New faces on the RCVS Council include Richard Stephenson, Charles Gruchy and Catherine Goldie. Dr Barry Johnson (first elected to Council in 1985) and Dr Christopher Chesney (first elected in 1996) have been voted on for further terms. Dr Robert Ellis, who has had three previous periods on Council, has been re-elected.
Figures produced by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons show that almost half of the first cohort of newly-qualified vets to sign up to the Professional Development Phase (PDP) have now completed it.
The PDP is a web-based database that enables new graduates to develop, and reflect on, their professional skills during their first year in clinical practice. Completing the PDP became a professional obligation for all newly-qualified vets from 2007 onwards. Of the 636 vets who graduated in 2007, 586 (92%) signed up to PDP and 290 have now completed. Of the 616 vets who graduated in 2008, 546 (88%) have so far registered for the PDP.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Undertaking PDP is a professional requirement for every newly-qualified vet working in clinical practice. The first vets to undertake PDP seem to be taking around 15 months from signing up to signing off. Properly completing PDP counts as the first year's CPD and we strongly recommend that this year's graduates sign up as soon as they have found their first clinical role."
The PDP is also open to any vet returning to practice.
To find out more about PDP requirements, log onto www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp, to enrol, email pdp@rcvs.org.uk.
The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.
32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.
Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists.
Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.
RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.
"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."
Following the announcement last month of the establishment of a Working Party to review Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) in the undergraduate veterinary degree, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comment from all those involved with organising, providing and receiving EMS.
Opinions are not being sought in response to a set of formal questions, but respondents may like to consider the strengths and weaknesses in the system; problems and possible solutions; and what should be retained and what could change.
Written comments should be sent to Freda Andrews, Head of Education at the RCVS, on education@rcvs.org.uk by 16 February 2009.
This call for input is the first of several phases of activity that will lead to the delivery of a report from the Working Party to the RCVS Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in October 2009. Following this initial information-gathering stage, some individuals and organisations will be invited to deliver their views in person to the Working Party during April.
Draft recommendations will then be formatted for any change to the current system, which requires that veterinary students undertake pre-clinical and clinical work experience placements for at least 38 weeks during their degree course. A further consultation process may follow, depending on the nature of the recommendations, before the paper is finalised.
Dr Barry Johnson, RCVS Council member and Chairman of the EMS Working Party said: "It is over 10 years since the RCVS undertook a major review of EMS, although the requirements and guidelines were revised and updated in 2005 to introduce more flexibility for universities to meet the individual learning needs of their students.
"In recent years, there have been significant changes in the UK higher education system, the veterinary curriculum and the organisation of veterinary schools, and the time is now right for a more substantial review."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
Dr Mostert admitted to his conviction but denied that it rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
He also admitted not disclosing his conviction to the RCVS but denied that it amounted to dishonesty or was misleading and that failing to do so amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee first considered whether Dr Mostert’s conviction affected the public interest, which included the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour for members of the profession.
The Committee noted that the conviction involved dishonesty relating to false statements about the value of goods sent to the USA.
The Committee felt that a conviction for a serious offence involving dishonesty would have a negative impact on public confidence in the profession, and that its reputation would be damaged if proper standards of conduct and behaviour were not upheld.
The Committee also noted that as the products that Dr Mostert imported into the USA were not labelled as coming from a foreign market and were not labelled as needing to be administered by a vet, his conviction also related to animal safety, as anyone who accessed the medications could believe that it was safe for them to be given to an animal.
The Committee then considered Dr Mostert’s failure to declare the conviction to the College on three separate occasions.
Dr Mostert testified that, at the time, he did not believe he had to disclose his conviction as it occurred in a country where he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon.
He also said he had not taken the time to read and interpret the application form accurately.
However, the Committee considered that the wording around convictions on the application and annual renewal forms is very clear and that, as a veterinary surgeon, Dr Mostert would be familiar with such documents.
The Committee considered that it was inconceivable that an experienced veterinary surgeon, making a declaration of this kind to his regulator, would not have understood that a serious conviction in the USA, dating from June 2017, was a conviction that he was obliged to disclose.
The Committee therefore found Dr Mostert’s failures to declare his conviction dishonest.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, noted that in deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the case did not involve any actual harm to an animal or human and that Dr Mostert had had a long and otherwise unblemished career.
However, a key aggravating factor was that the action that led to the conviction resulted in financial gain through the creation of a business enterprise and that Dr Mostert falsely declared the value of goods.
