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.
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s election, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr "Not Again" Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
At the time of writing, the College is still waiting for the Legislative Reform Order (LRO) concerning its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, to be approved.
Under current arrangements six candidates will be elected to RCVS Council – however, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places on Council.
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 12 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Once again this year the College is inviting veterinary surgeons to email a question for the candidates to vetvote18@rcvs.org.uk or tweet it using the hashtag #vetvote18 by midday on Monday 26 February.
Each candidate will then be asked to answer two questions 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.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said:"After last year’s record turnout in the RCVS Council elections we are continuing to work with Electoral Reform Services (ERS) to make it easier for members to vote for their preferred candidates.
"While the traditional paper ballot papers and booklets will be posted as usual, ERS will once again send personalised emails linking members to their unique secure voting website and then send regular reminders to those who haven’t yet had the chance have their say."
Dr Henry faced one charge, that in January 2020 she wrote and/or signed an undated letter confirming that a ewe had died in transit to the surgery due to dystocia and peri-parturient stress, when in fact she had euthanised the animal at the veterinary practice the day before. The letter, which was addressed 'To whom it may concern’, was on practice letterheaded paper and signed "Louise Henry MRCVS".
The second part of the charge outlined that her conduct concerning the letter was dishonest.
The Committee heard that the ewe was lambing and brought to the practice by a client. Dr Henry was on-call at the time and advised a Caesarean section. The client agreed and Dr Henry delivered two live lambs and one dead lamb.
Dr Henry was concerned about the welfare of the ewe post-surgery because of the risk of peritonitis and advised that the ewe should be euthanised.
The client agreed to the ewe being euthanised and then asked Dr Henry to write a letter in which it was stated that the ewe had died in transit on route to the practice. Dr Henry agreed to write the letter in which she falsely certified that the ewe had died in transit.
The letter came to light when the practice director found it in an insurance file. The practice arranged an investigatory meeting with Dr Henry where she admitted that writing the letter was an error of judgement. When asked about her conduct, Dr Henry explained that the client had subsequently been dissatisfied with the letter she had written and asked her to change it. She refused to amend the letter and told him that it was wrong of her to have written it in the first place and that she regretted having done so.
Dr Henry told the Committee that she valued integrity very highly and that she was deeply ashamed that she had been prepared to write the dishonest letter.
The Committee heard several testimonials from people who had worked with or studied alongside Dr Henry, who all attested to her skill as a veterinary surgeon and that they had no concerns about her integrity and honesty. She self-reported her actions from January to the RCVS and from the outset admitted the facts of the charge. During the hearing, Dr Henry submitted that her action of dishonest false certification amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that, in this case, the aggravating features were limited and the mitigating factors extensive. There was no premeditated dishonesty or financial gain involved, there was no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal or human and this was a single incident in an otherwise unblemished 13-year career. The Committee found that the shame and remorse expressed by Dr Henry were entirely genuine. Her conduct on this occasion was entirely untypical of her practise.
“After careful consideration, the Committee concluded that the substantial mitigating features permitted it to take the somewhat unusual course of issuing a reprimand in a case involving dishonesty. In taking this course, the Committee attached significant weight not only to the isolated nature of the event but also to the genuine insight shown by Dr Henry and the lasting impact this event has had upon her. In the Committee’s assessment, a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would, in this particular case, regard a reprimand as a sanction which protected the public interest in the profession and upheld its standards.”
The full documentation for the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.
After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.
The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”
“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”
Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”
“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The College was ranked seventh in the medium-sized company or organisation category (50 to 449 employees) of the Best Workplaces for Women initiative.
This year is the first that the Great Place to Work Institute has run this initiative and, in making its rankings, it looked at a number of factors including the number and proportion of women in leadership positions, pay parity between men and women, workplace policies and how they support female employees, as well as training and development and mentoring.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted that the RCVS has been recognised for being an excellent and supportive place for women to work and pleased that the hard work of the team at Belgravia House in this area has been publicly rewarded in this way.
