The panel, chaired by veterinary ethicist Professor David Morton CBE, was established last year on a trial basis as a means of offering an ethical review process for practice-based research projects that may not have the same access to resources as clinical studies in academia or industry.
Since its establishment at the end of July last year it has received 23 applications, mostly concerning small animal clinical studies. However, due to demand from the profession, it will shortly be considering applications for equine or farm animal-based research and will be recruiting new panel members to cover these areas.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Although the number of cases considered so far have been relatively small, the service has been very well received as a means of providing ethical review to those who might not otherwise be able to do so and so, therefore, might struggle to get papers published.
"Considering the importance of practice-based research we expect there to be an increase in the number of applications as word gets out about the service and so are happy to extend the trial for another year and for it to consider a wider range of applications."
Further details about the Panel, as well as guidelines for making applications and the application forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
For an initial discussion about submitting an application to the Ethics Review Panel, contact Beth Jinks, Standards and Advisory Officer, on 020 7202 0764 or ethics@rcvs.org.uk
Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.
Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.
The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.
It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.
“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.
"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.
"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.
“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”
He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The College says it has become increasingly recognisant of how a blame culture can lead to a fear of making mistakes, something which can have a negative impact on both the mental health and wellbeing of members of the profession and, ultimately, animal health and welfare.
The anonymous online survey, which is being conducted by the Open Minds Alliance, is described by the College as a major step towards moving to a learning culture which has a greater focus on openness, reflective practice, learning and personal development.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: "Moving towards a learning culture is one of the key aims of our Strategic Plan 2017-19 and we have already started to make some progress in this area with our Mind Matters Initiative, for example. This survey will help establish a baseline against which we can measure any improvements over the course of the next three years.
"As a regulator this is part of our attempt to be much clearer about the kind of culture we would like to see in the professions; one that encourages members of the veterinary team to learn from each other, and from their mistakes, and to be more open about when things do go wrong in order to better manage public and professional expectations.
"By moving towards a learning culture we can also hopefully reduce levels of stress and mental ill-health within the profession, as practitioners will feel they can be more open about their mistakes and take steps to improve their practice – rather than feeling like they cannot talk about what goes wrong, which can lead to fear and anxiety.
"This is no easy task – particularly when public expectations of what veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can and should do is increasing – but we hope that by being brave and open about this new ambition we can galvanise veterinary associations, educators, practices and individual veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and make a real difference."
The survey will also be asking to what extent members of the profession feel that the College, as the regulator, contributes to any blame culture and where improvements could be made to the concerns investigation and disciplinary process to help combat it.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, added: "It is a common misconception that if you make a mistake then this will be investigated by the College and you will end up in front of a Disciplinary Committee.
"However, we recognise that mistakes can and will happen and that expecting 100% perfection is unrealistic. The real professional conduct issues arise when members of the profession try to cover up their mistakes, whether that is to professional colleagues or clients, which often does far more damage than if the person was open and honest about what had gone wrong.
"We do also accept that there is always room for improvement in our own processes and if there are positive steps we can take to make the investigation and disciplinary process less onerous for members of the professions then we would like to hear your suggestions."
Click here to take part in the survey.
Stephen has been an elected member of RCVS Council since 2012, having previously been an appointed member of Council representing the Royal Veterinary College between 2001 and 2009.
In 2016 he was re-elected to Council to serve a further four-year term and currently chairs the Legislation Working Party.
Stephen graduated from Cambridge in 1980 and subsequently spent time as a large animal practitioner. After undertaking further training in equine surgery and diagnostic imaging at the University of Liverpool, he studied for a PhD at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) before returning to Liverpool as a Lecturer in Equine Orthopaedics.
He went back to the RVC in 1993 to concentrate on equine clinical services and, in 1997, became Head of the Farm Animal and Equine Clinical Department. He was appointed the RVC’s Vice-Principal for Teaching from 2000 to 2013, Deputy Principal from 2013 to 2017 and currently holds the post of Senior Vice-Principal.
Addressing the need for a learning culture in his speech Stephen said: "Veterinary graduates have never had greater knowledge and technical skills than those graduating this year. But this can make their job so much harder when the certainty of scientific knowledge is confronted with the uncertainties of the sick animal, and the increasing number of possibilities for treatment have to be weighted alongside ethical and economic considerations.
"Of his age, but also prophetic of our age, the philosopher Bertrand Russell commented that 'habits of thought cannot change as quickly as techniques with the result that as skill increases, wisdom fails'.
"So it is important that our young professionals are well-prepared in terms of professional, non-technical skills to cope with the sheer variety of challenges that they encounter, and we, as a profession, within our professional model, provide a nurturing learning culture rather than the blame and cover-up culture that the current emphasis on external regulation fosters, so pervasively and distressingly."
Stephen added that his other priorities would be working with the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders to uphold the College’s first Brexit principle that 'vital veterinary work continues to get done', a project on graduate outcomes, which flows from the Vet Futures project, and the Legislation Working Party.
The interviews give an insight into the career advice the interviewees got from their school, what steps they took to secure their place to study for their qualification, what hurdles they had to overcome and what can be done to address issues around the under-representation of some groups within the profession.
The College says the aim is to help inspire school age children to consider a veterinary career through frank conversations with role models who have chosen a vet or vet nursing career.
The first film is an interview with Rheanna Ellis, a 2021 Nottingham Vet School graduate who is now working as a veterinary surgeon at a West Midlands practice. In her interview she talks about her passion to become a vet from a young age, how she went about researching and preparing for her job, and the importance of perseverance.
To help promote the videos and the College’s ongoing work on diversity and inclusion, the RCVS has partnered with the official Black History Month campaign and website which will also be hosting the videos.
Many of the interviews have been carried out by Mandisa Greene, RCVS Senior Vice-President, who helped lead the RCVS Black History Month activities last year as the College’s first ever black President.
Mandisa said: “It’s important that we demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion and have a role in acknowledging and accentuating diverse voices within the professions. Throughout these video interviews I’ve had the opportunity to speak to some inspiring newly qualified and student veterinary professionals who are all clearly very passionate about supporting animal health and welfare.
“I hope that school children from all backgrounds who watch these videos will get the chance to see how rewarding and enjoyable a veterinary career can be and that they’ll be inspired to consider becoming a vet or vet nurse in the future.”
The RCVS will be publishing more video interviews on its YouTube channel through October and beyond.
The RCVS reports that its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial is now nearing completion with over two-thirds of its target number of cases either resolved or in process.
The year-long trial, which began in November 2014, aims to gather the evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme which would provide a way of adjudicating on concerns raised about a veterinary surgeon that do not meet the RCVS threshold of serious professional misconduct.
The aim of the trial, which is administered by the independent, not-for-profit Ombudsman Services, is to make determinations on around 100 cases in order to gather information about types of concern, time taken to resolve disputes, recommendations and how likely each party is to accept recommendations. As of this week some 72 cases have been referred to the trial scheme, with final decisions made in relation to 54 of these cases.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace was responsible for pushing forward the trial believing that “what is good for the consumer is good for the profession”. The College also says it brings it into line with a European Union Directive on alternative dispute resolution which, while not legally binding, specifies that regulators and other ‘competent authorities’ should have consumer redress systems in place.
Nick said: “The majority of cases are either being determined in the veterinary surgeon’s favour or finding that they need take no further action in order to resolve the dispute. Where recommendations have been made in favour of the client, the suggested remedies have generally been for a small goodwill payment to be made.
“However, the trial has not been without some frustrations so far. The fact that participation in the trial is entirely voluntary has meant that, in many cases, members of the profession have chosen not to take part.
“With this in mind, it is very important to stress the benefits of the trial to the profession – chiefly that many of the vets who chose to take part have had their actions exonerated by Ombudsman Services in a way that a concern being closed by our Professional Conduct Department does not. For clients, where a vet does have a case to answer, it gives them the chance to seek recompense without having to resort to legal action.
“Regardless of which way the decision goes in any of these cases, participating in the trial can bring these often long-standing and burdensome disputes to a close.”
The trial will continue to run until the end of October and a full report and recommendations will be presented to RCVS Council at its meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. Full details of the trial and its parameters can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.
The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.
Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.
Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.
"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.
"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."
David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."
Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."
The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses.
On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."
RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."
The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for six months, having found that her falsification of clinical records amounted to serious professional misconduct.
At the two-day hearing, Dr Nicola Ersilova was charged with, and admitted to, three separate incidences of false and dishonest clinical record keeping following her treatment of a collapsed cat, whilst working at Vets Now in Thamesmead, London.
The Committee heard how Dr Ersilova had suspected that Lafite the cat, belonging to Mr Yingzhan Xiao, had been poisoned, so administered fluids and treated her with Lidocaine. A lay colleague, who was assisting with the treatment, subsequently observed Dr Ersilova standing staring at the cat, which had stopped breathing, then leaving the room to go and speak to Mr Xiao. The lay colleague's evidence confirmed to the Committee that Lafite's heart was still beating at this point, and that Dr Ersilova was then heard telling Mr Xiao that Lafite had died while being treated. The lay colleague later discovered that Dr Ersilova had listed calcium gluconate on Mr Xiao's bill and not Lidocaine and, when she questioned the entry, Dr Ersilova told her she was worried about getting into trouble if she had listed Lidocaine.
Whilst reporting these irregularities to the senior veterinary surgeon at Vets Now, the lay colleague noticed that Dr Ersilova had also written "CPR unsuccessful" in the notes, although she was certain CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) had not been attempted.
During a subsequent Vets Now investigation, Dr Ersilova admitted adding this false information concerning Lidocaine, calcium gluconate and CPR, saying during interview that she was aware it was serious professional misconduct and that she was prepared to take the consequences. Vets Now reported the matter to the RCVS.
The Committee considered that all evidence before it fully supported the charges against Dr Ersilova, that her conduct was clearly dishonest, and that her actions were inexcusable, especially for someone as experienced as she was. It stated that a veterinary surgeon's duty to make only truthful and accurate records was so manifest and well known to veterinary surgeons that there could be no real excuse to make such false, misleading and dishonest entries.
The Committee highlighted the comment by Dr Ersilova that she knew she had done something wrong but did not expect her colleague to report her, as providing no explanation, or excuse, for doing something which she knew to be wrong.
A number of submissions were made to the Committee in mitigation, including that Dr Ersilova had admitted her dishonesty to both her employers and the Committee; had an otherwise unblemished record over 22 years of practice; had received no immediate financial gain by her actions; and, did not cause any animal suffering.
Accepting these submissions, the Committee nevertheless felt it needed to balance them against other factors. Dr Ersilova's decision to falsify the records was premeditated and had not been taken without an opportunity for full reflection. There were numerous entries in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct that highlighted the importance of professional integrity and accuracy, and, given the importance which the Code attached to the duty of veterinary surgeons to be truthful and honest in all their dealings with their clients, the Committee found Dr Ersilova's conduct to be "most reprehensible".
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Professor Sheila Crispin, said: "It is of great importance that the public should be able to retain confidence in the honesty and integrity of members of the profession. Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated.
"It is [our] decision that the sanction of suspension adequately reflects the seriousness of the [Dr Ersilova's] conduct. The sanction imposed is ... the most appropriate to inform the profession how seriously such dishonest conduct will be taken, because such conduct clearly brings the profession into disrepute and ... cannot and will not be tolerated."
The Committee then concluded that the least period of suspension that could be justified was one of six months.
There will now be significant changes to the RCVS Council, as follows:
A gradual reduction in the number of elected members of RCVS Council from the current 24 to 13 by the year 2021.
A change of composition to include six lay members and two veterinary nurse members. Furthermore, the number of Council members appointed by each university whose veterinary degree is recognised by the RCVS will be reduced from two to one and Privy Council will no longer be required to appoint members. From 1 July 2020 university membership will undergo further changes as, from then on, veterinary schools will collectively appoint three members in total to serve on Council.
Members of Council will no longer be able to serve more than three consecutive four-year terms of office and, after serving three consecutive terms, they will not be eligible to re-stand as a candidate for two years.
Members of Council may be removed from office if they fail to satisfy any conditions about fitness to be a member, as determined by their peers on Council. If removed from office they will not be eligible to re-stand as a candidate for two years.
Introducing the LRO before the House of Lords last Tuesday, Lord Gardiner of Kimble said: "The proposed changes… reduce the size of Council and revise the balance of membership between vets and non-vets, including veterinary nurses and lay persons. They will bring the RCVS in-line with many other modern-day regulatory bodies and allow for greater efficiency, transparency and accountability to both members and the general public. For all the reasons I have outlined today, I commend the use of Legislative Reform Order to make changes that will benefit the veterinary profession."
The full text of the Legislative Reform Order can be found on www.legislation.gov.uk and the full transcript of the debate in the House of Lords can be found in Hansard Online (https://hansard.parliament.uk).
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "We have been looking at reform of Council as an issue of some urgency since 2013, in recognition of the fact that, with the formula-driven growth of Council, it was becoming unwieldy, which has an impact on the cost of each meeting and the frequency with which it could reasonably meet.
"This reform has been long in gestation and so we are glad that this has now been approved and that we can look forward to a more modern, agile and efficient governance structure, aimed as always at benefitting the professions, animal owners and animal health and welfare."
One immediate impact of the LRO relates to the results of this year’s RCVS Council election as the Ministerial sign-off now confirms that only the first three candidates (in order of number of votes) will take up their four-year terms at RCVS Day on Friday 13 July 2018. These are Susan Paterson, Mandisa Greene and Neil Smith, all of whom are current members who were re-elected.
The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council agreed reforms to its own governance last year, including shortening the term of office from four years to three years; introducing a consecutive three-term limit for elected members; and, reducing the size and changing the composition of VN Council to six elected veterinary nurses, two appointed veterinary nurse members, two appointed veterinary surgeon members from RCVS Council, and four appointed lay members.
Over 1,200 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, including around 800 UK-practising veterinary surgeons, have not yet paid their retention fees, and face being removed from the Register if they do not pay before 29 May 2010.
Veterinary surgeons must be registered with the College in order to practise legally in the UK. Retention fees are due by the end of March each year, and the College allows a further two-month period before removing veterinary surgeons from the Register, during which time reminders are issued.
There is still just time for payment to be made by credit card, bank transfer or cheque. Payments cannot be made over the telephone.
Those who have recently changed address, practice address or bank details are urged to check that payments have been properly processed. It is the responsibility of individual members to ensure payment has been made, even if an employer pays the fee. Those whose names are removed for non-payment after 29 May will no longer be able to practise legally in the UK, and would need to pay an additional fee if they wished to be restored to the Register.
Bill Mavir, VDS Chairman said: "Registration with the RCVS is a prerequisite for membership of the Veterinary Defence Society and the provision of professional indemnity insurance."
The RCVS played a proactive role in Mr Keniry’s arrest and trial after its Chief Investigator, Michael Hepper, was alerted to the fact that he was working at a veterinary practice in Taunton, Somerset.
Within 24 hours Mr Hepper reported this to Avon & Somerset Police and attended the practice with officers to assist in Mr Keniry’s identification and arrest. Mr Hepper continued to assist with police investigations and gave a witness statement.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are grateful to the veterinary professional who voiced her suspicions to us, to our Chief Investigator who reacted quickly to confirm his identity and report the matter to the police and to Avon & Somerset Police for taking matters forward so quickly.
"Mr Keniry was known to the RCVS as we have assisted in previous police investigations into him for similar offences. As with recent cases Mr Keniry impersonated a legitimate member of the veterinary profession using fraudulent documentation and this is why we have previously published photographs of him to raise awareness with veterinary practices and to try and stop him being employed in the future.
"We believe that Mr Keniry is a threat to animal health and welfare. He is a repeat offender and so we are glad that he has been handed a significant custodial sentence.
"While sophisticated and convincing fraudsters like Mr Keniry can be very difficult to prevent, we would urge veterinary practices to be vigilant. For example, we recommend that potential employers contact our Registration Department to make checks, always interview a potential employee face-to-face, ask to see supporting identity documents, prepare questions which confirm where and when they studied, obtain references and, if they are employed, mentor the new member of staff to oversee their performance.
"For members of the public we recommend that, if they have concerns about the legitimacy of their veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurses, they talk to someone else in the practice about their concerns or contact us so that we can make further enquiries. Members of the public can also check on the status of veterinary professionals using our Find a Vet search tool: www.findavet.org.uk.
"We would like to emphasise that cases such as that of Peter Keniry are, in our experience, extremely rare. There are around 23,000 veterinary surgeons registered to practise in the UK who are fully trained professionals dedicated to upholding and improving the health and welfare of animals under their care. We don’t believe that the unprecedented actions of this one fraudulent individual should in any way undermine the confidence and trust that animal owners place in their veterinary team."
Dr Briggs faced four charges and admitted to her conduct in the first three at the outset.
They related to three official Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) clinical investigation report forms she submitted following three official avian flu surveillance visits she'd undertaken as an Official Veterinarian (OV).
The three surveillance visits all took place during an outbreak of avian influenza in North Yorkshire and were on behalf of the APHA.
Dr Briggs admitted that she'd certified on each of the three forms that she had inspected specific poultry, that she had seen no clinical signs of avian influenza in the poultry and that in her opinion avian influenza did not exist and had not existed in the previous 56 days.
Dr Briggs also admitted that that she had subsequently submitted the three forms to the APHA.
The fourth charge alleged Dr Briggs conduct in certifying the three forms had been dishonest and that her actions risked undermining procedures, regulations and rules designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs denied that she had been dishonest in any of her actions but admitted that her conduct had risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs explained that in two cases she had relied on information given to her by the keepers of the poultry and in the remaining case it was possible that she had not visited the correct location of the poultry, had posted a letter through the wrong door and had then accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form to APHA.
Having heard evidence from the relevant poultry keepers, fellow Official Veterinarians, officials from the APHA and Dr Briggs herself, the Committee gave its determinations on dishonesty.
In relation to the first two charges, which concerned the visits that did take place, the Committee found Dr Briggs had been dishonest both in submitting the inspection forms to the APHA and also in certifying that she had seen no clinical signs or history of avian influenza in both cases.
The Committee concluded that an ordinary decent person would regard the submission of a signed form which contained false information as dishonest.
It also concluded that Dr Briggs had deliberately signed an official form which contained information which she knew to be untrue.
However, the Committee found that Dr Briggs was not dishonest in asserting on these forms that she was of the opinion that disease did not exist based upon the information provided to her by the poultry keepers.
In relation to the third charge, where Dr Briggs did not visit the property concerned, the Committee did not find it proven that she had been dishonest, having heard her evidence that, in this case, she had accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form.
The Committee next considered whether the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “In considering the seriousness of the misconduct, the Committee took into account the fact that the misconduct had involved dishonesty, that there had been a risk of injury to animals and humans (though this risk had not materialised), and that the misconduct had occurred when the respondent, as an Official Veterinarian, occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility.”
He added: “The Committee considered that honest, accurate and careful veterinary certification was a fundamental component of the responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon.
"The matters which the Committee had found to be proved fell far short of the standards expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and amounted, in the Committee’s judgment, to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Briggs the Committee heard positive character testimonials from former employers and clients, as well as a representative from the APHA who said that Dr Briggs had shown contrition for the breaches while recognising that there was unlikely to be a repetition of the conduct and that Dr Briggs was a relatively new and inexperienced vet at the time of her actions.
Mr Morris said: “In the Committee’s judgement the circumstances of the incident were a mitigating factor in the sense that the respondent was working in a pressurised environment, and in a field of practice which was unfamiliar to her.
"The Committee had heard a considerable amount of evidence from various witnesses that the surveillance system created, to monitor the prevalence of avian influenza was one which placed considerable pressure on OVs and, perhaps inevitably, had some shortcomings.
"The respondent had not worked with poultry before so her inexperience in this area fed into this situation.
“The Committee took into account the fact that no actual harm had occurred and there was no financial gain to the respondent.
"The matters with which the Committee was concerned formed a highly unusual, and short-lived, episode in the respondent’s career.”
The Committee also considered that Dr Briggs had made open and frank admissions regarding most of the charges against her and had also shown genuine contrition over her failings.
In light of this, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction.
Mr Morris added: “False certification can never be acceptable.
"Veterinary surgeons should never certify any matter which they know, or ought to know, not to be true.
"However, the Committee considered that this case was at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity of false certification cases, that there is no future risk to animals and that the respondent has demonstrated insight.
"In relation to the public interest, the Committee considered that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would recognise that, in all the circumstances of this particular case, a reprimand and warning as to future conduct would be sufficient to satisfy the public interest.”
The Clinical Supervisor course is designed to help veterinary surgeons to guide their students in developing the professional behaviours and Day One Skills they need to join the Register.
The course is also designed to complement any existing training that a vet who is a Clinical Supervisor has received from the college or university for which they are supervising the SVN.
RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing Julie Dugmore said: “This course will help you undertake your role as a coach and assessor, ensuring your student has achieved the RCVS requirements by the time they have completed the practical elements of their training.
“It comprises modules that include the role and functions of a Clinical Supervisor, the types of professional behaviours SVNs need to develop and understanding of the Day One Skills in which they need to become competent.
"In addition, it will enhance the training Clinical Supervisors will receive from the relevant educational institution by promoting understanding of the RCVS requirements.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/vndayonecompetences
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “It’s clear that there are a number of workforce issues affecting the professions, such as high vacancy rates that employers are struggling to fill and a resultant increase in pressure on the professions in terms of caseload and hours worked, together with an increase in the number of people choosing to leave the professions.
“While many of these issues are long-standing, and due to complex and multifactorial reasons, the scale of the problem has been exacerbated by three things: the UK’s exit from the EU and the impact this has had on overseas registrants; the ongoing impact of the pandemic in areas such as staff absence and burnout; and an increase in demand for veterinary services.
The reports were published in advance of the College's Workforce Summit, held at the end of November to discuss potential solutions to the problems.
They can be downloaded here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/workforce-summit-2021/
A further report of the Workforce Summit is expected in due course, which the College says will include an action plan with commitments from a range of stakeholders.
The RCVS has launched a mobile version of the Code of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses: an app for Android devices and a web app for Apple users.
Once installed, the app provides smartphone and tablet users with a mobile-friendly version of the Code and all 27 chapters of supporting guidance in their pockets, even when there is no network connection. Whenever the Code is updated, the latest version will be available to download the next time the device is online.
Head of Communications, Lizzie Lockett, said: "Our new app provides easy access to the Code, so busy veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can now keep our guidance to hand, even when out and about. It's never been easier to ensure that you're always working to the Code's principles of veterinary practice and professional responsibilities."
The app also offers a keyword search of the whole Code and supporting guidance, links to other sources of information and contact details for further advice over the phone or email.
To install the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct app on your android device, visit Google Play and search for 'RCVS code'. To install it on an Apple device, visit the RCVS Code web pages in the device's internet browser, click on the app link in the Code tool box on the right hand side, and follow the instructions.
Alternatively, a copy of the full Code and all supporting guidance can now be downloaded in PDF format from the RCVS website, date-stamped so that you know when it was last amended.
Visit www.rcvs.org.uk/code or www.rcvs.org.uk/vncode and see the 'Code tools' box for both the PDF and the web app.
The College says it would very much like feedback about the app, or suggestions for future apps - email Christine James in the Communications Department, on christinej@rcvs.org.uk.
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s elections, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
Mr John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
Ballot papers and candidates' details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a link to a secure voting site unique to each member of the electorate has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
This year the College invited all election candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. All videos have been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18) and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
Key question themes this year included recruitment and retention, the College’s concerns investigation process and veterinary education. The list of accepted questions has also been published on the RCVS website.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we had a record number and proportion of the electorate vote in an RCVS Council election and we would once again stress the importance of voting to ensure that you have a say in the future direction of travel for the College and its policies."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.
RCVS Council member Professor the Lord Trees has today submitted a Private Members’ Bill to the ballot of the House of Lords which would legally protect the title ‘Veterinary Nurse’.
If the Bill is drawn sufficiently highly in the ballot, it will be debated in the Lords and the Commons. If approved by both Houses, it'll become law.
As it is drawn up, the Bill would prohibit use of the title ‘Veterinary Nurse’ for any person whose name is not on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Nurses. Any non-registered person who used the title Veterinary Nurse or a name, title or description that implied they were on the Register would be guilty of an offence and may be fined or convicted under the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
Lord Trees said: “It is very exciting, and a privilege, to be entering a Private Members’ Bill to protect the title veterinary nurse into the ballot for Private Members’ Bills in Parliament. If we are drawn high enough in the ballot and if we can get Parliamentary time – two important ‘ifs’ – I am confident that the Bill will receive total cross-party support.
“It would mark the final brick in the wall of creating a fully-fledged, recognised and protected veterinary nursing profession. This is what the veterinary nursing profession merits and the public deserve.”
The House of Lords ballot will be drawn before the summer recess. In the meantime, the RCVS is encouraging registered veterinary nurses to back its campaign to protect the title and raise awareness of the issue with their clients.
Further details about the campaign, including a short animated film, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vntitle
The College says that although professional bodies advise their members to value their own wellbeing and seek help if unwell, there has been an absence of senior professionals who have felt able to say 'been there myself'.
By asking senior medical professionals to share their stories of overcoming struggles with mental health, &me aims to encourage other medical professionals to seek help, in part by showing that such experiences do not exclude people from achieving leading roles in healthcare.
With the addition of Dr Cathy Wield in August, there are now seven ambassadors for the &me campaign, and all of their stories can be read at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me:
Lizzie Lockett, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: "Over the past eight months we have seen an incredible level of support for our &me ambassadors. Our Facebook post about Rob Pettitt, for example, reached nearly 25,000 people, many of whom posted stories about Rob helping them navigate veterinary school and better understand their own mental health issues. These kind of role models really do help reduce stigma, and we thank every one of our ambassadors for having the courage to share their own experiences with mental health."
Louise Freeman, Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network, said: "The &me campaign has really shown how the medical professions can work together when it comes to mental health. Medical professionals face many of the same challenges, and we needn’t face them alone – instead we can work as one to tackle stigma and speak openly about mental health issues. And it’s not just in the UK that health professionals can feel as if they are ‘not allowed’ to experience mental health problems. As a direct result of the &me campaign, health professionals from around the world including Australia and the U.S. have been in contact with DSN to confirm that they have similar issues within their local health culture."
The campaign is still interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill health. To participate in the campaign, please email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.
On social media tweets about the campaign are sent from @vetmindmatters and @DocSupportNet twitter accounts using the hashtag #AndMe.
The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.
The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.
The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.
At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.
Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.
In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.
The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.
However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.
Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.
"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”
The Tweets
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who formerly practised in Norwich should be removed from the Register, having found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery following his Crown Court conviction for fraud.
During the one-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard how Francisco da Cruz had abused his position whilst practising as a veterinary surgeon at Hellesdon Vets, his then workplace in Norwich, by defrauding a insurance companies of around £10,000 with fictitious claims for veterinary treatment on non-existent pets.
Following an investigation by the City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), Mr da Cruz was convicted on five counts of fraud by false representation on 21 February 2013 at the Old Bailey in London, and later sentenced to eight months' imprisonment (suspended for two years) and 200 hours of unpaid community work; he was also ordered to pay just over £10,000 in compensation and costs.
Although Mr da Cruz had left the UK for Brazil shortly after his sentencing and was therefore not present at the hearing, the Committee was satisfied that he was deliberately evading the disciplinary proceedings, rather than being genuinely unable to participate in them, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
First accepting the copy certificate of conviction against Mr da Cruz as true, the Committee then had no hesitation in concluding that these convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a member of the veterinary profession. It found that the five counts of fraud were deliberate crimes of dishonesty, committed over a significant period of time and for significant financial gain. He had abused his position as a veterinary surgeon and abused the trust which the insurers placed in him as a professional.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has no real confidence that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour from the Respondent. His conduct subsequent to the criminal proceedings gives it no confidence that he has reformed himself to the extent that he will in the foreseeable future be fit to return to practice. So far from satisfactorily completing his criminal sentence, it appears that the Respondent has deliberately gone abroad to avoid doing so."
Bearing in mind that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish Mr da Cruz, but to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct within it, the Committee concluded that the convictions were too serious to allow any sanction other than removal from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's decisions are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The awards, which were first launched last year, are open to UK practices, branch surgeries or other organisations who employ veterinary surgeons or nurses. They were created to highlight wellbeing in the veterinary profession and celebrate workplaces where:
• health and happiness are valued;• there are systems and initiatives that motivate;• staff are engaged;• communication is positive;• there is commitment to being a better place to work.
The prize for each category includes two registrations and banquet tickets for SPVS/VPMA Congress 2018 where the winners will be announced to the media and will be available for interview.
Practices that are thinking about applying can now access a free five-minute Wellbeing Checklist that can help provide examples of some simple activities that can improve the health and wellbeing of the veterinary team.
Nick Stuart from SPVS said: "Taking five minutes to fill out the Wellbeing Checklist is a great way to get a sense of how your practice is doing, and to identify ways in which you could improve. Practices are often doing a lot more than they realise and the Checklist shows how even such small steps as a having a fruit bowl in the staff room, or having a five-minute huddle at the start of the day, can make a huge difference."
Lizzie Lockett, MMI Director, said: "Having a supportive and constructive culture is key not just for the welfare of the staff, but for the animals they take care of. It allows all members of the team to feel comfortable coming forward with questions, clarifications, or even mistakes, and can ultimately lead to safer and more consistent care for patients."
Entries can be made now via the website www.vetwellbeingawards.org.uk, where the Wellbeing Checklist is also available.
The closing date for entries is Friday 15 December 2017. You can follow the awards on twitter @vetwellbeing and Facebook /vetwellbeingawards/.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Kent veterinary surgeon from the Register for eight months after he was found guilty of dishonest certification.
At the outset of the hearing held on 14/15 December, Takeshi Okano, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Deal, Kent, admitted charges that, whilst acting as Official Veterinarian, he had signed a number of certificates when he knew that did not have all the information needed to do so.
On 23 June 2009, Mr Okano had been asked to act as Official Veterinarian to examine four horses and sign the certificates necessary for their export to the USA. The certificates required Mr Okano to certify he had received a written declaration from the owners that the animals had been in the UK for 60 days previously. Mr Okano also signed certificates indicating that the horses had only been in France, Ireland, or the UK for the same 60-day period. Despite having received no such declarations, and having no information whatsoever of where the horses had been, Mr Okano signed the certificates. At the hearing, no explanation for Mr Okano's actions was offered.
Mrs Beverley Cottrell, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The validity of any certificate is an integral part of the system relating to the export or import of animals. At Section G of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, emphasis is given to the importance of certification, the importance of the signature and the guidance issued by DEFRA. These provisions are well known to the profession."
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Okano's actions in signing the certificates without the owners' declarations amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. In reaching a decision on sanction, it considered that, whilst a reprimand or warning would not be appropriate, neither would removing Mr Okano's name from the Register be proportionate, or necessary either in the public interest or to protect animals.
"Mr Okano is a young veterinary surgeon at the start of his career, who from the outset admitted his actions," said Mrs Cottrell noting that the testimonials from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and clients, and his record of Continuing Professional Development demonstrated his commitment to high standards within the profession. "In reaching this decision, we have paid particular regard to the fact the false certification was neither persistent nor concealed, nor was he a senior veterinary surgeon."
The Committee directed Mr Okano's name be suspended from the Register for eight months.
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received the funds from the EU (which amounted to a few thousand euros), and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary