Generally, veterinary practices may remain open, but there are national variations in what services should be offered and how, including the conditions under which remote prescribing can be used to help support a case.
Wales currently has the tightest ‘firebreak’ restrictions, meaning practices can only provide essential and urgent work until midnight on 8 November 2020, thereafter, returning to usual operations in line with Wales’ standard measures around workplace safety.
England and Northern Ireland are under national restrictions (4 Nov – 2 Dec, and 16 Oct – 12 Nov, respectively), meaning practices can provide treatment essential for maintaining animal health and welfare, along with non-urgent work providing that social distancing measures and safe working can be maintained.
Veterinary surgeons practising in these three countries may also choose to support a case remotely at an earlier stage, for example, through the remote prescribing of POM-Vs without first having conducted a physical examination.
Scotland remains the only country under regional tiered restrictions, meaning practices can continue to provide treatment whilst maintaining social distancing; however, before remote prescribing is offered, veterinary surgeons should first consider whether the animal can be brought under their care.
The full guidance and corresponding flowcharts should be consulted together and are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq2and www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust is looking for a vet with a particular interest in veterinary education, professional development and research, to be a new trustee.
The RCVS Trust is an independent small charity that provides two key services to the veterinary profession to further education and animal welfare: an educational grants programme and a Library and Information Service. It is seeking a trustee who can bring new contacts and ideas relevant to the work of the Trust.
The Trust is also seeking further 'lay' trustees with experience of library services, fundraising and grant-making.
The current Board members have a wide range of experience from academia, government, animal health and small and large animal practice, and veterinary nursing. However, there is room for some new Trustees to join and bring the Board up to full strength.
Stephen Ware, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, said: "The Trust has an important role in supporting practising vets, veterinary nurses, researchers, students and academics through its grants programmes and library and information resources."
"We are looking for a veterinary surgeon who is actively involved in the wider profession through networks and specialist interest groups, and who is willing to promote the work of the Trust, for example, at veterinary congresses. Given the nature of the Trust's work, the new trustee should also have experience of postgraduate education or research.
"We need someone who has the energy and experience to get things done - and who can work with other trustees in a collegiate style."
Trustees serve an initial three-year term, spending around six days a year at meetings in London and conferences. Reasonable expenses are reimbursed. Experience of charity governance and finance is not necessary as training and support will be given.
Those interested in the role can contact Cherry Bushell, Director of the RCVS Trust, for an informal discussion and an application form. The closing date for applications is 30 April.
Clare (pictured) who is currently the General Dental Council’s Interim Executive Director for Legal and Governance, will be joining the RCVS as its most senior legal officer at the end of March 2025.
A qualified solicitor, Clare started her practice as a Solicitor Advocate in criminal law, before undertaking roles in regulatory bodies in the healthcare and financial sector.
She joined the General Dental Council in March 2023 and has been in her current role there since March last year.
When she joins the College, Clare will have a dual role.
As Registrar she will be responsible for keeping, maintaining and publishing Registers of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, including oversight of the various mechanisms via which veterinary professionals can join the Register, what they need to do to stay on the Registers, how they may leave or be removed and registration appeals.
As Director of Legal Services, she'll provide leadership and guidance on legal matters within the organisation, including guiding RCVS Council through the development of oral and written legal advice, as well as sitting on committees and working groups in order to ensure the College’s activity is within its legal remit and represents best practice.
RCVS Chief Executive Officer Lizzie Lockett said: “I am sure the RCVS, the professions and the public will benefit from her very relevant experience from senior roles within the General Dental Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, and Financial Conduct Authority, as well as her private sector legal experience.
“She joins the College at a time of change, with our continued push for new veterinary legislation, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority investigation of the sector, and a new strategic plan for the College due to be approved this spring.
“The Registrar is the senior legal figure within the organisation, and I am looking forward to Clare contributing her legal expertise on these significant areas of work.
"She joins our very capable legal team, who I am sure will benefit from her leadership, as she will benefit from their sector expertise.”
Clare said: “I am delighted to join the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to contribute to the valuable work of safeguarding the interests of the public and animals by supporting veterinary professionals to provide the highest standards of care.”
VetSurgeon.org extends a warm welcome to Clare and wishes her all the very best in her new position.
One small but nevertheless important point is that perhaps a better aim would be to support veterinary professionals in providing just a 'high' standard of care, rather than the 'highest' standards.
It's this constant striving for the 'highest' standards from both a regulatory and clinical perspective that is driving up the cost of veterinary care and making it unaffordable.
The Royal College is inviting veterinary surgeons to the first-ever Virtual Question Time, which is being held online with The Webinar Vet, from 8-9.30pm on Wednesday 24 April.
Lizzie Lockett, Head of the RCVS Communications Department said: "This is an ideal opportunity to put your burning questions to members of the RCVS Officer team and to VN Council. Our regular Question Time meetings are popular, so we are following their format by asking delegates to set the agenda via their choice of questions. This time there is the extra advantage that busy vets and nurses can take part from the comfort of their own homes. If the Virtual Question Time proves successful, we may hold these events regularly."
The meeting will be run as a free, live-audio webinar. RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux will open proceedings, and introduce the panel, before answering questions from the participants.
Questions may be put to the College in advance and can also be submitted as discussion unfolds on the night. These can be on any issues affecting the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions - there is no set agenda - and might range from the First Rate Regulator initiative, new vet schools, veterinary nurse training and clinical governance, to proposed changes to the Practice Standards Scheme and recent amendments to the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
The session will also be recorded so those unable to attend on the night can still listen afterwards.
The meeting can be counted towards continuing professional development for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Registrations and questions can be submitted online at http://thewebinarvet.com/rcvs/#.
This year, 13 veterinary surgeons stood for three available places on Council.
6,583 veterinary surgeons voted, a turnout of 18.6% which was significantly down on previous years (24.5% in 2021, 26.2% in 2020 and 25.5% in 2019).
Sue Paterson led the field with 2,358 votes, Olivia Cook came in second with 1,994 votes and Abbie Calow was close behind with 1,820 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Many congratulations to all successful candidates, who we look forward to welcoming on to RCVS and VN Councils in July.
"Thank you once again this year to everyone who made the decision to stand in this year’s elections and to those who took the time to vote for their preferred candidates.
"We’re not exactly sure why both elections saw falling turnouts this year, but we do appreciate how extremely busy the professions are at the moment, and that everyone’s time is at a premium.
"As part of our ‘Council culture’ project we are looking at ways of improving all aspects of communicating the work around RCVS Council, VN Council and their committees, including around standing for and voting in elections.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found on the 2022 election page.
Written in association with Dr Elinor O’Connor, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Psychology at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, the guide is designed for anyone with an interest in the wellbeing of the veterinary team. It provides practical advice to veterinary workplaces on managing stress and promoting wellbeing, alongside examples from the three winning practices of the 2016 MMI/SPVS Wellbeing Awards.
Elinor said: "Addressing stress in veterinary work not only has benefits for the health and wellbeing of each person in the veterinary team, but the business case for reducing work-related stress is clear; stress is associated with poorer performance, increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover. The wellbeing guide provides information about proven techniques for reducing stress at work combined with suggestions for how they might be applied in veterinary workplaces."
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "Stress at work is an important issue right across the veterinary team. It is sometimes considered just an acceptable part of working in an environment that can be difficult to control, but things can change.
"By making wellbeing a priority practices can support individuals and help their team work better together, and thus provide the best treatment for the animals under their care. This leaflet unpacks some of the root causes of work-related stress and may be of particular interest to practice managers, line managers or health and safety officers."
Good to see that the guide includes a recommendation that practices have measures in place to identify and resolve conflict at work and a clear policy on harassment or bullying, something which research by VetSurgeon.org, VetNurse.co.uk and ex-BSAVA Head of Scientific Policy, Sally Everitt MRCVS found correlated with reduced reports of sustained unpleasant behaviour in practice, a significant source of stress.
The guide can be downloaded here: https://www.vetmindmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MMI-12pp-web.pdf.
The annual minimum requirement for vets will be reduced from 35 to 26 hours of CPD, while that of veterinary nurses will be reduced from 15 to 11 hours. The reduction comes into force immediately.
A similar 25% reduction will also be introduced for veterinary surgeons holding Advanced Practitioner or RCVS Specialist status.
The decision to reduce the hours was made by the new RCVS Council COVID-19 Taskforce, chaired by RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, which was set up in order to make temporary policy decisions related to the pandemic in a quicker and more agile way. The proposal had previously been considered and supported by the RCVS Education Committee, VN Council and CPD Policy Working Group.
Niall said: “A number of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses expressed concern that it may be difficult to undertake CPD at present and so, in order to give the professions some breathing space, we decided we would reduce the minimum hours required for 2020. We also recognise that some practices are having to make the difficult decision to reduce their CPD budgets this year in response to falling footfall.
"However, it is worth reiterating that CPD need not be expensive or require physical attendance at lectures, congresses or other events. There are many online providers of CPD and other resources such as articles and webinars, some of which may be free. The key is that the CPD is relevant to you and enhances your professional practice and so we would still encourage all our members to undertake CPD as and when they can."
The policy will be under regular review and may be extended further if the circumstances demand. Those with any questions on the policy change should contact the RCVS Education Department on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
A full range of FAQs on the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on the veterinary profession are available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus
In his talk, 'Digital Veterinary Practice', Adam presents an exciting and compelling vision as to how technology will transform the profession and enable veterinary surgeons to offer better care to more patients.
His talk begins with an interesting look at how technological change has gathered pace in recent years, before considering some of the emerging technologies that could be applied to veterinary practice.
In particular, he talked about the so-called 'Internet of things': the way more and more 'things' other than computers are connected to the Internet.
There are now about 9bn 'things' connected to the internet, by 2020 there are expected to be 50bn. Adam predicted that more and more of them are going to be worn by animals: to measure reproductive health in farm animals; to track performance in equines; and to monitor behaviour and activity in companion animals.
Adam discussed how there is already a smart litter box which measures an animal’s habits, an oral pill camera that can take 360 degree internal photos, 3D printed drugs and digitised microscopy. By uniting these technologies with increasingly accurate virtual reality technology, he said, long-distance examinations could become a real possibility.
In relation to the role of the RCVS, Adam explored how the profession could be proactive in engaging with these technologies, such as by: using regulation as a mechanism to attract 'disruptors' to work alongside the profession; identifying areas of retraining and creating targeted learning opportunities; fostering an entrepreneurial mindset; creating an early-adopter network of practices to foster initial collaboration; and framing industry challenges as targeted problems whose solutions can be crowd-sourced.
The RCVS and VN Councils have each agreed to raise registration and retention fees for the financial year 2011-12 by 2%. This means the annual retention fee for a home-practising veterinary surgeon will increase by £5, and the fee for a veterinary nurse, by £1.
To encourage members who cease to practise to request removal from the Register, rather than simply allow their membership to lapse, the fee for restoration following voluntary removal will be reduced by almost 50%, from £147 to £75.
All fees for the current financial year were, exceptionally, frozen to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on the veterinary profession. The increases agreed for 2011-12 are below current inflation figures, and in line with the RCVS financial policy of introducing small fee increases on an incremental basis in order to avoid sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
A list of the new fees can be found in the June edition of RCVS News, also available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvsnews.
A one-day seminar entitled ‘One World, One Disease,’ will take place at the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM), Wimpole Street, London, on 24 June 2008.
The event, which has been jointly organised by the RSM and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), will examine some of the effects of climate change on patterns of animal health and the impact of this on humans. The meeting will provide an understanding of the complexity of the global changes that we face, and will work towards the integrated approach needed to manage the serious problems that threaten animal and human health.
About two-thirds of new infectious diseases that threaten humans come from animals. With global climate change, this looks set to increase. Now more than ever, it is important that veterinary and medical colleagues come together to discuss disease control strategies.
Speakers will include RCVS Senior Vice-President Professor Sheila Crispin, who has been instrumental in organising the conference, Caroline Lucas MEP, Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, the RVC’s Professor Quintin McKellar and Lt Col Tim Brookes from the Health Protection Agency, among others.
All are welcome. Tickets are available from the Royal Society of Medicine online at http://www.rsm.ac.uk/academ/e10-oneworld.php
"We are urgently looking at what these new national lockdowns will mean for veterinary professionals and services, and we are liaising with the Chief Veterinary Officers.
"We aim to issue updated guidance in the coming days but can confirm that we will not be reverting to emergency-only work, as we saw at the start of the first UK-wide lockdown last March.
"Instead, we are developing guidance to support veterinary professionals to carry out work that is essential for public health and animal health and welfare, in the context of the very strong ‘stay at home’ messages from both governments.
"We recognise that this continues to be a very challenging and difficult time for our colleagues, and we want to thank veterinary teams across the UK for continuing to work safely so that we can all play our part in stopping the spread of Covid.
"Once again we thank animal owners for their understanding and ask them to continue to respect their vets’ decisions at this time. The range of services available will vary between practices so that vets can work in Covid-safe ways to keep their colleagues and clients safe."
Following the outcry from the profession over the disciplinary hearing into Mr M Chikosi, the RCVS' new Operational Board has clarified the the College's position on the use of blankets to move animals.
The hearing found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.
As a result, the Disciplinary Committee directed that Mr Chikosi's name be removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct. The College says that since the appeal window has closed without an appeal being made, Mr Chikosi has now been struck off.
However, the Committee also said: "... his [Mr Chikosi's] advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back."
This was widely criticised as being out of touch with the practicalities of real life and unsupported by any evidence.
Speaking on behalf of the Board, President Neil Smith said: "We fully support the decision taken by the independent Disciplinary Committee with regard to the Chikosi hearing, with one comment requiring clarification: the issue of whether a blanket can be used to move an injured dog. We consider that it is acceptable, in most cases, to transport an injured dog with the aid of a blanket.
"The profession should be reassured that our Standards Committee [the new name for Advisory Committee] will consider the general issues raised by the Chikosi hearing at its next meeting. This will not be a review of the decision, but form part of the routine consideration of DC hearings made by the Committee to see if they raise issues that require additional guidance and advice."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust is offering a bursary for one delegate to attend the Veterinary Biomedical and Pharma Sciences (VBMPS) Congress on 15 and 16 October 2012 at the ICC in Birmingham.
Members of the RCVS with an interest in 'one health' are eligible to apply. Entrants are asked to explain, in no more than 400 words, their interest in the concept of one health and why they should be granted a bursary.
Entrants should also demonstrate how they would disseminate their learning from the event to the wider veterinary community.
Entries should be sent to grants@rcvstrust.org.uk by Monday 3 September 2012, and the winner will be notified within two weeks.
The bursary winner will be given a delegate pass worth £175 for entry to the conference and admission to all scientific sessions. Reasonable transport costs and accommodation will be reimbursed.
Further details are available at http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants-and-collaborations
At a hearing in April Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him, which related fraudulent claims for the treatment of animals, two of which were fictitious, where he arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account.
Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee Chair Paul Morris said: “The Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the respondent’s dishonest conduct will have severely undermined the confidence of the public in the veterinary profession and, further, that his conduct fell far short of the standards and conduct properly to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee is satisfied that this conduct by the respondent brought the profession into disrepute.”
The proceedings were then adjourned to allow a psychiatric report and other mitigation to be prepared.
At its resumed hearing on earlier this month, the Committee considered what sanction to impose.
The Committee found that aggravating features of his misconduct were that it was premeditated, carefully planned and sophisticated in that it involved the creation of numerous and extensive false clinical records to support his fraudulent claims.
It also considered the fact that he implicated an innocent professional colleague who worked alongside him at the practice, that he abused the trust placed in him by clients, that the dishonest conduct was repeated and that it involved significant financial gain in excess of £13,200 to be further aggravating features of his conduct
In terms of mitigation, the Committee accepted that he had made early admissions regarding his conduct to his employer and the College and accepted responsibility.
The Committee also heard that he had made attempts at remediation involving repayments of some of the sums lost by the practice and insurers.
It also considered positive testimonials from family and professional colleagues and the fact that Dr Johnston had taken significant steps to deal with the gambling addiction that was at the root cause of his misconduct.
Having considered all the evidence, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of 2 years on the condition that Dr Johnston agree to undertakings including refraining from any form of gambling, subjecting himself to a close regime of support and supervision, and repaying some of the sums he had defrauded.
Paul added: “In reaching this conclusion the Committee wishes to make it clear that it has taken an exceptional course in this case.
"Ordinarily conduct of the type covered by the charges which this respondent has accepted will merit the imposition of a sanction of removal from the Register or a period of suspension from the Register.
"In this instance the Committee has found it possible to take the course that it has because it is satisfied that the respondent was, at the time, suffering from a recognisable psychiatric compulsive addiction… and that the fraudulent attempts by the respondent to obtain funds with which to gamble would not have occurred but for this psychiatric condition.
“The Committee further considers that the undertakings offered by the respondent will serve to reduce the risk that he will relapse into gambling again, for his conduct will be closely monitored and he will accept continuing support and guidance from the organisations currently assisting him.
“The Committee is also satisfied of the requirements that neither animals nor the public will be put at risk by this proposed course of action; that the respondent has demonstrated insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and that there is currently no significant risk of repeat behaviour; that his practicing standards are not in need of improvement so long as he continues to fulfil his CPD obligations; that the undertakings offered are capable of being met, are appropriate and are measurable; that there is evidence that his underlying medical problem is being appropriately addressed, will be monitored and reported on; and that he has responded positively to the opportunities for support and counselling which have been offered to him.”
If Dr Johnston fails to comply with his undertakings the Committee will reconvene and consider the charges with the full range of sanctions at its disposal.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
The College says the aim of the programme, which will replace the current Professional Development Phase (PDP), is to ensure that new graduates are fully supported in their new role and able to progress from day one competencies into confident and capable independent practitioners.
The new programme builds on the results of the Graduate Outcomes Consultation, a consultation which reported in 2019 to gather the views of the profession with regards to day one competencies, the PDP, extra-mural studies and clinical education for general practice.
The Graduate Outcomes consultation found that the profession felt that support mechanisms for new graduates needed to be strengthened, and the proposal to develop this new programme of support was approved by RCVS Council in January.
The first of the two working groups is the EPA Working Group, which is tasked with assisting the development of a bank of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). EPAs describe the everyday professional tasks carried out by vets in practice, covering a wide range of areas of clinical and professional practice which graduates and their mentors can access to build into their own e-portfolio.
The second working group is the Mentor Working Group, which will assist in shaping the role of the mentor in the new programme and create a training package for workplace mentors.
Sue Paterson, Chair of RCVS Education Committee said: "It is incredibly important for us to have input from veterinary surgeons who are working in general practice as they are well positioned to comment on how the development programme can effectively support graduates on a day to day basis."
The College is looking for veterinary surgeons working in practice and who have an interest in helping new graduates gain the best possible experience to join as members of these new working groups. It would be beneficial for applicants to have experience with mentoring and/or workplace training.
Successful applicants would be required to visit the RCVS for three half-day meetings over the period of a year and the RCVS would cover travel and subsistence expenses. There would be an additional time commitment to review and feedback on material via email.
Those general practitioners who are interested in applying should email Britta Crawford, RCVS Education Manager, via b.crawford@rcvs.org.uk giving a brief description of their current position and why they feel they would be an asset to the working group. The closing date for applications is 6 March 2020.
From 31 October 2008, veterinary surgeons will again be allowed to charge animal owners for writing prescriptions, when a three-year ban on such fees comes to an end.
The Supply of Relevant Veterinary Medicinal Products Order 2005 was introduced by the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to implement recommendations from a 2003 Competition Commission inquiry into the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines, which, among other things, found that prescription charges were against the public interest. It was hoped by the DTI that the move would benefit consumers by providing for pharmacies and other suppliers to have an opportunity to establish themselves as competitors to veterinary surgeons in supplying prescription-only veterinary medicines.
Although veterinary practices will be able to make a charge for writing a prescription from 31 October 2008, one thing does not change: practices must not charge different fees for other services or veterinary medicines to those who take a prescription and those who do not.
Jill Nute, RCVS President said: "The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) will monitor the reintroduction of prescription charges and has indicated that the level of monitoring will be proportionate to the perceived need - how well the market is working.
In addition, the RCVS will monitor complaints that relate to prescription charges and meet with the OFT to review the situation in six months time. Care must be taken to ensure that prescription fees are calculated sensibly, or the zero-fee ruling may be reintroduced."
The OFT has advised that veterinary practices must not agree between themselves what constitutes a suitable fee: it is prohibited by competition law.
General guidance for members of the profession is available on RCVSonline (Advice Note 15): www.rcvs.org.uk/advicenotes. Guidance for members of the public is also available online at:
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/thinking_about/560042/
Other Competition Commission recommendations, such as displaying a price-list of the ten relevant veterinary medicinal products most commonly prescribed during a recent period, have been enforced since 2005 via the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and will remain in place.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon who qualified in 1969, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At the hearing, which had originally been listed for seven days, Geoffrey Raymond Oliver, 68, was charged with serious professional misconduct over allegations of his inadequate treatment of two dogs and a cat (belonging to three different clients) between 2010 and 2012; inadequate record keeping; failures to deal honestly or properly with his clients; and, failure to heed advice from the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee about the importance of proper communication between veterinary surgeons and their clients.
However, before the Committee heard evidence on any aspect of these charges, Mr Oliver lodged his application for adjournment. The Committee therefore made no findings on the charges, and emphasised they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, him.
The Committee noted that there had been no adverse findings against Mr Oliver during his professional career, that his practice was now closed and that he had no intention of returning to practise in the future. Should he subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertaking.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have incurred considerable time and costs - dissented from the proposed course of action.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has concluded that no useful purpose would be served were it to insist on a full hearing [and it] would be a disproportionate waste of...resources [to do so]. The Committee is satisfied that [granting the adjournment application] protects the welfare of animals and...is in the public interest."
The Committee then accepted Mr Oliver's undertakings, including the removal of his name from the Register with immediate effect.
Professor Lees added: "So that he is in no doubt about the matter, the Committee reminds [Mr Oliver] that, when referring clients of his former practice elsewhere, he should be careful to avoid giving them any advice about the diagnosis or treatment of their animals."
In mid-September, the Association wrote to the RCVS expressing concern about the August extension to the temporary guidance.
In the latest update from the RCVS, the temporary measure has now been extended to 31 October but the flowchart and guidance have been updated to add some additional steps before a POM-V product can be prescribed remotely.
The BVA says that while it supported the original decision in March as a pragmatic solution and direct response to government restrictions surrounding Covid-19, it is now questioning the ongoing need for such a relaxation in the rules.
In the letter to the RCVS, the BVA also asked for a timeframe for the publication of the results of the RCVS survey of practices’ experiences of remote consulting and prescribing. The Association's own under care working group, chaired by Nigel Gibbens, has been developing a position to respond to the RCVS review.
BVA President James Russell (pictured right) said: "We understand that allowing remote prescription of POM-Vs was a necessary measure at the height of the lockdown, as practices struggled to assess patients in person.
"However, the veterinary professions have done a fantastic job in adapting to the restrictions and are now able to work safely and see patients.
"Whilst we recognise the RCVS has provided additional guidance for the remote prescribing of POM-V, we cannot currently see any reason why a new client would be unable to access in-person veterinary care in the first instance and we are asking RCVS Council to reconsider this measure when it meets in Oct.
"It makes sense to continue allowing vets to remotely prescribe for existing patients, for example if an owner is shielding, but we feel it is no longer appropriate to be remotely prescribing to animals that have never been physically examined by the vet.
“The question of whether we should be able to remotely prescribe POM-V products without first seeing an animal is an important and live debate, and we welcome the resumption of the College’s review. But the longer that temporary measures are in place, the greater the expectation from animal owners that they will always be in place, and the harder it will be to have the discussion about the best way forward.
“As a profession, we are rightly concerned about antimicrobial resistance and we pride ourselves on the responsible use of medicines. Continually extending the temporary measures without a full analysis would risk undermining our position.”
Ms Hickman was charged with leaving three dogs, two of which had undergone surgery the day before and one of which was in for monitoring, unattended for more than three hours on 8th November 2022, after falling asleep.
She was then charged with falsifying clinical records to suggest she had made the relevant clinical checks and offered them water when in fact, she'd been asleep.
The final charge was that her actions in falsifying the records were dishonest and misleading.
At the start of the hearing, Ms Hickman admitted all of the charges.
As the charges had been admitted, the Committee considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it noted sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses that relate to making animal health and welfare a veterinary nurse’s primary concern, the need to provide veterinary nursing care that is appropriate and adequate, and the need to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was in no doubt that the respondent’s failure to monitor properly three patients in an overnight ward in a hospital and the subsequent creation of false records to suggest that appropriate monitoring had taken place amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Committee found that an adverse health condition had influenced the conduct that had led to the disciplinary hearing – including that she had unintentionally fallen asleep while she should have been monitoring the animals – and so considered this a mitigating factor.
Also, by way of mitigation, the Committee considered that Miss Hickman had fully appreciated the implications of her conduct and expressed remorse at the impact it could have on the public’s trust for the veterinary nursing profession.
It also took into account positive testimonials from current and previous employers, her hitherto unblemished career, and the fact that there was no longer any risk of repetition.
However, in terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that it was a case involving dishonesty, and dishonesty which had not been admitted to the RCVS at an early stage.
In addition, it noted that the conduct involved a risk of injury to animals and a breach of trust towards the owners of those animals.
Dr Peaty added: “The Committee was satisfied that a significant period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, serve to maintain the reputation of the profession and promote and maintain proper standards of conduct.
"The Committee considered that a period of suspension of six months was sufficient to satisfy this public interest.”
Miss Hickman has 28 days from the sanction being announced to appeal the Committee’s decision.
A total of 8,234 votes were cast in this year’s election, a turnout of 25.5%. The College says the previous highest turnout recorded this century was 22.8%, and it thinks this year's result may even be an all-time record.
It is unclear how much the results were influenced by VetSurgeon.org's reporting of the candidates standing for election, but in another first, Niall Connell was later seen sporting a t-shirt displaying the story: "Arlo said I'm 'by all accounts, something of a national treasure'. Had to do it. Got the T Shirt."
You're welcome, Niall. And huge congratulations to Jo Dyer, who is such a passionate advocate for coal face vets, and to Linda Belton too.
At the other end of the results, isn't it staggering that there are as many as 422 MsRCVS who are prepared to vote for a single non-issue candidate based the other side of the world. Who are you? Why do you do it? I mean, one can understand a few people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party out of the general population numbering millions. But 5% of a small, highly educated and qualified profession? What on earth is that about?
The full results, in order of number of votes, are:
Niall Connell – 3,766 votes (re-elected)
Linda Belton – 3,581 votes (elected)
Jo Dyer – 3,146 votes (re-elected)
John Innes – 2,716 votes
Kate Richards – 2,283 votes
Tim Greet – 2,280 votes
Peter Robinson – 1,791 votes
John Davies – 507 votes
Tom Lonsdale – 422 votes
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Congratulations to Niall and Jo for being re-elected to Council and congratulations also to Linda who we look forward to welcoming to Council at this year’s Royal College Day on Friday 12 July. I would also like to thank Kate, Tim and Peter for their contributions during their time on Council and give my commiserations to them and the other candidates who were unsuccessful this year.
"I was delighted to see that, this year, we had over a quarter of those eligible to vote doing so which means both a record number of votes and a record turnout – it seems this was assisted by our email reminders which, each time they were sent out, lead to a significant boost in uptake.
"However, we will not rest on our laurels and will continue to think about how we can further improve engagement in the election process and turnout for subsequent years."
The results of the election will be declared formally at this year’s Royal College Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 12 July 2019 where the successful candidates will also start their new four-year terms.
No election to Veterinary Nursing Council was held this year due to the fact that there were only two candidates – Liz Cox and Jane Davidson – standing for the two elected places. Both Liz and Jane will take up their three-year terms at Royal College Day.
The RCVS has released the results of a survey it conducted which has found that the vast majority of recent graduates from UK veterinary schools consider extra-mural studies (EMS) to be an essential component of the veterinary degree.
The survey was launched earlier this year in order to help the RCVS build up a picture of how EMS placements are currently working and whether graduates felt that they had gained knowledge and experience from placements that they could not have learnt from their core studies. Some 287 veterinary graduates from 2012 and 2013 participated in the survey, the overwhelming majority of whom (95.6%) agreed that EMS was essential.
Furthermore, the majority of the recent graduates said that they had found EMS placements to be beneficial in terms of the variety of clinical skills, professional skills and working practices they encountered. The only area in which a large number of graduates (42.9%) said that they did not find EMS placements useful was in gaining experience of out-of-hours and weekend work.
Despite the overall positive results, however, a number of concerns about EMS were raised. Issues included variable quality of placements; significant numbers of respondents feeling they were not able to gain as much 'hands-on' experience from placements as they would like; costs of accommodation and travel; and a lack of farm/mixed animal practices for placements.
Other key findings included the fact that the vast majority of veterinary students identified and booked their own placements at EMS practices and that their placements were at the type of practice they were looking for.
Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "We launched this survey as an information-gathering exercise to see how EMS placements are currently working, following our last review of EMS in 2009 - and the results have certainly been very interesting.
"What is clear is that the current system is working well and that there is no need for an immediate review or urgent action. Most graduates found the experience gained on placements useful for their studies and find that EMS sets them up well for their first job in practice.
"However, there are a number of issues that we will keep a watching brief over and we plan to repeat the survey every two years in order to monitor these."
The full results of the survey are available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/emssurvey2014. Detailed guidance on EMS placements for students, university staff and EMS practices is also available at www.rcvs.org.uk/ems.
Any queries about EMS can also be directed to the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0704.
Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."
The RCVS has announced that registrations for the new RCVS Register of Veterinary Practice Premises will be accepted from 1 November 2008, allowing all those who wish to supply medicines from veterinary practice premises from 1 April 2009 onwards a full five months to comply with the latest medicines legislation.
In order to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines, the UK Government decided that any veterinary surgeon may only supply veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) from premises registered with the Secretary of State, with effect from 1 April 2009.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is responsible for the inspection and registration of practices under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Steve Dean, VMD's Chief Executive, says the new veterinary practice premises register will complete the UK information base by bringing veterinary practices in line with other suppliers of veterinary medicines who already have to operate from registered premises.
The Register will enable the supply of veterinary medicines by veterinary surgeons, including controlled drugs, to be subjected to inspection and verification. As a result, DEFRA Ministers and the European Commission can be re-assured that veterinary medicines are being supplied in the UK in accordance with EC legislation.
In discussion with the VMD, it was agreed that the most appropriate body to maintain this register would be the RCVS, not least because the College already manages the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and publishes the (voluntary) Directory of Veterinary Practices, so has the necessary systems already in place. The register will be published on RCVSonline and updated quarterly.
Whilst there will now be a statutory fee levied for each practice premises registered on the new Register, the College's existing database framework has kept this to a relatively low £40 compared to what other bodies might have had to charge after starting from scratch.
Practices could appear in the Directory for free because the cost of producing it was partially covered by subsequent data sales. However, the new Register will need to be self-funding, as the data it contains will be freely available online.
Not all practices will have to pay the statutory fee. RCVS President Jill Nute said: "For those practice premises already accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), the fee will be taken from their existing PSS annual fee.
"What's more, accredited practices will not face additional four-yearly inspections by VMD inspectors (unless there is an investigation for enforcement purposes) as their PSS inspections already ensure that they keep up to date with current medicines legislation."
Practice premises that have applied to join the Scheme, but have not yet been accredited, will not face additional VMD inspections either, but will still need to pay the statutory fee.
To help practices understand the new requirements and what they need to do before next April, the RCVS has produced a range of guidance, including a series of Frequently Asked Questions (www.rcvs.org.uk).
"In particular, we hope this guidance will help to explain which premises are likely to be considered ‘veterinary practice premises' and the difference between those premises and places where medicines might simply be stored or kept," said Mrs Nute.
"It is important to realise that there is a legal requirement to register veterinary practice premises for the supply of medicines, and a professional obligation, set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct, to keep a record of where all medicines are stored or kept. This record should avoid the need for additional registration of car boots, farms and homes."
Over the coming weeks, application forms will be posted to all practices currently listed in the Directory and accredited under the PSS, containing all the practice information currently held. These forms must be checked, signed and returned, even if no fee is due. Separate application forms will be available for any non-accredited practice premises not published in the Directory, and a letter will be sent to all RCVS members to ensure the whole profession is aware of the new requirements.
The campaign gives 11 reasons why owners should register their pets with a veterinary practice, and encourages them to visit www.findavet.org.uk to find the right vet practice for them and their pet.:
Just like people, your pet can benefit from regular health checks to help stay happy and healthy.
Emergencies can happen at any time – registering means you’ll have easier access to emergency vet care whenever you need it.
Your vet knows a lot more about your animal than Dr Google and can provide tailored advice for your pet.
Regular weight checks and nutritional advice can help to keep your pet in shape – your practice’s vet nurses can often help with this.
Many vet practices run pet socialisation and training classes where you can meet other pet owners.
Your vet practice will hold your pet’s medical history to help diagnose any problems quickly.
Your veterinary practice can offer great advice about which pet is right for you because they will know you and your family.
Your vet practice is best placed to recommend other services for your animal, whether that’s pet groomers and trainers, or referral to an advanced practitioner or specialist.
Veterinary staff are often animal owners too, so they understand that pets are a much-loved part of the family.
Vets and nurses have made a solemn promise to look after animals under their care; they study for many years and have to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.
There are some medicines that only vets can prescribe, so it helps to be registered with a practice.
BVA President John Fishwick said: "Pets need vets to ensure their lifelong wellbeing, which is why it is concerning that a large number of pet owners in the country have not registered their animals with a practice. It is important that owners have access to reliable advice and veterinary care to be able to best look after their pets, and so we are calling on the profession to get involved in promoting the wealth of benefits that registering with a vet practice provides."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May added: "Owning an animal is a huge responsibility, which is why access to professional veterinary advice is vital. With this campaign we aim to highlight some of the very considerable benefits of registering pets with a veterinary practice, and raise awareness amongst pet owners who have not yet registered of the value of having access to professional veterinary advice, expertise and treatment to keep their animals healthy. We would be delighted if practices across the country would help share these messages on their own social media accounts."
Vets, vet nurses and veterinary practices can help spread the word on the value of registering pets by sharing campaign resources on social media using the hashtag ‘#petsneedvets’, downloading campaign resources and using the opportunity to encourage local pet owners to register with their practice.
To further highlight the value of veterinary care and the special bond between a veterinary professional and the animals under their care, BVA is also encouraging existing clients to share pictures of their pets at the vets online using the hashtags #lovemyvet and #lovemyvetnurse.
The Pets Need Vets campaign stems from the aim of the joint BVA and RCVS Vet Futures Action Plan to develop communications tools to assist the public’s understanding of veterinary costs and fees, and promote the value of veterinary care.
More information on the campaign and shareable resources are available at https://www.bva.co.uk/petsneedvets and www.rcvs.org.uk/petsneedvets
Reference