The extent of any financial gain was not known to the Committee, but the business operated on the basis that false declarations were repeatedly made.
Judith said: “After careful consideration the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances, a lengthy period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the case and satisfy the public interest. The Committee has decided that the appropriate length of suspension is one of 18 months.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Buttler was charged with having been under the influence of alcohol whilst at work on two separate occasions. On both occasions, she was working as a locum veterinary nurse.
The first occasion was between 25th and 28th April 2016 in Frome, and the second from 3rd July to 4th July 2016 in Salisbury.
It was also alleged that a prior conviction of drunk driving on 19th November 2013 rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee decided to hear the case in Ms Buttler’s absence as it was satisfied that she had properly been served with the notice of hearing and because she had stated that she was aware of the proceedings but did not wish to engage with the process. The Committee also noted that she had not requested any adjournment.
The Committee heard from five witnesses for the first charge, including three veterinary nurses and one veterinary surgeon. They gave testimony that they had had cause to suspect that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work due to her demeanour, and recalled Ms Buttler repeatedly retreating upstairs to her accommodation during the working day. Further, an open wine bottle was found in Ms Buttler’s accommodation and was observed to have been drunk during the course of her shift. The Committee found the first charge proved.
The Committee heard from four witnesses in respect of the second charge. Two of the witnesses stated that they smelt alcohol on Ms Buttler’s breath while she was on duty, with one of them stating that Ms Buttler had slurred speech and a flushed face at the end of a fourteen-hour shift. The other two witnesses also presented evidence to support the assertion that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work, while the Committee found that Ms Buttler lacked credibility because she had denied having any alcohol on the premises when originally confronted, but later admitted in an email to the College that she had had an open bottle of wine in her bag. The Committee found the second charge proved.
The Committee then considered the third charge, namely the conviction in 2013. The Committee considered the certificate of conviction obtained from the North East Devon Magistrates Court and was satisfied that Ms Buttler had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol as set out within charge 3.
When considering whether these all amounted to a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee was concerned about Ms Buttler showing no insight into her drinking, and the repeated nature of the offences. The Committee also considered that being under the influence of alcohol when working as a veterinary nurse was conduct which fell far short of the standards to be expected of members of the veterinary nursing profession.
It therefore concluded that Ms Buttler was guilty of disgraceful conduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Buttler’s conviction (charge 3) rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. The Committee concluded that Ms Buttler had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions in 2013, or learnt any lessons from it. Accordingly, it felt that she continued to pose a risk to animals and the public in the future. The Committee also felt that the conviction undermined the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession because the offence inevitably involved a risk of injury to herself and other road users.
Having found Ms Buttler guilty of misconduct, the Committee went on to consider sanction.
The Committee took into account aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to an animal, the fact that the first two charges involved an element of premeditation, the fact that Ms Buttler was under the influence on more than one shift in each practice, that there is no evidence of insight from Ms Buttler and there is a future risk to animals if she continued to practice unrestricted.
They also considered mitigating factors, including the fact that this is the first disciplinary hearing she has faced, that she did not cause any harm to any animal and that she did not gain financially from her conduct.
In reaching its decision Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Ms Buttler said she had worked for twenty years without any problem and that she was previously of good character. However because there was no evidence that Ms Buttler would not repeat the conduct with regards to working whilst under the influence of alcohol she could continue to pose a risk to animals or the public in the future. The Committee therefore was bound to consider her removal from the register.
"Although it noted from the brief email correspondence Ms Buttler had sent to the College that she said she did not intend to practice in the future, the Committee decided that until she had shown insight into her behaviour in 2016, she remained a risk to animals. It therefore decided that the proportionate action was to instruct the Registrar to remove her name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith."
If Ms Buttler chose to re-engage with the College, she could apply for restoration to the register after ten months.
The follow up service ‘can be provided personally by the veterinary surgeon or practice, or by written agreement with a veterinary services provider which is local to the client (as with the current situation for [out-of-hours] care provision)’.
The new rule comes into force on the 1st November, to allow practices to make any necessary arrangements.
The RCVS Council also decided that the temporary derogation from the usual requirement to conduct a physical examination before an animal is regarded as ‘under care’ be reviewed as a standing item at each subsequent Standards Committee meeting, until the normal guidance provisions are fully restored.
Mandisa qualified from the Royal (Dick) Vet School in Edinburgh in 2008 and has since spent much of her career working in emergency and critical care.
She served as the first black president of the RCVS in 2020/21 and has also worked for Harper Adams University as a lecturer in veterinary sciences.
Mandisa will replace Laura Playforth, who is joining IVC Evidensia as group QI director, on the Vets Now board.
She said: “I’m delighted to be joining the Vets Now family at such an interesting and challenging time for the veterinary professions.
“I look forward to working together through innovative approaches to ensure our teams continue to deliver the highest standards of clinical care and client services.”
RCVS Council had introduced temporary guidance allowing the remote prescription of drugs for animals not under care back in March, to ensure that animal health and welfare could be maintained during lockdown without risking the health of veterinary teams or their clients.
Since then, the College has twice extended this guidance, because of the ongoing situation.
However the College says it now recognises that many practices are returning more to 'business as usual' and that the guidance and associated flowchart should be updated according.
Consequently, before deciding to prescribe POM-Vs remotely, the updated guidance now requires veterinary surgeons to first consider whether the animal is already under their care; or, if not, whether it is possible to physically examine the animal in order to bring the animal under their care. If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, POM-Vs may still be prescribed remotely providing the guidelines set out in the College’s coronavirus advice hub are adhered to.
Surprisingly, the College says that its surveys of the profession have thus far identified no immediate safety concerns around remote prescribing.
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “The reason for maintaining the possibility of remote prescribing without a physical examination was that we recognised that the current situation is unpredictable, and while the ability for the public to visit practices in person has improved over the last few months, we felt that situations might still arise where that would not be possible, and where access to remote prescribing would be necessary. These could include further local lockdowns, ongoing quarantine arrangements, and the remaining fact that some members of both the veterinary team and the public continue to shield.
“It remains our intention that this guidance will continue to be a temporary measure and may be subject to further extensions or updates given the uncertain nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
RCVS Council will review the position on 8 October, with any changes being effective by 1 November at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the RCVS review of ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover has now resumed, starting with a number of virtual focus groups and consultation with stakeholders within the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
The findings from these focus group discussions will then inform a wider survey to be sent to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in early 2021, along with stakeholder organisations and the animal-owning public. Remote prescribing will continue to form a part of this review.
The introduction of the new Level 3 Diploma in Veterinary Nursing has seen an increase in numbers of both students and training practices, according to statistics released today by the RCVS.
Since January, the RCVS has approved over 30 more Training and Auxiliary Training Practices, bringing to a total of 1,559 the number of practices approved for veterinary nurse (VN) training. Scope for practices to train student VNs is increased through the emphasis on Auxiliary Training Practices (aTPs), an option for practices without the full facilities or caseload needed for student training. Students at aTPs complete their in-practice training at other aTPs or full Training Practices. Of the 31 new practices approved since January for student training, eight are aTPs.
The number of VN students enrolling with the RCVS has also increased, with almost double the number enrolling in January 2011, compared with January 2010. There were a total of 1,168 student enrolments in the 12 months from 1 February 2010, compared with 1,121 enrolments in the same period from 1 February 2009.
Libby Earle, Head of the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Department said: "The Level 3 Diploma has been in place for little more than six months, yet VN student numbers are already up. This bodes well for the supply of qualified, competent registered veterinary nurses demanded by veterinary practices, and for those keen to enter the veterinary nursing profession."
The qualification was introduced when the government abolished the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) system last summer, forcing a change in the vocational qualifications for VNs. The resulting Level 3 Diploma is designed to better meet the needs of practices, colleges, and students themselves.
The Codes of Professional Conduct for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses stress the need for effective communication with clients and ensuring that informed consent is obtained and documented before treatments or procedures are carried out.
At its January meeting RCVS Standards Committee approved changes to chapter 11 (‘Communication and consent’) of the supporting guidance to the Codes to provide further advice to the professions on matters that should be discussed with clients to ensure informed consent is gained, provide clarification on who can gain consent for a procedure and give some additional guidance on consent forms.
Nick Oldham, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: "We hope that this updated guidance is more accessible, readable and will aid members of the profession in developing a more comprehensive approach to gaining informed consent for treatments and procedures and therefore reduce the risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding which can lead to concerns being raised by clients.
"For example, we have updated our guidance to encourage veterinary surgeons to consider discussing a number of additional factors with a client before obtaining consent. This includes the nature, purpose and benefits of any treatment or procedures, the likely outcomes including potential risks, financial estimates, informing the client when other treatments may have available and checking that the client understands what they are agreeing to rather than assuming the client understands both the potential financial outlay and possible side effects.
"Furthermore, there is now additional guidance for veterinary surgeons on who should be seeking consent. While ordinarily it is expected that the veterinary surgeon undertaking the procedure or providing treatment is responsible for obtaining the client’s consent we know that this is not always practical.
"Therefore we clarify that the responsibility of obtaining consent can be delegated to another veterinary surgeon and, failing that, a registered veterinary nurse or student veterinary nurse could obtain consent provided that they are suitably trained, have sufficient knowledge of the proposed procedure or treatment and understand the risks involved.
"The RCVS Standards and Advice Team is also in the process of producing a series of fictional case studies based on informed consent issues encountered by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee which we hope will further help the profession."
The updated supporting guidance can be found in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/consent
The Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance can also be downloaded as an app for smartphones and tablets at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeapp
Members of the profession seeking confidential advice on matters relating to professional conduct can contact the Standards and Advice Team on 020 7202 0789 or advice@rcvs.org.uk
The Royal College is calling for views on the Day One Competences required of newly qualified veterinary surgeons, via an online survey.
The survey can be accessed from the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations), and can be completed until 31 May.
The College says that the survey is the first step in a review of the Day One Competences, which define the level to be expected of new veterinary graduates when they first qualify. The competences set out in broad terms what is required of new graduates at the end of their veterinary degree, and provide the foundation for curriculum design and student assessment in UK veterinary courses.
RCVS Council member David Catlow, who chairs the Working Party undertaking the review, said: "The Day One Competences are deliberately general as they aim to convey the important principles that all students must master by the time they graduate, regardless of the precise curriculum they have followed, so they are safe to practise in a range of veterinary contexts from day one after they graduate.
"As it is over ten years since these competences were confirmed, we are reviewing them to ensure they remain valid, and to seek to ensure they reflect current and likely future expectations."
The Working Party will report to the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee (EPSC), and includes representatives from the veterinary schools and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), as well as a recent veterinary graduate.
Since being confirmed by the RCVS, the Day One Competences have also been adopted across Europe, through the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE), and in countries such as Australia.
Mr Kashiv first appeared before the Committee in December 2016 in relation to four charges against him regarding his inadequate treatment of a Scottish Terrier called Tanzy which was ultimately euthanased due to renal failure.
The first charge related to Mr Kashiv’s original consultation with the owner in March 2015 and his failure to investigate for renal disease; his failure to discuss with the owner investigations to assess metastatic spread; failure to discuss with the owner alternative options to surgery such as palliative care or euthanasia and failure to explain to the owner key factors with regards to the surgery he had suggested to her, including its nature and extent, the risks involved, the fact another vet would be performing the surgery, and what to expect post-operatively.
The second charge related to the fact that, having admitted the dog as an in-patient at the practice, he failed to conduct further investigations regarding her poor condition; provide any or any adequate pain relief, or fail to record the same; failed to discuss with the owner the dog’s poor prognosis and failed to discuss with the owner the option of euthanasia.
The third charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv discharged the animal back into her owner’s care when she was not in a fit state for discharge. The fourth and final charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv failed to keep sufficient clear, detailed and accurate clinical records for his treatment of the dog.
At his original hearing in December 2016, the Committee found the four charges proven and also found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee decided to postpone the judgement for two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to improve his clinical practice, including putting together a personal development plan, having a mentor, accepting regular practice visits and undertaking additional continuing professional development (CPD).
The resumed hearing took place on Tuesday 18 December 2018, during which the Committee heard evidence from Dr Writer-Davies MRCVS (the veterinary surgeon appointed to review Mr Kashiv’s practice and report back to the Disciplinary Committee over the two year period), Mrs Somers MRCVS, (his appointed mentor), and Mr Kashiv himself.
Dr Writer-Davies told the Committee that she had no concerns about Mr Kashiv’s abilities regarding patient safety and that, in her view, he now meets the standards of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon. She cited the fact he had gained in confidence when communicating with clients, had undertaken a considerable amount of CPD focused on the areas of concern identified in the case, that she had observed more detailed record keeping from him and that a veterinary nurse had been appointed to assist in running Mr Kashiv’s practice.
The evidence from Mrs Somers also found that Mr Kashiv’s knowledge was in line with that expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon and that she had observed a good quality of care for pets and their owners from him.
Mr Kashiv also gave evidence, which the Committee said demonstrated considerable insight into his previous conduct and a good attitude towards self-reflective practice. The Committee also felt that the testimonials provided by Mr Kashiv showed him to be a kind and caring veterinary surgeon.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that, having successfully completed the undertakings, Mr Kashiv is now a safe practitioner. The last two years has allowed Mr Kashiv to develop his skills particularly in the area of communication.
"However, the Committee has not lost sight of the fact that this was a serious case and that there was substantial harm caused to Tanzy.
"The Committee considers that in the intervening two years Mr Kashiv has gained considerable insight, developed better communication skills and remains open to improving his practice. It therefore imposes a reprimand on Mr Kashiv. The Committee considers that a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary profession."
Having sold Belgravia House – its Westminster offices since 1995 – to a private investor in March 2021 for £14.5m, RCVS Council agreed the purchase of the new building for £20.5m.
The additional cost has been funded from College reserves.
The new building is a converted Victorian warehouse with open-plan office space spread across six floors.
The new premises are large enough to accommodate more staff and for the College to host more meetings and events.
Alternatively, the space can be used for greater social distancing and hybrid working if needed.
The College says any unwanted space can be rented out.
Two existing tenants will continue to lease office space at the premises for the time being and some refurbishment work will need to be completed before the College and RCVS Knowledge teams can start moving in.
Following Council’s earlier decision to terminate the lease on Belgravia House at the end of March 2022, RCVS staff will continue to work either remotely, or in temporary office space leased from the workplace provider, WeWork, in Chancery Lane.
The College says this arrangement offers a significant saving over leasing back Belgravia House.
Chief Executive Lizzie Lockett said: “Like any property purchase, it has been an extremely long and difficult journey to get to this point, with many challenges to navigate along the way, but I am delighted that we are finally able to announce our new home.
“Whilst we will have to wait a while longer before we can enjoy everything 1-2 Hardwick Street has to offer, we are very much looking forward to welcoming members of the professions to visit our new offices, and being able to host a variety of meetings and new events there for them.
The RCVS has announced that the first members of its reconstituted Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees have been appointed and will join the Committees from July 2013.
Beverley Cottrell and Catherine Goldie (pictured right) have been appointed to the new Disciplinary Committee (DC), and are retiring as elected veterinary surgeons on Council to take up the posts. Veterinary surgeons Jane Downes and Charles Gruchy, and lay members Stuart Drummond, Ian Green, Chitra Karve and Mehmuda Mian, will also join the DC.
The new Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) members will include veterinary surgeons Andrew Ash and William Reilly, plus lay members Penny Howe, Sarah Pond and Elana Tessler.
These new appointments result from a legislative reform order (LRO) made to separate the RCVS disciplinary committees from the RCVS Council. The Royal College says this will improve the independence of the disciplinary process and bring it into line with regulatory best practice.
The LRO came into force on 6 April 2013, and amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA). The VSA now requires that the RCVS PIC and DC are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently. The change to the legislation ensures that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints, and adjudication.
The LRO also brings lay people formally into the PIC and will increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings.
RCVS Registrar and Head of Legal Services, Gordon Hockey said: "The LRO fundamentally improves the way the veterinary profession is regulated, and will help to ensure public confidence in our disciplinary processes. I am delighted by the constructive and collaborative working relationship that we had with Defra and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), which has allowed this major reform to be introduced."
To make these appointments, a long-list of lay and veterinary surgeon candidates was put together by recruitment consultants, and a shortlist was referred to an independent selection committee chaired by Sir Michael Buckley and including Christopher Laurence and Dr Joan Martin. The selection committee's choices were then ratified by RCVS Council at the June 2013 meeting.
As part of a transition phase, both committees will also include some Council members; after a two-year period, members of RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of either committee.
The RCVS has launched the recruitment process for new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) Assessors, ahead of the Scheme's relaunch in November this year.
The College is looking to recruit 18 experienced veterinary surgeons as Assessors who will work directly with RCVS-accredited practices to help them comply with the Scheme and maintain the highest possible standards of veterinary care.
Successful candidates will be expected to actively assess and inspect veterinary practices at the different PSS accreditation levels - core, general practice and hospital - to encourage continuous improvement; they will work proactively with practice teams to ensure that the Scheme's standards are understood and being worked towards. The College is aiming to recruit Assessors from across the UK who have experience in small animal, equine and/or farm animal practice.
An Open Day will be held at the RCVS on Friday, 12 June 2015, to give prospective candidates more information about the roles. Anyone interested in attending should contact Alicia on 020 7202 0786 or email atAliciaM@rcvs.org.uk. As places are limited, they will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.
The recruitment process is being handled by Thewlis Graham Associates. Those interested in applying should contact them for a confidential discussion on 020 7850 4781. The deadline for applications is Monday, 29 June 2015.
Further information about the role, including the candidate brief and application form, is available at www.thewlisgraham.com.
Captains Nicola Housby-Skeggs and Claire Budge, the first two members of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) to achieve the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP), have been presented with their certificates at Belgravia House.
The two Captains were visiting the RCVS as part of a 'Meet the RCVS Day' organised for a group of Officers from the RAVC. The Captains were presented with their Certificates by Vice-President Peter Jinman.
Capt Nicola Housby-Skeggs had completed a mixture of small animal and equine modules in order to achieve her Certificate, and was positive about the modular approach. She said: "It's reassuring to know you can have a break if you need to. The compulsory module on professional key skills was also more useful than I had anticipated, as it focused on aspects that you don't really have time for at vet school, such as management, and health and safety."
Meanwhile, Captain Claire Budge appreciated the fact that many of her modules could be completed via distance learning. She said: "It was great that I could continue with my studies even when serving in Afghanistan. My only regret is that when I started the Certificate back in 2008, there wasn't the range of modules available that there is now. For example, I would like to have done one of the new Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law modules. However, there is no reason why I can't just take this as continuing professional development - that's the benefit of the modular approach."
More information about the CertAVP can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts.
'Meet the RCVS Days' give members of the veterinary team the opportunity to visit the College and find out what goes on behind the scenes. If you would like to join a future event, please let Fiona Harcourt know, on f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk. Reasonable travel expenses are paid.
The RCVS issued a reminder today that there is just over a month left before the 1 April deadline for all veterinary practice premises from which medicines are to be supplied to be registered with the College.
Just over 4,500 premises have applied for registration since November 2008. This includes about 750 premises not previously listed with the College, demonstrating the usefulness of the process, which will enable the government to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines.
From 1 April it will be an offence for a veterinary surgeon to supply a veterinary medicinal product from any practice premises not registered with the RCVS. On conviction, those committing the offence may be liable to prosecution, which may include a fine or prison sentence. Veterinary surgeons convicted of criminal offences are also considered by the College's Preliminary Investigation Committee to decide whether the conviction would affect the individual's fitness to practise and should be referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
In addition to ensuring their practice premises are registered, veterinary surgeons also need to keep a record of other places where medicines are stored, so these can be considered during an inspection - such as vets' homes or cars, or perhaps a charity premises from which veterinary work is carried out and where medicines are stored. Such records will not be published, although some of those premises may need to be registered in their own right.
Practices accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme will be inspected by the RCVS; non-compliance with medicines standards will be dealt with under the rules of the Scheme. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) will carry out inspections of other registered premises to ensure compliance with the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Where non-compliance is noted, the VMD will take a proportionate enforcement approach ranging from issuing advice to, where appropriate, serving an improvement notice or seizing medicines.
The Privy Council has dismissed the appeal of a Lincolnshire veterinary surgeon against the RCVS Disciplinary Committee's decision to strike him off the Register in January 2011 for serious professional misconduct.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing in January, Joseph Lennox Holmes of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby, was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief. These findings related to two separate complaints and a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Appeal was heard by Baroness Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Kerr on 1 November 2011, and their judgment was delivered on Tuesday by Lord Wilson.
There were two principal parts to Mr Holmes's appeal: firstly, that RCVS procedures for investigating and determining complaints were biased against him and infringed his human right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; and, secondly, a number of complaints about the DC's findings and conclusions.
According to the RCVS, their Lordships recognised that the College's regulatory framework was constrained by the existing Veterinary Surgeons Act and "support[ed] statutory reform so as to enable members of the disciplinary committees to be chosen from outside the council"; but, they were satisfied that the College had made "strenuous attempts" to ensure its disciplinary procedures were fair and in accordance with human rights legislation.
They also remarked that the College had made "elaborate efforts" to separate the membership and work of the three RCVS Committees that produce guidance, investigate complaints and adjudicate on complaints, respectively. Their Lordships considered that "a fair-minded and informed observer [having considered all the facts] would not conclude there was a real possibility that the DC was biased against Mr Holmes".
Their Lordships also dismissed all of the 'deficiencies' that Mr Holmes had sought to identify in the DC's findings and conclusions. They generally preferred the College's evidence, witness accounts and expert witness testimony, and felt the DC had correctly considered the multiple charges before it.
They also found that the expertise of the DC in assessing the standards of the profession was "entitled to substantial respect" and agreed that the only sanction appropriate to Mr Holmes' "catalogue of egregious misconduct" was the removal of his name from the Register.
"[This sanction] was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession," they concluded.
Their Lordships' decision is now subject to approval by the Crown, following which, Mr Holmes would be removed from the Register and no longer entitled to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week ordered a month's suspension for a veterinary surgeon from Dolgellau for dishonest certification of bovine tuberculin testing in the Gwynedd area in early 2007.
At a hearing that concluded last Friday, Iwan Parry, a partner of The Veterinary Surgery, Bala Road, Dolgellau, and an Official Veterinarian, was charged with serious professional misconduct for certifying on eight separate occasions that he had tested and inspected cattle for clinical signs of bovine tuberculosis (TB), when he had not done so. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Parry denied the charges.
The Committee heard that Animal Health (a DEFRA Executive Agency) had discovered irregularities in TB testing paperwork from Mr Parry's practice. These included two locum veterinary surgeons, who were not Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs), having carried out TB pre-movement testing, but the relevant paperwork being signed and certified by Mr Parry. It therefore suspended him from LVI duties and lodged a complaint with the RCVS.
The Committee heard that, at the time, Mr Parry's practice was in difficulty as all eight of his assistant veterinary surgeons had recently left and he was struggling to maintain services. It was also reported that the incidence of bovine TB in Mr Parry's area was very low.
Under questioning, Mr Parry admitted that he had not done the testing, but had allowed non-LVI veterinary surgeons to do so and then signed the certificates himself. Denying the charge of dishonesty, he maintained that he had thought his actions were legitimate, providing he questioned the veterinary surgeons afterwards and checked their results. However, he told the Committee he now deeply regretted this "honest mistake", made at a time of great personal pressure, and that it would not be repeated.
The Committee also heard evidence from a number of character witnesses, including Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP, testifying to Mr Parry's good character, integrity and good standing in the local community and agricultural sector.
Nevertheless, in view of Mr Parry's long experience as an LVI, his understanding of the importance of routine herd testing and accurate veterinary certification and his reputation for keeping up to date with legislative and professional developments, the Committee decided that his actions were not just inappropriate, but were the result of conscious impropriety on his part. It found that he was not only guilty of dishonesty, but of allowing non-LVIs to perform TB testing, both of which amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In passing judgment, the Committee emphasised that the integrity of veterinary certification was of the utmost importance, especially when carried out on behalf of the Government, in order to safeguard animal health and facilitate international trade. It also felt that Mr Parry could not have failed to have been fully aware of what he was signing and that he should not have done so.
It was, however, prepared to take account of some exceptional mitigating factors in this case, including the low risk of TB spread following Mr Parry's actions; that no financial gain had been sought or received by him; his unblemished career and uprightness of conduct to date; the esteem in which he was held in the farming community and the potential (financial) impact on that community if he were to be removed from the Register (therefore unable to practise) for a significant period of time.
Nigel Swayne MRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, concluded: "We are reminded that the primary purpose of any sanction is not punishment, but the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and to uphold professional standards of conduct.
"Whilst only a reprimand is not an appropriate sanction where dishonesty and false certification have been found proved, and such findings would normally attract at least a long period of suspension, given the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case and the strength of the mitigating factors, we direct that Mr Parry should be suspended for one month."
The case was brought by the College after a member of the public raised a 'concern' relating to Mrs Mullen's practice in December 2015. The concern was not pursued by the College.
However, during its initial investigation, the RCVS case manager ascertained that contrary to the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct, Mrs Mullen did not have PII.
In January 2016 Mrs Mullen was advised by the College that, in order to comply with the Code, she needed to ensure her professional activities were covered by PII or equivalent arrangements.
The matter was considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee which asked, in October 2016, that Mrs Mullen produce evidence that she was now compliant with the requirement to have PII or equivalent. Mrs Mullen responded in November 2016 confirming that she had not put in place such arrangements.
The case was then referred to the Disciplinary Committee in January 2017.
During the hearing it was determined that, during the relevant time period (from November 2015 to November 2016) Mrs Mullen was practising but did not have professional indemnity insurance in place and therefore was in breach of the Code.
Mrs Mullen, who represented herself, told the Committee that she admitted that she did not have PII. She explained that she was 'ethically and morally opposed to it' as she felt that it did not give fair compensation to claimants and did not know it was a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct until she was informed by the College in January 2016.
When giving oral evidence as to equivalent arrangements she disclosed that she kept significant funds in a bank account; these were not however specifically earmarked for use in the event of any possible claims, and were also required to pay practice expenses.
In light of evidence produced by the College and her own admissions, the charges against Mrs Mullen were found proved and she was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
In coming to this decision Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent failed to have PII in place for a period of about 12 months as specified in the charges. Moreover, she failed to remedy the situation when advised in January 2016 by the College that she was in breach of the Code and the supporting guidance. This remains a continuous course of conduct, which has still not been remedied. The respondent has chosen not to read the Code, or the supporting guidance, until very recently, in relation to her obligation to have PII or equivalent arrangements in place, and she failed to heed the advice of the College that she must rectify the position."
In considering the sanction the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained over a significant period of time and that limited insight was shown by Mrs Mullen. While she did begin to display limited insight into the significance of her misconduct, the Committee said that this insight was "hampered by her ambivalence towards the College and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession."
In mitigation the Committee took into account Mrs Mullen’s long and unblemished career and the fact she was a sole practitioner who reported challenging personal circumstances and provided a unique service to a niche group of clients.
However, Chitra Karve said: "The Committee is unable to overlook the Respondent’s lack of commitment to obtaining PII or equivalent arrangements, even after being advised by the College that this was essential. The Committee is aware that a suspension could adversely affect her practice and her clients that she uniquely serves. However the Committee thinks it is necessary to send a clear message to the respondent and the public, that failure to obtain PII or equivalent arrangements is wholly unacceptable."
She added: "Accordingly, the Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of two months. The Committee considers that this period of suspension will give the respondent an opportunity to rectify her breaches of the Code in relation to PII… and to reflect upon her attitude towards the College and the appropriate regulation of the veterinary profession."
The Information Commissioner has supported the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' decision not to publish the Overspend Review Group's report (aka the McKelvey Report) in full.
The verdict follows two challenges to the College's decision, one made by the British Veterinary Association and a second by a member of the College.
The College says its original decision not to publish the report in full was based on two sets of external legal advice that to do so would be unlawful under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. However, the College did publish the recommendations from the report (otherwise known as the McKelvey Report), which it says comprise more than half of the total.
The Overspend Review Group was tasked with considering all aspects that relate to the College's budgeting and expenditure processes and to propose lessons that should be learned. It was set up following overspends in two areas: the installation of a new data management system and building development work at the College's premises in London.
RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux said: "This verdict is welcome in that it supports our original decision. But I can appreciate that it may frustrate those members unhappy that they will not see the full report.
"When it was commissioned, it was intended that the report would be published in full; in the event, the document included information that would contravene the Data Protection Act if published. However, I would like to reassure members that the substance of the report was included in the published recommendations, and these have now, in the main, been acted upon."
Questions and answers about the Report, together with the recommendations, can be found here.
The decision was made after Council heard increasing reports that practices have not been keeping records of POM-V parasiticide prescriptions within patient records as has always been required by the VMD.
This created a bit of a problem when the new 'under care' guidance came into force at the start of this month, which requires that veterinary surgeons must perform a physical examination as part of their initial clinical assessment of an animal before prescribing POM-V anti-parasitics.
Failing a record of an existing prescription, that would have meant re-examining large numbers of animals at a time when resources in the profession are already stretched.
RCVS President, Sue Paterson, said: “While it has been both surprising and disappointing to learn of such widespread non-compliance with legislation that has been in place for many years, Council decided to postpone the implementation of this one aspect of our new under care guidance to allow practices additional time to bring their prescribing protocols into line."
The delayed implementation date of 12 January 2024 relates only to the prescription of POM-V anti-parasitics.
The rest of the new under care guidance remains in effect from 1 September 2023
There are nine candidates standing in this year’s RCVS Council election, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Dr Linda Belton MRCVS
Dr Niall Connell MRCVS
Mr John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVS
Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVS
Mr Peter Robinson MRCVS
Following the changes made to the College’s governance arrangements last year, after a Legislative Reform Order changing the size and composition of Council was passed by Parliament, there will be only three elected places available for the candidates, as opposed to six in the years prior to the governance changes.
Ballot papers and candidates' details are due to be posted and emailed to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 25 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019.
In order to give the electorate a better idea of why each candidate is standing and ask them for their views on particular issues, this year the College is again inviting members of the profession to 'Quiz the candidates' by putting their questions directly to the candidates. Each candidate will be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers.
Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election commences.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote19.
Vets should email their question (NB only one per person) to vetvote19@rcvs.org.uk or send it to the College’s Twitter account @theRCVS using the hashtag #vetvote19 by midday on Monday 4 March 2019.