"One of the key themes of my Presidential year is diversity and I think it is very important that, as a regulator, we reflect the veterinary profession (which is currently 63% female for veterinary surgeons and 98% female for veterinary nurses) as far as possible. With two-thirds of the staff at the RCVS being women it demonstrates that the College is largely reflective of the profession it serves.
"However, it’s not just about the numbers and with 60% of the Senior Team at the RCVS being women, including the CEO and Registrar, it demonstrates that the College has developed a culture in which women can shatter the glass ceiling and pursue leadership roles.
"Also, with policies such as flexible working hours, encouragement of home working, shared parental leave and enhanced maternity and paternity pay, the College goes the extra mile to support working parents."
The RCVS Officers will be heading to Somerset, home ground of President Bob Moore, on Thursday 22 May for RCVS Question Time.
The Shrubbery Hotel in Ilminster is the venue for the final Regional Question Time of Bob Moore’s Presidential year, where he looks forward to seeing lots of familiar faces for a lively debate.
Veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and others involved in the profession are all welcome to attend the meeting, which kicks off at 6:30pm with a relaxing drink, a bite to eat and a chance to catch up with colleagues, followed by Question Time at 7:15pm. The meeting will finish at approximately 10:00pm.
Bob Moore will be chairing the meeting and the panel will be made up of the Officer team and Veterinary Nurses Council Chairman Andrea Jeffery, who will be answering your questions and concerns regarding the veterinary profession.
Hot topics expected to be raised on the night include the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, a new Veterinary Surgeons Act, RCVS modular certificate, 24-hour cover, the Professional Development Phase and the non-statutory Register for veterinary nurses.
To book your place contact Fiona Clark at the RCVS on 020 7202 0773 or f.clark@rcvs.org.uk before 9 May 2008, or download an invitation at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/ and post it to the address supplied. All veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses living within reasonable travelling distance of the meeting venue will be sent a personal invitation.
If you are unable to attend the meeting, but have a question you would like to raise, please do write in.
The College says the consultation, which closes on 22nd December, reflects its commitment to keep reviewing its requirements for newly-qualified VNs to ensure they remain up-to-date and reflect the standards and expectations of current veterinary nursing practice.
Participants will be asked to comment on a proposed new set of requirements, which is divided into three parts:
Day One Competences: the minimum essential competences that the RCVS expects all student veterinary nurses to have met when they register, to ensure that they are safe to practise on day one.
Day One Skills Lists: the essential clinical skills that veterinary nurses are expected to possess on entering clinical practice.
Professional behaviours and attributes: this encompasses the behaviours newly-qualified veterinary nurses are expected to demonstrate on entering the profession.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing (pictured right), said: “With this consultation we want to gain an effective representation of what the professions desire from future RVNs in term of their range of skills and knowledge and professional behaviours from their first day in clinical practice.
"Any feedback we receive on the proposed new requirements will be vital in helping to ensure that student vet nurses receive the appropriate education and training, and that our RVNs are fully prepared and armed with what is necessary to thrive in and add value to current veterinary clinical practice.
Once the consultation is complete, the responses will be reported to the working group, which will then have a final opportunity to amend and agree the proposals, before being submitted to VN Council for consideration.
The aim is that VN Council will agree to the new version of the requirements in its February 2022 meeting.
The deadline for completing the consultation is 5pm on Wednesday 22 December 2021. A PDF document with the proposed new requirements as well as the link to the online survey can be accessed from www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone.
To take part, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone
The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has approved a new Health Protocol, which formalises a more compassionate approach to veterinary surgeons with health problems.
The Protocol will allow - in appropriate circumstances - veterinary surgeons (and, from next year, registered veterinary nurses) who suffer from health concerns affecting their ability to practise safely, to have the matter dealt with confidentially, without going to a full public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
It will allow individuals to access appropriate support and help away from the public spotlight, while ensuring that they do not put animals or the public at risk.
According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the College to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.
The draft Protocol was the subject of consultation amongst the profession and the public over summer. Proposed amendments to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, to support the introduction of the Health Protocol, were also approved in the November meeting.
RCVS Head of Professional Conduct, Gordon Hockey said: "The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable.
"Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected."
Mr Antonovs faced three charges.
The first was that in September 2020 whilst in practice at Beverley Vets4Pets, he attended work when under the influence of alcohol.
The second was that between September and December 2020, whilst at Peel Veterinary Clinic, he attended work on two occasions when under the influence of alcohol.
The final charge was that between February 2021 and February 2023, Mr Antonovs failed to respond adequately to requests from the RCVS regarding concerns raised about his conduct and/or health.
Mr Antonovs admitted the facts of the charges and the Committee decided that the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstances of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning as to his future conduct on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The event, which took place in Manchester in October last year, saw veterinary mental health researchers from across Europe come together to share their insights into a variety of areas of veterinary mental health including moral injury, suicide and suicide prevention, the impact of racism, veterinary nurse mental health, and workplace stressors for autistic veterinary professionals.
There were 77 attendees, including a mix of academic researchers and veterinary professionals.
Talks included an address from Dr Leah Quinlivan on ‘Evidence-based care for people who have self-harmed: risk prediction, psychosocial assessments and aftercare’, presentations of research into the impact of racism on the mental health of veterinary professionals and the impact of moral injury on wellbeing.
Angharad Belcher, Director for the Advancement of the Professions and of the Mind Matters Initiative gave a talk about the work of MMI, including its newly published 5-year strategy and evaluation documents.
She said: “The fourth Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium was a massively inspiring and insightful day.
"The field of veterinary mental health research is still relatively small so it remains of utmost importance that we continue to band together to share our knowledge on this subject, so that we can continue to learn and grow together and put these important learnings into practice.
“For us, it is vital that these new ground-breaking research projects are made available to all who want to learn more about helping to improve the mental health and wellbeing of those working within the veterinary professions.
"There is some truly fantastic work going on which provides us with hope that we can all continue to work together towards a brighter future.
“There is no doubt that there is a long way to go, but improvement starts with education and research so I would urge anybody who is interested in what is being done to help improve and support the mental health of those working within the veterinary professions, and who is keen to help us keep these vital conversations going, to have a look through the report or access videos of the talks.”
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/videos-from-the-day-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2023
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2023
There are 10 candidates standing for the three available elected places on RCVS Council.
The candidates are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23.
Ahead of the start of the election in mid-March, the RCVS is asking veterinary surgeons to email questions for candidates to: vetvote23@rcvs.org.uk in order to better understand them and their views.
You have until Friday 24 February 2023 to submit your question.
The voting period for RCVS Council opens on Monday 13th March and closes at 5pm on Friday 21 April 2023.
The charges related to the unexpected death of a cat called Hope during an operation to explore a growth in her mouth, and Dr Dantas-Holmes' subsequent communication with the animal's owners.
Dr Dantas-Holmes accepted that Hope’s death was most likely due to her failing to flush fluid through the giving set attached to an intravenous drip, leaving air in the tubing and causing some air to enter Hope’s bloodstream when the cannula was placed and the giving set’s control opened.
The first set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ initial phone call to Hope’s owners ten minutes after Hope’s death, in which she said that Hope had died because of a reaction to anaesthetic drugs. Dr Dantas-Holmes failed to mention that the cause of death was still to be determined and failed to mention that a likely cause was in fact an air embolism and/or a complication relating to the intravenous drip.
Following her initial phone call to the owners Dr Dantas-Holmes viewed CCTV of her actions.
The owners then came into the practice later in the day, and the communications during that time constitute the second set of charges: that, during this meeting, Dr Dantas-Holmes didn’t correct her earlier statements about the cause of Hope’s death, and that she didn’t mention that there was an ongoing investigation or that a likely cause of death was an air embolism and/or complication.
The third set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ subsequent clinical records, in which it was alleged that she failed to include references to the findings on review of the CCTV footage of Hope’s death, and the possibility of an air embolism and/or complication relating to the intravenous drip.
The fourth and final set of charges were that her conduct was misleading, and/or dishonest.
With regard to the first set of charges, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did tell the owners that Hope died because of a reaction to the drugs, but that given the short nature of the phone call to the owners and the distressing circumstances there was no duty to discuss the investigation, or to mention the likely cause being an air embolism.
Concerning the communications with the owners when they came to the practice, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did fail to mention that anaesthetic drugs might not have been the cause, and that she also failed to mention the investigation. Dr Dantas-Holmes had agreed with the Practice Manager, however, that she would not discuss the possibility of an air embolism or complication, and so that charge was not found proved.
On consideration of whether Dr Dantas-Holmes had failed to include relevant findings in the clinical reports, the Committee found both charges proved, and, in relation to the final set of charges, the Committee found that while Dr Dantas-Holmes had misled Hope’s owners, it was unintentional, and she had not been dishonest.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Dantas Holmes not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The findings of this Committee demonstrate that there were errors and omissions in communications with the owners. When communicating with a client it is the professional’s responsibility to ensure that the client has heard and understood what has been said. The importance of good and effective communication is particularly important when an unforeseen and shocking event occurs such as it did in this case.
"The particular circumstances of this case demonstrate how important it is to communicate effectively and the need for the veterinary surgeon to ensure that their clinical records for which they are wholly responsible, are complete.
"The Committee concluded that its findings demonstrated a departure from professional standards but that the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The RCVS has published the conclusions of The McKelvey Report, a review into the circumstances leading to a substantial overspend on the College's new database and development works at Belgravia House.
The review was carried out by Professor Bill McKelvey - a member of the College's Governance Review Group - and two of the College's Privy Council-appointed Council members to consider all aspects relating to the College's budgeting and expenditure process, and propose lessons that could be learned.
Whilst the full report has not yet been published, its conclusions highlight:
Overall, the report concluded that:
Weaknesses exist in the governance of the RCVS which pose significant risks to the proper conduct of its business. Executive staff have not been provided with a robust governance framework by the Council, and this has led to a number of unnecessary misunderstandings between Executive staff and Non Executive members of Council. These matters should be urgently addressed by Council in order to ensure that the confidence of ordinary members of the profession in their College can be restored.
Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President said: "That such a review was required is regretted, but I would like to thank Professor McKelvey, Richard Davis and Judith Webb for their diligence in this work. Their recommendations will be a very helpful addition to the work that is currently underway to ensure corporate governance is fit for purpose and, in particular, that the management of capital projects within the College is optimised."
The full report is available here.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has set up a new Veterinary Legislation Group to consider proposals for changes in veterinary regulation, in the light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's inquiry into the current Veterinary Surgeons Act, and the Government's response to the EFRA Committee's report.
The new group, which will be chaired by RCVS Council Member and Dean of Glasgow Veterinary School, Professor Stuart Reid, will be tasked with taking a fresh look at changes that need to be made to the current legislative framework, and how these might be accomplished. It will not restrict itself to looking at a replacement for the Veterinary Surgeons Act, but will consider other ways that changes can be made in the short- and long-term.
The Group will meet in September, and comprise RCVS Council members and non-members - both lay people and veterinary surgeons. Once the RCVS position has been clarified, further discussion will follow with DEFRA, the BVA and the profession.
Responding to the Government's response to the EFRA Committee report, RCVS President Jill Nute said: "We welcome the fact that DEFRA is willing to consider any detailed proposals that might come forward from the profession, although we accept that DEFRA itself does not have time or resources to be proactive at this stage.
"We are also pleased that Government acknowledges that the veterinary nursing profession has come of age and that the time is right for the regulation of veterinary nurses to be taken forward, although again it is disappointing that DEFRA does not have the resources to progress this at present.
"Finally, we welcome the suggestion that the Presidents of the BVA and the RCVS meet with the Chief Veterinary Officer to discuss plans and to what extent DEFRA can help us - accepting the fact that DEFRA, like the RCVS, feels that a piecemeal approach may not be the most effective," she concluded.
Annual renewal fees for veterinary surgeons will remain at the same level as in 2021: £364 for UK-practising members, £182 for members practising outside the UK and £60 for non-practising members.
The removal of the alternative fee payment arrangements means there will no longer be the option to pay in instalments and the fee needs to be paid in full by the usual deadline of 1 April.
RCVS Treasurer Niall Connell said: “We understand that many veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses will have been impacted financially over the last couple of years, and we appreciate that this has been a very difficult time for the professions.
"We are pleased that we are able to keep fees static for a second year running, whilst maintaining a strong programme of strategic projects that help to set, uphold and advance standards within the professions.”
The courses are:
MMI Manager Lisa Quigley commented: “I am really proud of this new tranche of training.
"Whereas our previous training has focused on the individual experience, for example, mental health awareness and resilience, these new courses recognise that individual instances of poor mental health and wellbeing can often be caused by systemic issues – whether that’s a poor workplace culture where bullying and incivility thrive, or discrimination on account of someone’s protected characteristics.
The full range of courses, including the dates and times and details on how to register, can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/training
Feedback about any of the courses can be sent to info@vetmindmatters.org
The RCVS has launched an online petition calling on Parliament to protect the title ‘veterinary nurse’ in law.
The petition follows on from the work done by the College earlier in the year, drawing up the ‘Veterinary Nurse (Protection of Title) Bill’ which was submitted to a ballot of the House of Lords in May by former RCVS President and Council member Professor the Lord Trees and received its first reading on 10 June.
Unfortunately, Lord Trees' Bill was drawn low in the ballot, so it is now thought unlikely - though not impossible - that it will be given time for a second reading in this parliament.
Nevertheless, the College is continuing to try and raise awareness of the issue, both amongst the public and parliamentarians. If the petition gains enough signatures, it should maximise the chances of the Bill being given a proper airing in parliament, this year or in the future.
Liz Cox, the Chair of VN Council, said: “We believe that the fact that anybody can call themselves a veterinary nurse is unacceptable. It means that there is potential for the public to be misled and for animal health and welfare to be compromised. Therefore we would urge veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and animal owners to sign this petition. With 10,000 signatures the Government is obliged to respond formally and take a stance on the issue; with 100,000 signatures the issue would be considered for a formal parliamentary debate.
“If we are successful with this campaign, the public will be assured that they are receiving the highest standard of nursing care for their animals from a genuine professional and by protecting the title we can remove any doubt about who is a veterinary nurse.”
In conjunction with the petition, the RCVS has also produced a template letter which the profession and public can use to write to their local Member of Parliament asking them to support the campaign. For example, the letter asks the MP to adopt the Veterinary Nurse (Protection of Title) Bill and enter it into a Private Members’ Bill ballot or introduce it as a 10-Minute Rule Bill.
The petition, and the campaign in general, has received support from the BVNA and the British Veterinary Association BVA.
Fiona Andrew, President of the BVNA, said: “BVNA has campaigned for the protection of the title of 'Veterinary Nurse' for many years. We are delighted that the RCVS is continuing the campaign with the addition of the online petition and letter template.
“We would ask all out members to sign the petition and write to their MP. We believe that this is an important step towards giving clarity and reassurance to the public, strengthening the profession and raising awareness of what veterinary nurses can do and enhancing animal welfare.”
John Blackwell, President of the BVA, added: “BVA is delighted to support the campaign to protect the title, as veterinary nurses are an essential part of the veterinary team and deserve full recognition for their roles. By protecting the title it not only recognises the skills of qualified veterinary nurses, but also gives clients confidence that their animals are receiving the highest standard of care possible.” Those who wish to sign the petition can do so on the UK Government and Parliament petition website https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106153 To find out more about the campaign, download a template letter to an MP and view the College's animated video about protecting the title, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/vntitle
The College has kicked off with questions and answers about the right to work in the UK and the impact on those currently studying to become a veterinary surgeon or planning to do so.
Although it's not yet possible to give definitive answers and there will doubtless be many more questions, the College says it will be keeping the new page updated as the situation unfolds.
The Q&A page can be found here: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-rcvs-register/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-impact-of-the-eu-referendum/
At first glance, one might ask why? After all, who - other than the pilot - would fly with Thomas Cook sober?
However, there's a world of difference between being not entirely sober and Ms Heyes's level of intoxication, which according to the judge at Greater Manchester Magistrates Court, made her 'every passenger's worst nightmare', and earned her a sentence of 80 hours community service, a victim surcharge of £80 and £250 in costs.
At the start of her disciplinary hearing, Ms Heyes admitted the facts of her 2020 conviction, but denied that the conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Heyes's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Disciplinary Guidance states: “A conviction may be related to professional or personal behaviour and whether it renders a respondent unfit to practise is a matter of judgment for the Disciplinary Committee.
"Behaviour unconnected with the practice of veterinary surgery can cause concerns about the protection of animals or the wider public interest.”
The Committee concluded that the conviction and underlying behaviour was sufficiently serious that it required a finding that Ms Heyes was unfit to practise veterinary nursing on public interest grounds and that it also breached Code 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses which states: ‘Veterinary nurses must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession’.
The Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Ms Heyes, taking into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the risk Ms Heyes caused to passengers, including children and that she had behaved recklessly, falling far below the standard to be expected of a member of the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered this was a single and isolated incident, Ms Heyes had no previous disciplinary findings against her and following her conviction she had shown developing insight.
It also noted that she had continued to practise as a competent and dedicated veterinary nurse.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided to reprimand Ms Heyes because of its finding that the charge amounted to disgraceful conduct and rendered Ms Heyes unfit to practise.
"Such a sanction was necessary in the Committee’s view because the conviction brought the profession into disrepute.
"Whilst the charge was not so serious as to require suspension or removal from the register, the Committee decided it is necessary to issue a formal warning to Ms Heyes as to her future conduct.
“Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case including the positive references and the fact that a number of mitigating factors set out in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance were present in this case, the Committee was satisfied that this sanction would meet the public interest and protect the reputation of the profession and uphold standards within the profession; thereby maintaining public confidence in the College as the regulator for veterinary nurses.”
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The new draft Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
It is the benchmark for professional conduct against which registered veterinary nurses will be measured in any hearings on serious professional misconduct held by the recently-introduced VN Disciplinary Committee.
The purpose of the review is to ensure that guidance to the profession, and the public, is clear, for example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.
The new Code is a short, principles-based document, using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.
The consultation follows an earlier one for a new draft Code for veterinary surgeons that closed at the end of June: the new Code for veterinary nurses follows the format and style of that for veterinary surgeons. Comments made during the veterinary surgeon consultation will be taken account of alongside comments made during this new consultation.
For the first time, the draft proposes that veterinary nurses make a declaration on joining the VN Register, which underlines the primary importance of animal health and welfare: "I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care and that I will pursue the work of my profession with integrity and accept my responsibilities to my clients, the public, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons."
Comments on the proposed draft are invited from the veterinary nursing profession, the veterinary profession and the public, particularly on the issue of whether the Codes for veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons ought to be combined.
Andrea Jeffery, the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council member who led the group tasked with developing the new Code, said: "It is 50 years since the start of the veterinary nursing profession and the changes proposed in the Code reflect the development of our professional role over this time.
"This new Code is a simplified document that focuses on key principles and which will be supported by more detailed guidance. Although it follows the format of the draft Code for veterinary surgeons, it is important that we recognise our unique position as veterinary nurses."
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/VNcodeconsultation.
Comments should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 21 October 2011.