The RCVS is encouraging vets to nominate members of their nursing team for this year's VN Golden Jubilee Award, which recognises exceptional contribution to veterinary nursing.
The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training course and recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the profession, animal welfare and/or patient care. Nominees can be registered veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.
Nomination forms need to be submitted by 5pm on Friday 24 April. The principal nominator must be a registered veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon, although the two supporting proposers can be lay people.
Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: "One of the main priorities of VN Council in the coming years is to raise levels of awareness of registered veterinary nurses, and awards which recognise the importance of VNs in the context of the veterinary team and animal welfare are crucial to enhancing the profession's profile.
"Therefore I would encourage veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to think about those VNs who go above and beyond the call of duty for their cause and who would be excellent ambassadors for the profession and nominate them for the Golden Jubilee Award."
Last year's winner was Hayley Walters who was recognised for her contribution to animal welfare through her teaching, clinical and international outreach work. Previous recipients were Jean Turner in 2011 and Sue Badger in 2012. No award was made in 2013.
The nomination form for the VN Golden Jubilee Award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee
The winner will be chosen by a panel of VN Council members and will receive the Award at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting and Awards Day - on Friday 10 July 2015.
For further information about making a nomination for the award contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0713.
There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.
The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.
At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.
The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.
In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.
This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so.
With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.
The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.
The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.
The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.
The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.
In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.
The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).
Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.
It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings.
Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The two surveys, for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively, ask the professions a wide range of both quantitative and qualitative questions, covering everything from what they do in a typical working day, to career aspirations, to levels of mental and physical wellbeing.
The surveys are confidential and anonymous.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Our Surveys of the Professions are not just a useful and interesting snapshot of the veterinary professions at a particular moment in time, but are really consequential in terms of what we do with the results.
"For example, information from the previous surveys were used to inform our current Strategic Plan, including our mission to be a compassionate regulator, ongoing support for the Mind Matters Initiative, and a focus on workforce-related issues.
"In a similar spirit, this year’s results will inform the forthcoming RCVS Strategic Plan.
“Of course, the quality of the results of the surveys really depends on hearing from as many of you as possible – so we would like veterinary professionals from all parts of the UK as well as our overseas members, from all backgrounds, of all ages and working on all different disciplines to feed into all areas of the surveys and help us with our research.
"Please don’t miss out on having your say, and a huge thank you for taking the time to support this important work.”
The deadline for completing the survey is on or before Friday 16 February 2024.
The RCVS has announced the appointment of Gordon Hockey as its Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar, has latterly been Acting Registrar, following the departure of Jane Hern in November 2011 and the arrival of Nick Stace as Chief Executive on 3 September.
A qualified barrister and pharmacist, Gordon has been at the RCVS for the last 14 years.
His is a new role created when the old post of Registrar and Secretary was effectively split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary, and Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that Gordon's is my first appointment as Chief Executive, and I am grateful that he held the fort so well for the last nine months. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the RCVS is in the best shape possible to meet the needs of the public and the veterinary team."
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "We have a very strong team to take the RCVS forward. Nick has joined us with leadership experience, consumer expertise and new ideas and impetus; Gordon consolidates this with his legal expertise and experience of the veterinary profession and the RCVS. I look forward to working with them both."
The appointment is subject to formal ratification at the November meeting of Council.
Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.
At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.
Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.
Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.
Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.
The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.
The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.
The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College.
The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession.
In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.
The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:
To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month
Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.
To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.
To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).
To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.
To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.
To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor.
Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.
"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."
The sessions are:
https://www.bsavacongress.com/programme
The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented.
The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.
The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.
The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:
The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.
It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.
The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.
The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.
In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.
"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."
The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.
On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.
Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.
“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”
The RCVS has published Fitness to Practise - A Guide for UK Veterinary Schools and Veterinary Students, a guide for veterinary students which aims to introduce them to the concept of fitness to practise and help prepare them for professional life.
The guide was developed by an RCVS working party in conjunction with the UK's seven veterinary schools that currently offer an RCVS-approved veterinary degree. It has also received approval from the Veterinary Schools Council, a new body which represents the interests of the country's veterinary schools.
The guide is split into two parts: the first part provides guidance for veterinary schools on how to recognise and address fitness to practise concerns; the second part sets out the broad principles of fitness to practise that students should follow and which veterinary schools should uphold.
Laura McClintock, an Advisory Solicitor from the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, said: "While we don't regulate veterinary students themselves, we hope that this guidance will prepare future vets for the requirements and standards that we expect from members of a regulated profession and for adhering to our Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance.
"The guide also recognises that each university will have its own specific disciplinary guidelines and procedures, but we hope that this will help promote consistency in their fitness to practise regimes.
"Although we expect any adverse findings made in university fitness to practise proceedings to be declared to us upon application to register, we would take into account the fact that a student is not a fully-fledged professional and would therefore make some allowance for any mistakes and poor judgement when considering whether or not they should join the Register."
The guide can be downloaded for free from www.rcvs.org.uk/studentguide
The RCVS is also in the process of forming a working party to produce equivalent guidance for student veterinary nurses.
The review started with a series of focus groups amongst veterinary professionals across multiple sectors.
This was followed by an analysis of the information gleaned from the focus groups, additional stakeholder submissions, data from the College's Covid surveys, independent research studies and formal legal advice to formulate an online qualitative survey to gain the views and feedback of UK-based veterinary professionals.
In this final stage, the public consultation, all veterinary professionals, vet and vet nurse students, practice managers and all those who work in the veterinary practice team are invited to share the extent to which they agree (or disagree) with each element of the proposed new guidance on ‘under care’, their views on the requirements for a 24/7 follow-up service following a remote prescription and other safeguards, and their feedback on the proposed definition of limited-service providers.
There will also be a consultation with members of the animal-owning public, which will likely include questions asking for information about animal owner experiences with remote prescriptions, the perceived advantages and/or disadvantages of remote prescribing, and views on 24/7 care and how important a service this is to respondents.
Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, RCVS President and former Chair of the Standards Committee, said: “The past two years have shown us that the veterinary professions are highly capable of adopting new ways of working.
"It also revealed that we can adapt our established ways of practice to better respond to shifts in public expectations and advancements in technology.
"However, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that any changes continue to allow us to provide safe and effective care for our patients, and meet the appropriate expectations of our clients.
“Whilst we recognise and reflect on the need for change, the proposed guidance seeks to protect animal health and welfare and maintain public trust by ensuring that decision-making remains firmly in the hands of individual veterinary surgeons, as to what they, in their professional judgement, consider appropriate in a specific situation.
“This consultation, then, while not a referendum on whether RCVS guidance on ‘under care’ and 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief should change – that decision having been made by Standards Committee and approved by Council based on the evidence gathered, including the views of the profession and objective evidence, and legal advice – is a crucial opportunity for veterinary colleagues to tell us whether we have got the draft guidance right, whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient, and whether there is anything we might have missed or should amend.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare.
The RCVS has removed 563 veterinary surgeons from the Register from 1 June for non-payment of retention fees.
A list of those who remained off the Register as of 31 July 2012 is available here: www.rcvs.org.uk/removals2012.
The College says it is publicising the list to help make sure that those who have been removed, and their employers, are aware; it includes only those not restored prior to 31 July.
Christine Fraser, RCVS Head of Registration said: “If you know anyone who appears on this list and who is still working in the UK, you may wish to advise them they need to contact the RCVS as a matter of urgency to restore their name to the Register."
The RCVS is asking veterinary surgeons who have not yet confirmed their registration details, which is now part of the annual renewal process, to please make sure this is done by 30 September. A form was enclosed with the annual fee-reminder, or this can be done online at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration.
Information about how veterinary surgeons removed after non-payment can restore themselves to the Register is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration, or by contacting the RCVS Registration Department (membership@rcvs.org.uk or 0207 202 0707).
A man who worked as a veterinary surgeon in Wiltshire, despite being neither qualified nor registered with RCVS, has received a 20-month sentence at Swindon Crown Court.
Peter Keniry (also known as Patrick Keniry), from Great Yarmouth, had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon, and was arrested on 23 August. At his initial hearing in Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr Keniry pleaded guilty to charges of fraud by misrepresentation and unlawfully practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was released on bail.
At the Crown Court on Friday, Mr Keniry also pleaded guilty to additional charges before being sentenced. It is understood he will serve a number of months in prison, before being released on licence for the remaining period.
The RCVS assisted Wiltshire police in their apprehension of Keniry in August, having been alerted the previous day to his fraudulent activities. Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, having already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees to pick up a problem.
Commenting on the recent sentencing, Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "We are satisfied that the Court has clearly recognised the risk posed to both animal welfare and public safety by bogus veterinary surgeons. Anyone working as a veterinary surgeon when not qualified to do so, risks a custodial sentence.
"Mr Keniry's continued pattern of re-offending shows him to be a very convincing fraudster. By publicising his photograph, we hope to help any potential employer or locum agency reduce the chances of this happening again," he added.
Chris will also be donating any money he raises throughout the course of his Presidency to those same charities.
His chosen charities are: Vetlife, Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA), the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), Hearing Dogs, and The Gambia Horse and Donkey Trust (GHDT).
Chris said: "I chose the charities because I'm dedicated to charities that have a wide effect. The GHDT and the PDSA, by improving the health and welfare of animals, directly benefit the health and wellbeing of the communities in which they work. The GHDT dramatically improves peoples’ lives economically by increasing the working lives of their animals, almost all of which are transport animals, while the PDSA enhances the lives of the less well off by allowing them to keep animals and afford their veterinary care.
"Riding for the Disabled Association and Hearing Dogs for the Deaf then both use animals to help people, strengthening this vital human animal bond that runs through all of these charities. You have to witness the interaction between deaf or disabled people with the dogs and ponies respectively to fully appreciate how much this means to them. Unlike single interventions, these charities provide assistance that keeps on giving.
"Finally, none of this is possible without a healthy veterinary community and Vetlife plays a significant part in ensuring this. Good mental health and wellbeing is essential to the delivery of a good service, and it's important that we do everything we can to ensure that any veterinary professionals that suffer get the assistance they need.”
The charities have already been in touch to thank Chris and the College, and to detail how it will help their activities.
Graham Dick, Vetlife’s Honorary Treasurer, said: “Vetlife is currently expanding its vital support services to meet the changing needs of the veterinary community so we are sincerely grateful that Chris Tufnell has chosen our charity to benefit from his fundraising activities during his year as President. It is heartening that all the major veterinary organisations are so supportive of Vetlife and eager to work together to address the issues that many people in the veterinary community are struggling with."
Heather Armstrong, the Director of the GHDT, said: "We would like to give our very sincere thanks to Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS for choosing us as one of his charities. Over the years we have relied on volunteer vets from UK to provide training to our staff and to Gambian livestock workers. This is helping to increase Gambian veterinary capacity and we hope is also giving British vets a small insight into global veterinary problems. The British veterinary profession should be very proud, it has enabled us to achieve so much in the last 14 years and we are immensely grateful to each and every vet who has been out to help including Chris, who has kindly helped us in the past with training."
Rosie Gibbons, Challenge & Community Events Fundraiser UK at the PDSA, said: "The donations received through the RCVS’ President’s Fund to PDSA will ensure that someone’s much loved pet will receive the treatment and healthy life they deserve. It will also ensure that our veterinary teams can continue to educate people about responsible pet ownership and issue preventative treatments, making the lives of so many animals much more bearable in the future."
Sal Atkinson, Fundraising Manager for the RDA, said: "We are thrilled that Chris has chosen RDA as one of this year’s RCVS President’s Fund charities. RDA relies on voluntary donations such as this to enable us to provide life changing therapy through horses to disabled adults and children in the UK. We currently have over 3,000 horses and ponies who work with our riders, carriage drivers, volunteers and equine advisors and this support will really help us to offer more opportunities to disabled people in the community."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The dispensation was originally introduced during the spring 2020 lockdown to safeguard animal health and welfare, the health and safety of the veterinary team, and public health, by allowing prescriptions to be made by veterinary surgeons without their having first physically examined the animal, subject to conditions and safeguards.
The RCVS says the Committee considered the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19 and recognised that staff absences due to isolation requirements were still causing issues.
However, given the relaxation of the requirement to work from home in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and relaxation of restrictions generally across the UK, the Committee felt it was time to end the dispensation.
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, said: “The safety and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, as well as the health and welfare of the animals they care for, have remained uppermost in our minds when considering this temporary position on remote prescribing.
“We are pleased to have been able to support the professions through a very difficult time by introducing this dispensation, however, it was only ever a temporary measure and, given the relaxation of restrictions across the UK, we feel the time has come to revert to our usual guidance.
“We will continue to keep the position under review in light of any changes, including governments’ advice and regulations, as we have throughout the pandemic.”
Currently Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, University of London, and previously Dean of the University of Glasgow’s School Of Veterinary Medicine, Stuart has been a member of RCVS Council since 2005, and served as RCVS President in 2014-15.
As chair of the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in 2011, Stuart oversaw the College’s review of veterinary specialisation, which also led to the new Advanced Practitioner status.
He has also been a driving force behind the joint RCVS and BVA Vet Futures project since its inception in 2015.
As Chair of the RCVS Governance Panel, he recently saw through reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
Stuart has also chaired the RCVS Science Advisory Panel.
He continues to chair the College’s Mind Matters Initiative, which aims to improve the mental health and wellbeing of all those in the veterinary team.
A particularly notable achievement during his Presidential year was to allow UK veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ if they so wished.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive said: "We have been incredibly fortunate to have someone of Stuart’s calibre, character and international renown on our Council for so many years. His contributions and commitment to the RCVS, as well as to the wider veterinary professions, are as significant as they are often understated.
"On behalf of RCVS Council and all the staff, I should like to say how delighted we are that he has been honoured in this way. Such recognition is very much deserved and we send him our warmest congratulations."
The RCVS has announced a total of £1 million funding to address mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary profession over the next five years.
The RCVS Operational Board has agreed £100K of funding for the first year of the Mind Matters initiative, with a view to a similar amount per year for the subsequent four years.
Additionally, the College says it intends to contribute approximately £500K over the next five years to the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme (VSHSP). This is a continuation of previous funding, effectively doubling the College's contribution. The VSHSP, independently run by the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, offers a confidential service that aims to combat problems with alcohol, drugs, eating disorders and other addictive and mental health issues. Neil Smith, Mind Matters' Chair said: "I am delighted that we have £500K of new funding over the next five years to dedicate to improving the mental health and wellbeing of the veterinary team, together with the increase to our support for the VSHSP. It shows the College's commitment in this vital area, and is a substantial amount that will really help change lives."
The funding will be reviewed annually as part of the RCVS budgeting process.
Mind Matters activities will fall into five streams:
Mind Matters is supported by a taskforce comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of Veterinary Students.
The College says its Veterinary Graduate Development Programme (VetGDP), which will be replacing the Professional Development Phase (PDP), has been developed in response to detailed feedback from the profession during the 2018-19 Graduate Outcomes consultation, which looked at how graduates could be better supported during their transition into working life.
One of the main changes will be the introduction of VetGDP Advisers for all new graduates enrolling onto the programme, to provide one-to-one support and advice to help build the confidence and skillsets of new vets.
Practices wanting to employ veterinary graduates from summer 2021 will need to have at least one trained VetGPD Adviser in the workplace. This will involve a short, free online training course and will contribute to their practice being recognised as an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice (for non-clinical settings they will be called RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Employers).
Dr Sue Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “When we conducted the Graduate Outcomes consultation, one very clear message that came across from graduates was that they felt there was a need for more bespoke, hands-on and one-to-one guidance from a designated person in their practice.
"The role of VetGDP Adviser is to help graduates identify areas of strength and areas for improvement, to closely monitor and provide feedback on their performance, and to support them in finding their feet as a newly-qualified professional. We hope all this will help increase their confidence and competence and, crucially, ensure we are doing more to retain our young vets in the profession and that this investment in our young talent will, in turn, benefit practices and the profession at large.
“Ahead of the introduction of VetGDP next summer, we want to give the profession advance notice of the coming changes and ask members of the profession who have been on the UK-practising Register for at least three years, and who are passionate about supporting the next generation of vets, to consider becoming VetGDP Advisers.
"We will be introducing free formal online training for VetGDP Advisers from April 2021 but we are asking vets to register their interest as soon as possible so they can find out more about what the role will entail and how it will support new graduates.”
The training will comprise approximately 20 hours of e-learning using a mixture of different methods including case studies, reflective exercises and recorded presentations and will cover topics such as giving effective feedback to support, encourage and motivate; coaching techniques; the provision of guided reflection; goal-setting; reviewing progress; and mentoring.
The training is being provided online by the RCVS and can be undertaken flexibly at any time. It can also count towards the annual continuing professional development (CPD) requirement.
Once an individual has completed the training, and committed to providing the equivalent of at least one hour of support each week per graduate employed, they will receive VetGDP Adviser status. The role will include observing their graduate’s practice and providing feedback and guidance where appropriate.
Veterinary practices with at least one employed VetGDP Adviser will also be formally recognised as an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice, which will indicate that they are able to employ new graduate veterinary surgeons and have the necessary support and development structures in place.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, added: “Developing VetGDP has been a significant step forward in supporting graduates to establish fulfilling veterinary careers. I would like to thank all those members of the Graduate Outcomes Working Group, the Education Committee and RCVS Council who have been involved in putting together the programme, as well as all those veterinary professionals and students whose feedback was crucial in shaping the direction of travel.
“The programme recognises that the profession would like to see a range of ways to support graduates in the workplace, involving a balance between professional and clinical skills. The need was for a programme to reflect their everyday work and professional development in the workplace, with a much greater focus on structured and meaningful support. This support is crucial in developing them beyond their Day-One Competences into becoming confident, capable and independent veterinary professionals.
“As all new vet graduates from summer 2021 will be required to undertake the VetGDP, practices and other workplaces taking on new graduates will need to have at least one VetGDP Adviser and RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status. The online training is not onerous, it is free of charge and takes approximately 20 hours; furthermore, it can be counted towards CPD hourly targets for the year. We envisage that the VetGDP Adviser role will be highly rewarding, with the personal satisfaction of knowing you’re helping to shape and support the next generation of vets.
“Please do make sure to take a look at the full range of resources that we have produced about VetGDP and familiarise yourself with the coming changes.”
To aid understanding of the VetGDP, the RCVS has produced a number of resources, including FAQs, further information for those who are interested in becoming VetGDP Advisers, and information for students, which can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/vetgdp
From early 2021, the RCVS will be holding online video seminars with final-year veterinary students from all eight UK veterinary schools to discuss VetGDP in further detail.
Anyone with further questions about VetGDP should contact the RCVS Education Department on vetgdp@rcvs.org.uk
Less than a quarter of veterinary students starting their degrees in 2009 were male (24%), according to figures released today in RCVS Facts.
This is up slightly from 23% last year, but down from just over 30% in 1999: ten years before that, the gender balance of new students was approximately 50:50. Meanwhile, 53% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons are female.
RCVS Facts is part two of the RCVS Annual Report, and presents a statistical picture of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions. Other headline facts include a 21% increase in the number of practice premises registered with the College since 1 April 2009, bringing the total on the Register of Veterinary Practice Premises to 4,821; some 766 veterinary nurse students completing their training and becoming eligible to register (an increase of 28% compared with those eligible to register during the previous two-year period) and an increase of nearly 10% in the number of complaints received about veterinary surgeons, to 739.
Figures are also available for:
The reporting year is 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, and part one of the RCVS Annual Report, RCVS Review, takes a more personal look at the activities of the College during the period, through the eyes of some of those involved. Topics include reviews of Extra-Mural Studies and the Practice Standards Scheme, the modular Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing producing the first diplomates, a focus on mental health and wellbeing, fund-raising for the RCVS Trust and the College's joint work with other authorities to bring justice in cases of fraudulent 'veterinary surgeons'.
Both publications are available online at: www.rcvs.org.uk/review and www.rcvs.org.uk/facts.
The RCVS has announced the new recruits for the two independent statutory committees responsible for investigating and holding inquiries into concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons.
The Disciplinary Committee has seven new members (three laypeople and four veterinary surgeons) and is now chaired by Ian Green, a former magistrate and Chief Executive of YMCA England from 2008 to 2013, who has been a member of the Committee since 2013.
The new members are:
The Preliminary Investigation Committee has three new members (all of them veterinary surgeons) and is now chaired by Andrew Ash MRCVS, a director of a veterinary practice group and Past-President of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), who has been a member of the Committee since 2013. The new members are:
The College says these changes now bring it into line with a Legislative Reform Order which came into effect in July 2013 and which amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act to say that the two statutory committees should be constituted separately from RCVS Council.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “We pushed forward the LRO because we wanted to make sure that the College was following regulatory best practice by ensuring the independence of those who adjudicate on concerns raised about a veterinary surgeon’s professional conduct and fitness to practise.
“The LRO allowed for a two-year transitional period and so, with these new appointments, we see it come to fruition as the committee members are now wholly separate from RCVS Council members, who are ineligible to sit on the Disciplinary or Preliminary Investigation committees.
“I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the new Chairs and members of the committees. They all went through a rigorous recruitment process over a number of months this year and I am confident in their integrity, independence, judgement and abilities.”
Through the same independent recruitment process two new members have also been appointed to the VN Preliminary Investigation Committee – Suzanne May RVN and Susan Macaldowie MRCVS.
Details of the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation committees can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/committees/disciplinary-committee and www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/committees/preliminary-investigation-committee respectively.
The RCVS has published a summary of the goings on at its 6 November meeting.
Amongst other things, Council agreed to continue to display postnominals in the Register, undertake a consultation on whether members should be able to use the courtesy title 'doctor' and make amendments to the College's current registration regulations.
In addition,
More information about these decisions can be found in the latest edition of RCVS News, copies of which have been sent to all veterinary surgeons and listed/registered veterinary nurses.
The full papers for the Council meeting can be found on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/rcvs-council/council-meetings
Ms Gurrin faced two charges, the first being that she had issued prescriptions for Roaccutane tables, indicating they were for the treatment of an animal when they were in fact for a human.
The second charge was that Dr Gurrin’s conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where Dr Gurrin was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.
Ms Gurrin admitted the allegation in its entirety and the Committee therefore found it proved.
The College submitted that Dr Gurrin breached fundamental tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct and acted dishonestly and, as such, that the admitted facts amounted to disgraceful conduct.
The Committee accepted that Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, but took into account the context: that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.
Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of the prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist, in that Ms Gurrin didn't invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription.
In addition, there was no financial or other personal gain, it was a single isolated incident, it was a spur of the moment decision without reflection, no harm was caused or risked to any animal, Ms Gurrin had a long and previously unblemished career and lastly she showed insight into the offence.
The committee also took into account the character testimonials which showed Ms Gurrin not only to be an exceptional vet, but a dedicated professional who had nurtured a very strong team, and someone who is held in extraordinarily high regard by both her clients and colleagues.
There were no aggravating factors.
The Committee considered that the case was too serious to take no further action, but that there was no ongoing danger to the public or risk to animal health.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case.
"It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time.
"The Committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.
“The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
Following a two-year postponed judgment, the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week warned a Cambridgeshire veterinary surgeon as to his future conduct, after he had been convicted in 2006 for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.
In September 2007, the Committee heard that Peter Hanlon MRCVS, of Soham in Cambridgeshire, had been involved in a road traffic accident in February 2006. Mr Hanlon's car had drifted across the road and collided with an oncoming car driven by James Barber who was accompanied by his wife, Ivy. Mr Barber was pronounced dead at the scene and both Mrs Barber and Mr Hanlon sustained injuries.
At the initial hearing, Mr Hanlon admitted the conviction (for which he had been sentenced to 30 months in prison and received a four-year driving ban) and the charge that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. The Committee decided to postpone its judgment for two years on the agreement that Mr Hanlon would undertake to abstain from alcohol and to submit quarterly medical reports and six-monthly CPD (continuing professional development) reports to the Committee chairman.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee carefully considered Mr Hanlon's written and oral submissions, and accepted that he had fully complied with these undertakings. He had abstained from alcohol since the day after the accident, produced an "exemplary" CPD record and provided impressive reports from his employers concerning his professional competence.
In addition, Mr Hanlon, who spent around 14 months in prison and remained on licence until July 2009, also reiterated to the Committee his remorse for the death of Mr Barber and respect for his family.
The Committee was mindful of its duty to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst it did not consider it necessary to postpone judgment again, it felt that Mr Hanlon should be warned about his future conduct.
Caroline Freedman, chairing the Committee, concluded: "As this case has demonstrated, and as Mr Hanlon himself has fully recognised, abuse of alcohol can lead to far reaching consequences in personal and professional lives and the lives of others."
The British Association of Veterinary Emergency & Critical Care has released the results of a survey into practitioners attitudes to 24-7 and OOH home visits.
360 veterinary surgeons took part in the survey, nearly all of whom have been practising for more than 2 years. 70% work in small animal practice, 12% at a dedicated OOH provider, and the bulk of the remainder in referral or mixed practice. 81% described the work they do as small animal first opinion, and 76% were employees. 35% said they had already responded to the RCVS call for evidence on the provision of 24/7 emergency cover.
26% said they work for a practice that outsources its OOH to a dedicated provider, and more than 85% of those said they would not return to an on-call system.
In terms of dedicated out-of-hours providers, a clear pattern emerged. Namely those practitioners who outsource their OOH feel that patient care, staff safety and professional well-being are all enhanced by dedicated OOH services, but that dedicated OOH comes at a cost of reduced value for money for the pet owner. Customer service between the different OOH provisions is perceived to be similar (on-call better 25%, same 48%, and dedicated better 27%).
Among those practitioners who work for a dedicated OOH service, dedicated OOH services perform best in all categories. 68% responded that OOH customer service is better with a dedicated OOH service compared to an on-call system (12% responded that on-call provided better customer service on average). 44% responded that customer value for money was better with dedicated OOH service compared to 19% who responded that customer value for money was on average better with an on-call system.
Among those practitioners who do their own on-call, customer service and value for money were perceived to be better with an on-call system (42% v 26% and 61% v 15% respectively). In the other categories dedicated OOH services again out-performed an on-call system.
Whether routine or emergency, 'owner demands' were felt to be the biggest reason for home visit requests (41% and 30% respectively). However, 'genuine clinical need' was the main reason cited by 19% of respondents as the main reason for emergency home visits. Inability to move the animal was given as the main reason by a further 28%.
Participants in the survey were asked to score (out of 10) how much their decision to perform a home visit was affected by the threat of a complaint, either to their employer or to the RCVS. Interestingly, 37% said a complaint to their employer weighed heavily on the decision (ranking it 8 or higher) where, by comparison, 52% said the threat of a complaint to the College ranked 8 or higher in their decision making.
69% of respondents said they make visits alone, either sometimes or always. When asked if they had ever felt threatened whilst performing an OOH visit, 48% said yes. This compared to 23% who said that they had felt threatened when performing a visit in normal hours.
When asked to rank (out of 10) the stress home visits cause, 7% said none at all and 36% said 8 or above.
72% said they believe that the profession should continue to be obligated to provide 24/7 for animals.
Respondents were then asked to say whether they support or disagree with the suggestion that the need to perform house visits is removed from the CoPC. 59% were strongly for the idea (scoring it up to 3), compared to 22% who were strongly against it (scoring it 8 or above).
Opinions about whether the College should clarify the need to perform house visits was far more clear cut. 77% strongly supported clarification (scored up to 3), whereas only 16% said there was no need (scored 8 or above).
However, an overwhelming 93% said that they would continue to perform visits in the case of genuine clinical need even if the Code of Professional Conduct was changed to make it dear that there was no risk of disciplinary action for not attending off-site.
The VCMS, which is administered by Nockolds Solicitors, was formally launched by the RCVS as an alternative dispute resolution service in October 2017 following a year-long trial.
The aim of the service is to resolve, by mediation, disputes between clients and veterinary practices that do not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct that is needed for the RCVS to investigate a concern through its formal processes.
Since the service’s trial, which started in October 2016, the VCMS has given preliminary mediation advice on how to resolve a case in more than 1,700 instances with over 580 cases having gone to full mediation of which 89% have concluded with a resolution.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: "From the perspective of both the public and the profession, the establishment of the VCMS has been a "win-win" situation. For the public it has provided them with an additional route to solve those complaints which wouldn’t cross the threshold to progress in the concerns investigation process.
"For the profession it has provided a more appropriate format for resolving a client dispute that doesn’t involve the time, effort and formal process of an RCVS investigation for those cases that will never amount to serious professional misconduct. I think this has been demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of the profession are willing to engage with the VCMS process, even though it is entirely voluntary.
"The VCMS has also had a positive impact on the College and its concerns investigation process, allowing us to focus greater resources on those cases that do meet our threshold of serious professional misconduct. This has had a very clear impact on the speed with which we either close cases or move them on to the next stage of consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), which, again, is important to both the public and the profession."
The College says that around 90% of cases investigated at Stage 1 of the process are now either closed or referred to PIC within four months – the College’s key performance indicator at this stage. This compares to around 50% of these cases being closed or referred within four months at Stage 1 in 2016.
The College also says that in total (including both preliminary and full mediation cases), 86% of the cases dealt with by VCMS were successfully mediated and feedback from both clients and veterinary practices has been largely positive. In client feedback from the third quarter of 2018, 93% said they would use the VCMS again and 79% considered it to be fair, while the equivalent figure amongst veterinary practices was 94% and 87% respectively.
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors who heads up the VCMS, said: "It is a good sign that mediation is largely working as it should when both parties are reporting similar satisfaction rates and we pride ourselves on negotiating resolutions that are acceptable and beneficial for both the clients and the practices.
"It is great to see that our efforts are also having an impact on the RCVS concerns investigation system by allowing it to concentrate on more serious cases."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation process, including the different stages of an investigation, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Further information about the VCMS can be found on its website at www.vetmediation.co.uk or by calling 0345 040 5834.
Fourteen veterinary surgeons stood for election this year and 8,542 voted, a turnout of 24.5% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 26.2% in 2020, 25.5% in 2019 and 22.7% in 2018.
Danny scored a total of 4,759 votes, leaving the other successful candidates Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum nevertheless trailing in his wake, with 3,228 votes, 2,957 votes and 2,368 votes respectively.
The VN Council election also had fourteen candidates standing for one elected place, the other having been taken by Susan Howarth RVN who was automatically re-elected as the only candidate standing at the time of the original deadline in January.
Donna Lewis was elected with 404 votes from those cast by 2,341 veterinary nurses, which amounted to a turnout of 12.4% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 17.1% in 2020, 14.5% in 2017 and 10.9% in 2016.
All of those elected to either RCVS or VN Councils will formally take up their seats at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 9 July 2021.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Thank you to all those who stood as candidates and all those who voted in this year’s elections, especially in view of all the extra demands on everyone’s time at the moment. Many congratulations to our five successful candidates with whom we look forward to working over the coming months and years.
“Even though the elections were held during the ongoing pandemic, the RCVS Council election still produced the third highest turnout on record, and turnout in both elections was above the average for those held over the last ten years.
“As always, we made concerted efforts to let people know about this year’s election, which included additional reminder emails sent on behalf of the RCVS by our election provider Civica Election Services, as well as regular email reminders and social media posts from the RCVS. We do, of course, always endeavour to improve turnout, and will continue to review this going forward.”
Photo: Left to right, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum.