As part of its review, the College had planned a series of focus groups of veterinary surgeons and nurses across the UK. However, these have had to be delayed both because of social distancing rules and because of the pressures that practice teams are currently working under. However, the agency tasked with hosting the focus groups is now exploring alternative options and it is hoped there will be a revised timetable soon.
In the meantime, the College says it now plans to commission an additional independent agency to survey veterinary surgeons about their experience of remote prescribing during lockdown.
In March, RCVS Council agreed to temporarily allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, subject to a number of conditions and safeguards being in place.
This position is due for review by 30th June, and the College will be looking for feedback and data from veterinary surgeons about your experience of remote prescribing, in order to determine whether these arrangements can continue, with or without any extra safeguards.
Because remote prescribing is also one of the most important aspects of the planned under care review, feedback gathered now will help inform future discussions too.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: “We recognise the current conditions that veterinary practices are working under in no way represent normal practice life. Most practices will not have been set up to offer remote services and remote prescribing in a way that they might have chosen, given sufficient time and appropriate detailed guidance, if indeed there are any future guidance changes after the review.
"However, we feel it would be remiss of us not to seize the opportunity arising from this current crisis to ask about the experiences – good or bad – of those on the frontline of clinical veterinary practice in providing remote services to their clients.
"Whilst this will be no substitute for the formal evidence gathered by the research agency in due course, whatever data and feedback we can collate from veterinary practices at this unique time for our professions will, I’m sure, be extremely valuable to our ongoing discussions."
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
The webinar was hosted by RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Melissa Donald, with Standards Committee Chair and Junior Vice-President Linda Belton, Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The panel gave an overview of the main changes for the guidance, which comes into effect on 1st September, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
The webinar also dealt with issues raised in a previous webinar, including a query about prescribing under the cascade and an update on the position when prescribing based on cultures and sensitivities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTZKdbVD8g
For further information about the new guidance, including a range of practice-based scenarios and FAQs, visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/under-care-new-guidance/
Questions about the under care guidance can be sent to advice@rcvs.org.uk
RCVS Council member and Chief Veterinary Officer Professor Nigel Gibbens has been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the New Year’s Honours list for 2016.
Professor Gibbens (pictured right), who was appointed by the Privy Council to RCVS Council in 2008, has been recognised for his services to the veterinary profession and animal welfare.
Over on the other side of the world, Professor Norman Williamson, Chair of the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), has been appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, following an application supported by the RCVS.
Professor Williamson has been working with the College as part of the veterinary education accreditation process, taking part in university visitations both in the UK and abroad.
Bradley Viner, President of the RCVS, said: "Many congratulations to Professor Nigel Gibbens for his appointment as a CBE. As CVO, Nigel has made great strides in shaping and influencing animal health and welfare policy throughout the United Kingdom and strengthening the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the College and the profession at large.
"As an organisation we were also very happy to write in support of the application for Professor Williamson to become an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit and it is gladdening to see that his contribution to international cooperation in veterinary education has been recognised."
Photograph courtesy RCVS
The nomination period runs up until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2017 and, in order to stand, candidates need to submit a nomination form, a short biography and personal statement, and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs two nominators: veterinary surgeons who are on the College’s Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Dr Chris Tufnell, RCVS President, discusses RCVS Council and various committees in a video urging members of the profession to put themselves forward:
The election period starts around mid-March and will run until 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017. Ballot papers will be sent to veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote in the week commencing Monday 13 March 2017.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil17.
The report is the culmination of the work of a joint RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group, set up to explore key issues in supporting BAME veterinary students during their studies.
The Working Group made a total of 14 recommendations, which included:
Stephanie-Rae Flicker is a recent Royal Veterinary College (RVC) graduate who co-chaired the Working Group alongside Professor Rob Pettitt from the University of Liverpool.
She said: “I hope this encourages and supports our veterinary institutions to actively implement change regarding discrimination faced during studies and placements, nurturing role models and helping affected students develop sense of belonging and community during their studies and beyond.
"Many thanks to all that have contributed to the completion of this Report – we hope the recommendations have a lasting impact, and benefit those both already present and yet to enter our profession."
RCVS/VSC BAME Student Support Working Group Report.
A number of candidates have already come to the VetSurgeon.org forums to discuss their candidacy and help voters decide whether they're worthy of your vote; their individual discussion threads are linked to below.
The College points out that there is a new voting platform this year, designed to make it easier to vote online.
The new system includes regular personalised email reminders from Electoral Reform Services which include a link to the voting platform and the ability to log in securely straight away, without having to refer to the ballot paper in order to find the security codes. Using the email address provided the College, veterinary surgeons can also ask ERS to reissue the security codes if needs be.
Voting for both of this year’s elections opened on Friday 24 March with an email sent to all those eligible to vote for whom the College holds an email address. Ballot papers have also been despatched to all eligible voters along with booklets containing the candidates’ biographies, contact details and manifestos. Instructions on how to vote online and by post are included with the ballot papers.
There are 16 candidates contesting six places on RCVS Council, including three existing Council members eligible for re-election and 13 candidates not currently on Council. They are:
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017.
Once again this year the College invited members of both professions to ‘Quiz the candidates’ by putting their questions directly to all those standing for election. Some of the key themes this year included Brexit, complementary/ alternative therapies, the structure of the veterinary industry, out-of-hours work and veterinary nurse remuneration among others.
Each candidate was invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received and produce a video recording of their answers.
These videos, along with biographies and statements for each candidate, are available to view on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote17.
This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.
In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.
In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.
Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."
Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."
The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.
In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."
The Working Group, which was formed in January, is chaired by Nigel Gibbens (pictured right) and composed of representatives from BVA specialist divisions and affiliate groups, and others with relevant expertise and knowledge.
As the Association says, the RCVS review will potentially have a far-reaching impact on the future of the veterinary profession, animal health and welfare, and the relationships vets have with their clients.
Of particular concern are the impact of remote prescribing on animal welfare and how limited-service providers (ie those offering online consultations only) will affect the commercial viability of full-service providers.
It is therefore hugely important that the BVA's response represents the opinions and evidence of as many people in the profession as possible.
Information about the BVA Working Group, including the minutes of meetings held so far and the 'themes' document which reflects the group's current thoughts, can be found here: https://www.bva.co.uk/about-us/our-structure/working-groups/
Nigel said: "I encourage you to look at this information carefully, and feed in any evidence that you wish the group to consider along with your thoughts on the content of the BVA response to the RCVS. You can do this via BVA’s Head of Policy & Governance Amelia Findon (ameliaf@bva.co.uk) who will ensure that comments are collated and considered by our group.
"The breadth of opinion across the profession means that the BVA response cannot please everyone, nor should it attempt to. However, it will be based on available evidence and a good understanding of the full scope of views. BVA policy will thus reflect the majority view whilst embracing the positive potential of technological innovations that will inevitably change the way we interact with clients. I urge you to take the time to consider the implications and let us have your thoughts."
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Those veterinary surgeons being audited are being asked to share their records for 2013 to 2015 by either allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the RCVS a copy of their CPD record cards. The deadline for sharing records is Friday 14 October 2016.
The audit is focused on six groups:
If any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant (ie. less than 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period), they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The College says it is also keen to remind veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
More information about what counts as CPD can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, Education Officer at the College, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
Ed's note: Don't forget to claim your VetSurgeon.org CPD certificate detailing time you've recorded reading content and taking part in qualifying discussions on the site. Click 'My Account' and then the 'CPD' tab to view your records and create your certificate.
Professor Susan Dawson (pictured right), Chair of the Mind Matters Taskforce, will introduce the event and will be followed by the symposium’s plenary speaker, Rory O’Connor, Professor of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow and President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention.
Rory's talk: ‘When It is Darkest: Understanding Suicide Risk’ will draw upon his research and work on the psychological processes which precipitate suicidal behaviour and self-harm, an area of expertise that has seen him advise the Scottish Government, as well as other national and international organisations, on suicide prevention strategies.
The next presentation will be from Dr Victoria Crossley from the Royal Veterinary College and Navaratnam Partheeban, co-founder of the British Veterinary Ethnicity & Diversity Society (BVEDS), on their research into the mental health impact of racism and discrimination on Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) veterinary surgeons.
They'll be followed by Professor Neil Greenberg and Dr Victoria Williamson from King’s College London, who will talk about their research into the impact of ‘moral injury’ on the mental health and wellbeing of vets.
The day will then split into different research streams with presentations on a variety of topics including: the impact of cyberbullying and harassment; the wellbeing of veterinary interns and residents; stigma and stress in veterinary nursing; mental health awareness training in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum; and the relationship between ‘patient safety culture’ and staff burnout.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As with previous years the Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium promises to be a very informative and important day in terms of international researchers coming together to share their research, their conclusions, areas for further work and study, and best practice.
"Some of the topics we will be discussing, such as suicide, will be difficult, but research into issues affecting the international veterinary community is a vital first step to putting in place strategies and support mechanisms to help those in need. This is why research will be one of the key strategic priorities for the Mind Matters Initiative and our forthcoming actions in this area will be published later this year in our Mind Matters Initiative Strategic Plan.
“I would like to thank Dr Rosie Allister, a veterinary mental health researcher from the University of Edinburgh and manager of Vetlife Helpline, for putting together an excellent programme.
"As with previous years we are also offering free attendance of the symposium to those who have lived experience of mental ill-health, those who are currently not working, and veterinary and veterinary nursing students. If you have any queries about the event, please don’t hesitate to contact me on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk to discuss further.”
Registration for those not entitled to a free ticket is £10.
To register for the event visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/events.
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2017, with the 339 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2017, compared to 296 last year.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-rcvs-register/) and the College is encouraging practices to check the list 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.
The College is also reminding veterinary surgeons that 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 www.rcvs.org.uk/login.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.
The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.
The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.
The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.
The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.
The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.
The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.
The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.
These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.
Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.
The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.
In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.
"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.
"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”
The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.
It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.
It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.
Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.
Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.
"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.
“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.
"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.
"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.
“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.
"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Specifically, Ms Hodgkinson was alleged to have placed five orders between 1 September 2013 and 1 April 2015:
The medications for charges (i) to (iii) above, were intended for her own personal use, as she had previously at various times been prescribed Codeine, Naproxen and Amitriptyline after being involved in a serious car accident in November 2012, as a result of which she suffered from chronic back pain and other problems.
Charges (iv) and (v) above, were intended for her dog, ‘Minnie’, but the dosages ordered were incorrect. The medications were never removed from the practice or given to Minnie, but were instead returned to the wholesaler.
From the outset Ms Hodgkinson admitted the charges against her, although she believed that other staff at the practice had placed similar personal orders and that she had been given permission to do so as well. Ms Hodgkinson also accepted that the facts amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee accepted Ms Hodgkinson’s admission of the charges and, accordingly, found the charges proved. The question of whether the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct was, however, a matter for the Committee’s judgement, notwithstanding Ms Hodgkinson’s admission.
In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account Ms Hodgkinson’s assertion that she believed she had been given permission to order medication through the practice. She did admit however that she must have been mistaken in that belief. The Committee also took note of the College’s submission that a number of aggravating features were present which amounted to serious professional misconduct, namely: the potential risk posed to animal welfare; Ms Hodgkinson’s ignorance of fundamental legislative provisions; a breach of trust placed in her by virtue of her RVN status; the fact that the misconduct was repeated over a period of time; and a lack of awareness of professional responsibilities at the time of the conduct. The Committee therefore had no hesitation that the conduct did amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then turned to the question of sanction. A number of mitigating factors were put forward in Ms Hodgkinson’s defence including the fact that a period of lengthy suspension or removal from the register would result in her losing an offer of employment, the fact that up to the relevant conduct she had had an unblemished career and the fact that she had made early admissions of guilt and shown insight into her misconduct.
The Committee decided that a period of 10 months’ suspension would be appropriate and proportionate in this case.
Chitra Karve, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The length of the period of suspension…is intended to reflect this Committee’s view, assisted as it has been by the experience and knowledge of a practising RVN and a veterinary surgeon, of the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct in its totality and of the need for the message to go out to all veterinary professionals that the ordering of POMs without the authority of a valid prescription is a most serious instance of misconduct. In such circumstances the personal mitigations that a practitioner might place before a Disciplinary Committee, whilst not immaterial, is inevitably of limited persuasion. And that is what this Committee has concluded in this particular case, having reflected carefully on the mitigation factors placed before it.
"Having weighed the matters of personal mitigation against the fact that a rudimentary knowledge of the governing legislation was effectively all that was required of the Respondent to ensure that the misconduct complained of did not occur, it is the clear view of the Committee that it would be failing in its public duty were it to do anything less than to impose a period of suspension from practice and the least period of suspension that is appropriate in this case is one of ten months. The Committee therefore instructs the Registrar to act accordingly."
The RCVS has published its 2014 Survey of the Veterinary and Veterinary Nursing Professions, a snapshot of the demographics of the profession, and the educational and work status of its members.
The results, which gauge individual views on the current state of the profession, are used to inform the College's future policy and activities.
6,988 veterinary surgeons (27% of the profession), 3,612 registered/listed veterinary nurses (31% of the profession) and 1,792 student veterinary nurses took part in the surveys, which are conducted once every four years by the Institute for Employment Studies.
This year's surveys included a set of questions about 24-hour emergency cover, which contributed to the recent review of the College's guidance in this area, and, for the first time, questions from the government-backed Social Mobility Toolkit, which aim to assess the social background of members of the profession.
Highlights from the survey of veterinary surgeons included:
Highlights from the survey of veterinary nurses included:
Both the Survey of the Veterinary Profession and the Survey of the Veterinary Nursing Profession, together with a report that brings together common themes, can be downloaded from the RCVS publications page.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and the Veterinary Nursing Council have decided that there will be no increase in registration and retention fees for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for 2012.
Last year, the Councils decided that a lower than inflation increase should apply to fees for 2011 to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Members who are over 70 and who cease practising do not have to pay fees if they wish to remain on the Register.
Bradley Viner, RCVS Treasurer said: "We know times are tough financially for many people and hope that freezing fees will help a little. Professional regulation can be costly, but we try to keep fees as low as possible."
The RCVS financial policy remains that fee increases should be small and incremental in order to avoid a need for periodic sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
Fees for 2012 will be as follows:
2012 fees (£)
Veterinary surgeons
UK-practising retention fee
299
Overseas-practising retention fee
150
Non-practising retention fee
49
Non-practising retention fee (over 70 years old)
0
Registration fee
Temporary registration fee
Restoration fee
Restoration fee following voluntary removal
75
Veterinary nurses
Retention fee
61
The new series comprises six online discussions taking place over the course of the spring, covering everything from diversity to creativity to identity.
The upcoming programme of events is as follows:
Tuesday 1st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: Celebrating diversityChaired by Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership & Inclusion Manager. Panel members Lacey Pitcher RVN, Dr Olivia Anderson-Nathan MRCVS and Samantha Payne RVN will be talking about what celebrating diversity means to people, exploring how this links to mental health, and sharing their thoughts on why – and how – the professions should be working towards greater inclusivity, both in and out of the workplace.
Monday 21st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: The joy of creativityThis discussion will look at why creativity is so important for people’s lives and how it can be used to support mental health and wellbeing with a panel comprising Dr Silvia Janksa MRCVS and Olivia Oginska MRCVS.
Tuesday 5th April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Overcoming self-doubt and stressing outThis discussion will consider the main causes of stress in the veterinary workforce and how this may have shifted throughout the pandemic. The discussion will encompass coping strategies, the ways in which stress can be channelled in a more constructive way, and overcoming feelings of self-doubt.
Thursday 21st April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Identity – who am I away from work?This discussion will consider to what extent veterinary professionals should let their careers define them, the importance of understanding oneself in and out of a work setting, and how people can learn to value, accept, and appreciate their whole selves.
Tuesday 3rd May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Saying goodbye…letting go and learning to growThis discussion will consider how best to cope with the various types of loss that may be encountered in an individual’s professional and personal life, and how to learn, adapt and grow from these losses.
Thursday 12th May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Tackling loneliness in a hyperconnected worldThis Campfire Chat will discuss why meaningful connection and having a sense of belonging matters, and how individuals and communities can tackle loneliness in a hyperconnected world.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: “We all lead busy professional and personal lives and sometimes it means that self-care, which includes talking to others about how we’re feeling and about issues that we find important to us, can fall by the wayside.
“Our Campfire Chats offer a perfect opportunity – and excuse – to take a bit of time out of your schedule to engage in a structured but informal discussion about all manner of subjects, expertly led by a chair and panel with experience, lived and otherwise, on the topic being talked about.
“These events are for the whole veterinary team, we keep the sessions very informal, and there is also the opportunity to share or ask questions of the panel.”
To sign up for the first session, visit https://bit.ly/3GnQK0G.
For further information about the events contact Abi Hanson, Mind Matters Initiative Officer, on a.hanson@rcvs.org.uk
The consultation invited members of the professions to explain how they currently understand and interpret Schedule 3 in practice, how it could be clarified and how it might be amended to bolster the veterinary nursing profession.
11,625 people responded to the consultation, the highest number that has ever responded to an RCVS consultation. 6,873 were veterinary nurses (around 35% of the profession and including 1,665 student veterinary nurses) and 4,752 were veterinary surgeons (around 21% of the profession).
The report on the consultation, which is published today by the Institute for Employment Studies, found that 92% of veterinary nurses and 71% of veterinary surgeons think veterinary nurses should be able to undertake additional areas of work.
However, neither vets nor nurses seem to have an especially good understanding of the current scope of Schedule 3 and how it applies in practice, rating their personal understanding at 5.6 and 6.7 out of 10 respectively.
When asked what prevented the full utilisation of veterinary nurses, the majority of both vet and vet nurse respondents highlighted a lack of understanding of what tasks can be delegated under Schedule 3, with around 60% of veterinary surgeons also admitting that they are not good at delegating.
61% of veterinary nurses and 50% of veterinary surgeons thought that the RCVS gives sufficient support and advice about Schedule 3, though the relatively poor level of understanding amongst veterinary surgeons in particular suggests more needs to be done.
In corresponding comments both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons said they would like more clarity, especially around 'grey areas' such as the meaning of the term 'minor surgery', as well as further communication from the College about Schedule 3 and for more training for veterinary nurses to ensure they have the competence and the confidence to carry out delegated procedures.
Liz Cox, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, said: "Thank you to all those who responded to the consultation in such large numbers and who shared their views on this topic. The consultation grew out of the government’s suggestion that we review Schedule 3 as a means of bolstering the VN profession, and from the VN Futures project last year, when Schedule 3 was identified as an area where there could be some additional work to clarify the rules around delegation to veterinary nurses.
"There was a clear consensus that veterinary nurses could do more in their role and under Schedule 3 and so we will be feeding the findings back to the RCVS Legislation Working Party, which will be looking, in the round, at possible changes to the framework of veterinary legislation, including how it applies to veterinary nurses and other paraprofessionals.
"In terms of the understanding of Schedule 3 and how it applies in practice it is clear that we need to do some further work to clarify the rules and develop guidance to assist both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons in exercising their professional judgement in respect to delegation, for example, through case studies and other examples."
Looking at the tasks currently performed by veterinary nurses, the survey found the five most commonly performed are: clinical cleaning (92%), administration of medicines by subcutaneous injection (91%), administration of medication (90%), monitoring of anaesthesia (86.5%) and administration of medicines by intramuscular injection (86%).
The consultation also found that the majority of veterinary nurses are involved in clinics aimed at educating animal owners on various different aspects of animal health and welfare. The most common include puppy/kitten care (66.5% of respondents), nutrition (65% of respondents), general check-ups (62.5% of respondents) and dental care clinics (57% of respondents).
Post-survey interviews with 10 veterinary nurses and 10 veterinary surgeons found a number of recurring themes, including: limited career paths for veterinary nurses; poor pay for VNs relative to their training and complexity of work; lack of recognition and appreciation for the VN role; enthusiasm for advanced practitioner and specialist status for VNs; and difficulty recruiting experienced VNs.
The College says the results of the consultation will now be considered by the RCVS Schedule 3 and Legislation Working Parties, which are reviewing the efficacy of the current Veterinary Surgeons Act and whether changes need to be made to bring the legislative framework for the profession up-to-date, including consideration of the part played by allied professions like veterinary nurses in the veterinary team.
The full report can be downloaded here.
There were ten candidates for the three available places.
6,087 veterinary surgeons voted, representing a 16.7% turnout.
This continued a decline seen since 2020, when there was a 26.2% turnout.
Alice McLeish scored 3,465 votes, Linda Belton 2,725 and Tim Hutchinson 1,571 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Congratulations to all our successful candidates in this year’s elections and thank you to all those who stood for election this year.
"We look forward to welcoming our successful candidates to their elected places at this year’s AGM.
“While the turnout for the VN Council election improved slightly on last year, it was a shame to see the turnout for vets fall again.
"As part of our wider Council culture project, we are looking at how to increase engagement with our election processes across the board, from candidate nominations, to how we present information about the candidates, to how we encourage greater election turnout.
"We will be consulting with the group set up to look specifically at this issue in due course to see how we can improve turnout going forward.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23.
All MsRCVS were set an email with a voting link and a unique voter code.
The College says it will be writing to the few vets for whom it has no unique email address with further instructions.
There are 14 candidates standing this year and you can now cast your votes for up to three of them by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2024.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the Annual General Meeting on Friday 5 July 2024.
Any vets who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com.
Kate (pictured right) was confirmed as the 150th RCVS President at the College’s 2021 Annual General Meeting, which took place last Friday. Kate’s investiture makes her the 10th female President of the RCVS and the first to lead an all-female presidential team with Senior Vice-President Mandisa Greene and Junior Vice-President Melissa Donald.
Kate has been an elected member of RCVS Council from 2015 to 2019 and then from 2020 onwards, and brings with her a bank of professional experience having worked in clinical farm practice, in the pharmaceutical industry and as a senior civil servant in non-veterinary roles, including as Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland.
She’s a graduate from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh and during her time on RCVS Council has chaired the Standards Committee and been a member of the Legislation Working Party. She currently chairs the Preliminary Investigation Committee /Disciplinary Committee Liaison Committee and sits on the Education Committee, Registration Committee, VN Council, Primary Qualifications Subcommittee and the Environmental & Sustainability Working Party.
During her first speech as RCVS President, Kate spoke about how experiences of loneliness early in her veterinary career, when she was working in rural farm vet practice, has led her to have a deep understanding of the importance of connection, something which has been reinforced by the coronavirus pandemic.
She said: “The Covid pandemic has demonstrated the value of connections for our mental health and wellbeing. Social distancing has spotlighted in fluorescent pinks, blues and greens the need for social connections. When hungry we eat, thirsty we drink, when we feel lonely we need to connect.
“And that starts with connecting with ourselves, nurturing our minds and bodies, building our sense of self and resilience. I am passionate about initiatives including the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and Vetlife that support our professions.
“Connections within the professions have been fundamental to my career, providing opportunities to collaborate, extend my knowledge and forge support networks. I look forward to building stronger connections with vets in the UK and abroad, including the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe. I’m so excited about the energy, new connections and networks springing up in the profession.
“I’ve worked in non-veterinary roles where I’ve had the opportunity to make new connections and share knowledge across professional disciplines.
“Pre-pandemic I attended a seminar on domestic violence. Speakers from social services said how hard it was to identify victims of domestic violence who were too scared to report. I informed the room about the Links Group, which works hard to raise awareness of the connection between the abuse of animals and people. Sadly, there are still silos, disconnections between well-meaning professionals. That proves to me the critical role of vets in human health and welfare by reporting animals they suspect of non-accidental injury.”
She concluded her speech (which is available to read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/features) by saying: “I am excited about my presidential year, thankful for my connections, my iceberg of support. I’m thankful for the wise counsel of past Presidents especially Mandisa Greene and Niall Connell. My priority is to encourage Connections that Count, making sure we look after ourselves so that we can build vibrant purposeful and powerful connections across ours and allied professions for the good of animal and human health and welfare, for our communities, society and the environment.
“My aim this year? To amplify and extend the reach of the veterinary voice.”
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he accepted the seriousness of its finding.
In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.
At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon, including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs). These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.
The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also taken as relevant in this regard.
The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer suffers from an alcohol problem.
Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his name being restored to the Register."
She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of particular importance that any member who has been removed should recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."
Sarah is a Professor of Veterinary Surgery at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, and leads the Nottingham Equine Colic Project, which works with organisations such as the British Horse Society to raise awareness of the condition.
Sarah's talk, 'Generating an evidence-based educational campaign on colic', will discuss new evidence from the project, and how it led to the REACT colic campaign. She will also be sharing experiences of how the campaign has worked and asking whether we can change people's attitudes and behaviours.
The evening starts at 6.15pm with food and refreshments with Sarah's talk starting at 7pm, after which there will be an update on the College’s latest projects and initiatives. That'll be followed by a question and answer session with senior officers and staff from the RCVS - including RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, and Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council Racheal Marshall.
Dr Connell said: "Thank you to Professor Freeman for agreeing to speak about the colic project which, through its Colic Awareness Week, is helping to raise knowledge of the early signs of colic amongst horse owners, allowing them to get their horses treated in good time and saving their lives.
"I also look forward to talking to members of the profession about some of the issues currently on their minds – the evening is very much led by what those who attend want to discuss – from mental health, to our under care review, to the Practice Standards Scheme. Attending the event can also count to up to three hours towards your continuing professional development (CPD) requirement."
The event is open to all members of the practice team including veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, practice managers and others. The event is free and places can be booked via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/nottingham.
In the afternoon before the event, between 12 noon and 5pm, the College will also be holding a series of free 45-minute Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) surgeries with PSS Lead Assessor Pam Mosedale.
The surgeries are open to both RCVS-accredited practices and those considering joining the Scheme and allows delegates to discuss the assessment process, how to apply for awards, how to meet particular requirements and any other questions they may have about the PSS.
Places at the surgeries are limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. They can be booked at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSsurgeries
The candidates for this year's RCVS Council election have been announced, many of whom will be coming to the VetSurgeon.org forums to lay out their stalls and explain why you should vote for them.
A record number of veterinary surgeons - 14 - are contesting six seats in the RCVS Council election. Veterinary surgeons may each vote for up to six candidates to fill these seats, which fall vacant as elected Council member's terms of office expire at the RCVS Annual General Meeting (6 July). In 2012, five existing Council members are seeking re-election, and nine new candidates are standing.
Of the 42 RCVS Council members, four are appointed by the Privy Council, 14 by the veterinary schools and 24 by direct election; each member serves a four year term. This year's candidates are:
Voting opens from Friday 9 March and all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote should receive their ballot papers shortly. Votes must be received by 5pm on 27 April 2012 and, as in previous years, can be cast online, by post, or by text message