% of veterinary surgeons graduated overseas. Consequently, Brexit and accompanying changes to the mutual recognition system or immigration restrictions could have a profound impact upon the veterinary workforce.
We are currently considering how best to manage the potential impact on the veterinary workforce, and will be very pleased to discuss these issues with the relevant government departments in due course. However, even before Article 50 is triggered we are experiencing a negative impact on the existing veterinary workforce.
We have received reports that the increasing focus on foreign workers is causing personal distress to individual members of the veterinary profession who live and work in the UK. There are also reports of a negative impact on recruitment and retention: those involved in public health critical roles, such as meat hygiene, are having increasing difficulty recruiting much needed EU veterinary surgeons to work in the UK; leading experts from overseas are turning down employment offers from top UK universities; and many others are considering leaving the UK due to a feeling it is no longer welcoming to foreigners. There is a danger that the language and rhetoric around Brexit, alongside the ongoing uncertainty for non-British EU citizens, could seriously impact the veterinary profession’s ability to fulfil its essential roles.
The government has encouraged professions like ours to present factual data on the EU migration issues so that you can fully understand the challenges the country faces. The RCVS has begun the process of commissioning detailed research into the impact that Brexit is having upon those working in the profession and the implications this could have for the veterinary workforce. We will keep your officials informed as to the results of this research.
In the meantime, we reiterate our call for the government to protect the status of non-British EU vets and vet nurses currently working and studying in the UK, and urge Ministers to be mindful of the negative impact of what may be perceived as ‘anti-foreigner’ rhetoric.
We are committed to working with you to identify opportunities created by Brexit for animal health and welfare, public health and veterinary research and to realise our joint vision for the UK to continue to lead in these areas, and we are keen to maintain close communication with you and your colleagues as the negotiations develop.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Tufnell, President, Royal College of Veterinary SurgeonsGudrun Ravetz, President, British Veterinary Association
Mr Wilson faced two charges. The first was that in October 2017, he provided inaccurate information to an insurer in respect of a Labrador he treated by saying that the dog was presented to him with a lame left foreleg on 13 June 2017, when in fact the dog was presented for treatment on 7 June 2017 and that his conduct was therefore dishonest and misleading.
The second charge was that between 17 January 2017 and 17 January 2018 he failed to have any arrangements in place for Professional Indemnity Insurance (a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct) and then, that between 8 January and 5 December 2019, he failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS regarding his Professional Indemnity Insurance.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee to adjourn the hearing subject to the Committee accepting his undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.
Mr Wilson’s legal representative at the hearing submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that granting the application would be in the public interest on the basis that Mr Wilson was 68 years of age and had now retired from the profession and closed his practice, that he had dedicated his entire working life to veterinary practice, had a previously long and unblemished career with no other complaints, and that he was well-regarded by clients and professional colleagues.
The application was not opposed by the RCVS whose representative informed the Committee that, relating to the charge of dishonesty, the College had taken into account that the insurance claim form was not submitted by Mr Wilson himself, and that there is no evidence of any financial motivation behind the charge nor any allegation of harm to an animal.
Taking into account the submissions from Mr Wilson’s representatives and from the RCVS, as well as precedent cases for such applications, the Committee decided that Mr Wilson’s voluntary undertakings went well beyond any sanction that could be imposed by the Committee and considered that the application would protect the public interest, confidence in the profession, and the welfare of animals.
Professor Alistair Barr FRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee. Taking into account proportionality, and weighing in the balance the public interest, the interests of justice, the need to protect the welfare of animals, as well as the interests of both parties, the Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.
Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.
The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.
Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.
The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".
Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.
The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.
Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.
"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.
Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".
Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."
The RCVS Council has approved the new Strategic Plan designed to bring the College closer to its vision of enhancing society through improved animal health and welfare, over the next three years.
The Strategic Plan is founded on feedback from the profession and the public about what the College does well and where it could do better, and an analysis of how other leading regulators operate. It includes 35 actions, clustered under five themes, all centred on the purpose of setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.
For example, the College aims to introduce a service charter - for the public and the profession - of rights, expectations and responsibilities for each of its functions.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "This drive for excellent service lies at the heart of our focus on improvement.
"The concept of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as well as the public, being our 'customers', was one that unsettled the profession when it was first mooted. But I believe that only by ensuring that we focus relentlessly on improving how we interact with our customers will we deliver a service for the profession, the public, and, ultimately, the UK's animals, which is worthy of the name first-rate regulator."
Amongst other things, the Plan also commits to:
The Strategic Plan can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/strategy.
Also at its November meeting, Council approved:
More information on all of these topics will be available in the November issue of RCVS News, online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
You can also hear direct from the CEO via his post-Council video update: www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos.