The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.
The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.
The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.
As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.
Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.
"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."
The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.
The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.
The new guidance, which can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus, will gradually replace the current emergency guidance and aims to help veterinary practices begin a phased return to near-normal operations:
Alongside the College’s guidance, the BVA is also publishing guidance for practices on working safely as lockdown restrictions are eased. [www.bva.co.uk/coronavirus/]
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “None of us could have predicted quite what an extraordinary and extraordinarily challenging 12 months this has been for everyone.
"On behalf of the whole of RCVS Council, I would like to thank sincerely once again all our veterinary and veterinary nursing colleagues, and all those in practice teams around the UK, for their awe-inspiring commitment, adaptability, resilience and sheer hard work in continuing to provide essential veterinary services and look after the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, in what have been the most difficult of times.
“Whilst I sincerely hope that we are at last beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel, if there is one thing we have learnt, it is that things can deteriorate rapidly if we don’t all continue to play our part and follow all relevant guidelines.
“I therefore urge my colleagues to continue to use their professional judgement and think very carefully about their gradual return to more normal working patterns over the coming weeks and months, according to their individual circumstances and the best interests of their teams, clients, and the animals they care for.”
RCVS Council has also agreed that the policy and guidance changes made in response to the pandemic over the past 12 months will now be reviewed, and decisions made as to whether to retain, amend or reverse them.
The taskforce was established following the EU referendum result on 24 June, with the central purpose of putting the profession in charge of its future by maximising the opportunities and minimising the risks of Brexit.
Almost half of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified from veterinary schools elsewhere in the EU. While the Government issued a statement in mid-July clarifying that as yet there has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK or UK nationals in the EU, it is not clear whether this situation will continue once the UK has left the EU.
The Brexit Presidential Taskforce will consider, and proactively engage with, the many possible changes that could shape the future of the UK veterinary profession due to Brexit.
The members of the Taskforce are: the President of the College, Chris Tufnell; the CEO, Nick Stace; the Treasurer, Amanda Boag; Operations Director, Corrie McCann; Junior Vice-President, Stephen May; Acting Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson; Chair of Education, Susan Dawson; Head of Education, Chris Warman; Council member Stuart Reid; Chair of VN Council, Liz Cox; and Director of Strategic Communications, Lizzie Lockett.
The terms of reference include: considering how EU regulations currently impact the regulation of veterinary professionals in the UK, and making recommendations as to which should be maintained; looking at the issue of mutual recognition of veterinary graduates in Europe; considering workforce requirements and the implications of a new system of immigration; understanding the implications for the current RCVS agenda; considering whether a proactive RCVS agenda can influence any new UK legislation; reconsidering the College’s existing international strategy; and studying the financial impact on the College.
It was also agreed that the College should maintain communications with the British Veterinary Association and coordinate approaches where appropriate.
Dr Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Brexit has profound implications for our professions. The Presidential Taskforce is exploring all implications and will develop proposals that will seek to mitigate the risks and maximise the benefits that can flow to the veterinary professions and to animal welfare.
"We are working closely with representative bodies and others so that the veterinary professions have a coordinated and well executed plan in place. We are in discussions with all relevant Government departments, working collaboratively and constructively, ensuring that our voice is heard and our influence is felt."
The next meeting will be held on 15 September, with the third one scheduled for 9 November.
The proceedings will begin at 10am with the formal adoption by RCVS Council of the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2020, which will be published prior to the event.
The College will then answer any written questions that have been submitted about the Annual Report by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
If you have any questions about the Annual Report, you'll need to submit them to RCVS Events Manager Deborah Rowlanes on d.rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk no later than Friday 2 July 2021.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene will then formally welcome the newly-elected RCVS Council members – Louise Allum, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner and Colin Whiting – onto Council for their four-year terms, and newly-elected VN Council members Susan Howarth and Donna Lewis for their three-year terms, as well as saying farewell to retiring members of both Councils.
After a short break, the AGM will reconvene at 11am to approve Kate Richards (pictured right) as President for 2021-22, Melissa Donald as Junior Vice-President, Mandisa as Senior Vice-President, and Niall Connell as Treasurer.
There will then be addresses from Matthew Rendle as Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council, and from Mandisa as the outgoing RCVS President for 2020-21, followed by the formal investiture of the new RCVS Officer Team.
There will then be closing remarks from Kate Richards as the newly invested RCVS President.
If you'd like to attend the AGM, you'll need to register here: www.rcvs.org.uk/agm21-registration.
Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition.
They went to steal the animals from their owners' property after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.
Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.
The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.
Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.
It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.
In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.
The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.
However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.
"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.
“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.
"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”
When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:
The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.
However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.
Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.
"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.
“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.
"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.
"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.
"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”
The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.
It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.
The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.
The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.
The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.
In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.
On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.
He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.
When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.
Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.
In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.
The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration. However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.
The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.
The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.
In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.
The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.
“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.
“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.
“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.
The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.
Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.
The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.
The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.
Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion exploring the issue of mental health problems.
The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Rosie Allister, Chair of the Vet Helpline and a Director of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
Rosie, who is also a researcher at the University of Edinburgh specialising in veterinary wellbeing, writes that members of the profession should be more willing to open up about their own mental health problems and intervene by talking and listening to colleagues who may be suffering from mental ill-health. She said: "Looking to the future, we need to better understand who is most at risk, how to reach out to them, and how we can start to change our culture so that it is OK to ask for help."
Her blog also proposes that, due to the caring nature of the occupation and high client expectations, members of the profession routinely put work and animal welfare ahead of their own needs and that, in order for there to be wider cultural change, individuals need to change their own attitudes towards asking for help. This includes the discussion of 'taboo subjects' such as suicide: "Perhaps all of us have to start trying to change our culture to one that is more accepting and supportive and looks out for those in need even when they aren't able to reach out themselves."
As part of the discussion, Vet Futures is running a poll which asks: "Could you recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague?"
To read Rosie's blog and take part in the poll, visit and take part in the poll, visit: http://goo.gl/EmLhhF
At the same time as paying the fee, all veterinary surgeons must annually confirm their Register and correspondence details, declare any convictions, cautions or adverse findings and confirm they are compliant with RCVS continuing professional development (CPD) policy.
The deadline for completing the annual renewal, 1 April 2019, has now passed and all veterinary surgeons who are yet to pay their fees must do so before the end of May 2019. As of 1 June 2019, any non-payers will be removed from the Register.
If paid by 30 April 2019, the annual fee is £340 for UK-practising veterinary surgeons, £170 for veterinary surgeons practising outside the UK, and £56 for non-practising veterinary surgeons. Following this date, the fee goes up by £35 across all these groups and veterinary surgeons will have until 31 May 2019 to pay.
If the renewal fee is not received in full by 31 May 2019, then non-paying veterinary surgeons will be removed from the Register. In order to restore their name to the Register, a restoration fee of £340 will need to be paid, in addition to the appropriate retention fee. During this time they will not be able to use the postnominals MRCVS and UK-practising vets will need to cease practising.
Annual renewals can be completed online on the RCVS website and all the information needed to complete the annual renewal is in the renewal notice that has been sent to veterinary surgeons. Those who need any help or have any questions about completing their renewal and paying fees should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Mrs Cole pleaded guilty to fraud in July 2024 at Crawley Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, 20 days rehabilitation activity and a £187 victim surcharge.
The College opened its own disciplinary investigation against Mrs Cole after receiving the certificate of conviction, which related to more than £13,000 of pet insurance fraud.
It then proceeded with the hearing in Mrs Cole’s absence as she had not responded to any of the communications sent to her by the College on the matter.
Having found the charge against her proven by the certificate of conviction, the Committee then determined that the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct… was plainly dishonest and contravened a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"She abused her professional position in order to commit the offence.
"The dishonest conduct in this case related directly to the respondent’s professional life, as she was working as a veterinary nurse when she completed and submitted the fraudulent claims.
“Her conduct also constituted a breach of the trust owed to her employer and to the insurance company to which her dishonest claims were submitted.
"She put her professional colleagues at risk as their names were used on the clinical records which purportedly supported her dishonest claims.
“Her misconduct was repeated and sustained over a period of many years.
"Her modus operandi was sophisticated and premeditated.
“The respondent’s conduct clearly had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public trust in the profession.
"A member of the public would be rightly appalled to learn that a veterinary nurse had abused her position by submitting false claims in this way.”
The Committee found that there were no mitigating factors, and that aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of Mrs Cole’s fraud, the clear breaches of trust in respect of her colleagues, her clients and the insurance companies, the significant financial gain made from her fraud and the fact that the fraudulent activities were sustained and repeated over a period of four and a half years.
Kathryn added: “Taking into account the gravity of her misconduct, the need to maintain standards of probity in the profession, especially in relation to practice records and the submission of insurance claim documents, as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the Committee has resolved to direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The advice in the new help section has been designed to highlight the shared responsibilities of animal owners and their vet teams, and to support practices by giving this advice for pet owners in a clear and easy-to-read way.
It explains what pet owners can expect from their vet team - and what is expected of them - throughout the different stages of pet ownership.
The information is split into ten sections:
The content in the new resource was informed by the views of the RCVS’s Public Advisory Group (PAG), whose members comprise owners/keepers of companion animals, equine and production animals, as well as other users of veterinary services.
Veterinary surgeon and Chair of the RCVS PAG, Louise Allum MRCVS (pictured), said: "The PAG has performed an essential role in helping to inform the content creation for our animal owner help and advice resource, highlighting the need for greater transparency and support, particularly around veterinary fees, treatment options, and what to expect from vet practices.
"Veterinary professionals work tirelessly to provide the most appropriate care for their patients, and we want to support this by ensuring pet owners have access to clear, accessible information about their rights, responsibilities, and the role of veterinary teams to ensure that expectations are managed.
“We are calling upon veterinary professionals to share this resource with clients far and wide, to help owners understand more about veterinary practice and how they can build a successful partnership with their vet team, ultimately leading to better outcomes for pets, their owners and veterinary professionals alike."
The RCVS will be expanding its help and advice section to include further information for equine and livestock owners in due course.
www.rcvs.org.uk/owner-advice.
The meeting follows growing concerns expressed both within the profession and in the national media about the shortage of veterinary surgeons in the UK.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO (pictured right), said: “Workforce shortages within the veterinary sector has been a concern for some time, however, in the past few months there has been a ‘perfect storm’ of circumstances, which have come together to exacerbate the problem. The issues include the ongoing impact of the pandemic, burnout and fatigue within the profession; the UK’s exit from the European Union, which has seen a significant reduction in the number of EU vets joining the Register as well as an associated increase in the need for veterinary certification; and an increase in pet ownership, and therefore demand for veterinary services, over the course of the pandemic."
In advance of the meeting, which is due to be help in November, the College will be conducting research to better gauge the extent of the problem both nationally and regionally.
The meeting will then consider how recruitment, retention and return to work might address the problem.
Lizzie added: “While there has already been a lot of focus and discussions around recruitment and retention, something less spoken about is return, and the summit will consider the reasons why members of the profession may move away from clinical practice, and if there’s more scope for different ways of working that could bring people back into clinical practice.
“Ahead of the summit we will be reviewing all the latest data that we and other organisations have shared to better understand the gap between capacity and demand, the push and pull factors on decisions to either join or leave clinical practice and build a more evidence-based picture of veterinary workforce trends.”
The summit itself, the date of which is yet to be confirmed, will involve key veterinary stakeholders including the veterinary schools, veterinary employers and representative bodies, coming together to ensure that there will be a joined-up approach in finding solutions to the issues confronting the profession.
Lizzie said: “It may not necessarily be easy to identify all the solutions in one day, and they won’t all come from the RCVS, but opening up the conversation and getting the professions focused on taking appropriate action is an important first step.”
Meanwhile, RCVS President Kate Richards this week wrote to all vets and nurses to reassure them them that the RCVS was aware of the problem and the additional pressures they are under as a result.
In the letter she wrote: “In the face of current shortages, I would like to stress that we support practice teams in prioritising cases strictly according to the health and welfare needs of their patients, and in informing their clients of the need to do so.
“We would also urge veterinary surgeons to share their caseload as much as possible, delegating permitted procedures to their veterinary nurse colleagues wherever appropriate to do so.
"And, we would like to remind veterinary surgeons that their current 24/7 emergency cover obligations, as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, are limited only to taking steps to provide 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation."
She also added that, while members of the profession may be anxious about a potential increase in the number of concerns being raised by clients because they are not able to offer the level of service they would ideally like to, the RCVS would always take into account the entire circumstances surrounding a complaint as part of its investigation process.
She also said that the College would also continue to raise awareness amongst animal owners of the acute challenges currently facing veterinary teams around the country, and to request their ongoing patience and understanding.
To assist the profession, a series of FAQs have been produced to help with different situations that vets may encounter at the moment, particularly around the provision of 24/7 emergency cover, and to provide further guidance on delegating procedures to veterinary nurses. These can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/
Mr Beveridge had been removed from the Register following a disciplinary hearing in May 2013 in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the Committee finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the College and that animals in his care were placed at risk. He subsequently appealed to the Privy Council but this was later withdrawn, resulting in him being formally removed from the Register in March 2014.
He first applied to be restored to the Register in 2015 but his application was refused by the Disciplinary Committee at a hearing in November 2015. At the time the Committee found him unfit for restoration to the Register because, following his removal, his veterinary medicines account had been used on an unauthorised basis to order prescription-only veterinary medicines, which reflected a "cavalier attitude to practice". Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not fully accepted the Committee’s original findings, had made inadequate effort in regards to engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) and also considered the seriousness of the original findings.
At the opening of his second hearing Mr Beveridge, who represented himself, sought to address the concerns that the Disciplinary Committee had outlined upon refusing his first application for restoration. Regarding his acceptance of the original findings, the Committee heard that he now apologised "unreservedly for his failings that led to erasure of his name from the Register" and the Committee considered that he had demonstrated a significant change in attitude from the previous restoration hearing where he had not fully accepted the reasons for being removed.
In considering issues of public protection the Committee also accepted that Mr Beveridge, until his original Disciplinary Committee hearing, had an unblemished professional record and had run a successful small animal practice for over 30 years. It considered numerous client testimonials as well as a petition signed by 600 clients from 2013.
The Committee also considered that there was no risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of Mr Beveridge being restored to the Register, noting the testimonials and references to satisfactory care and treatment given by Mr Beveridge to his patients.
Regarding CPD, Mr Beveridge produced evidence before the Committee that he had attended courses run by the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). The Committee accepted that he had made "considerable progress" in terms of CPD.
In concluding the hearing Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It is the judgement of the Committee that the conduct which resulted in the applicant’s name being removed from the Register is unlikely to be repeated. The applicant has satisfied the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register."
Voting for this year’s election will take place from 15th March until 5pm on Friday 23 April 2021 and the 14 candidates are:
This year, four candidates will be elected to serve a four-year term.
For the first time, the RCVS Council election will be carried out completely online.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: “Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the issues that it has caused regarding disruption to the postal service, the RCVS has gained permission from the Privy Council to temporarily amend our Election Scheme, a document that governs how we run our elections, to allow voting to take place entirely online this year. This means that physical ballot papers will not be distributed to veterinary surgeons eligible to vote this year.
“The small number of veterinary surgeons for whom we do not hold an email address will receive a letter with instructions on how to vote online, in addition to their security code to allow them access to their unique voting website. If they need further help there will also be the opportunity for them to call Civica Election Services, which runs the election on our behalf, who will assist them with casting their vote.”
Ahead of the start of the election, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to submit one question each for the candidates. The candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two of the questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
Questions can be submitted by emailing vetvote21@rcvs.org.uk or via the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote21.
The full candidate biographies and manifestoes have already been published on the RCVS website and are available to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote21
Members of the profession have until Wednesday 24 February 2021 to submit their question.
The RCVS has extended the deadline for nominations for the RCVS Queen's Medal to 31 January, to allow time for the nominations paperwork to be completed on return from the Christmas and New Year break.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace said: "We received more enquiries about the Queen's Medal over the Christmas period but appreciated that people might welcome a little extra time in the new year to complete and submit their nominations. We're certainly keen to allow anyone who wishes to make a nomination for this very special award the chance to do so."
The Queen's Medal, launched at the House of Lords last November, is a new Honour that will be awarded to a veterinary surgeon for a lifetime of outstanding contributions to the profession and who has dedicated their career to working above and beyond the call of duty in the fields of veterinary medicine or science, or related areas.
It is the most prestigious Honour that the RCVS can bestow, and will be awarded at RCVS Day in London in July.
Full details about the nominations process are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/Queensmedal). Nominations should be received by the RCVS no later than 5pm on Friday, 31 January 2014.
According to the RCVS, 86% of veterinary surgeons, and 92% of veterinary nurses have so far failed to vote in this year's council elections.
There's still time: voting for the RCVS Council and VN Council doesn't close till 2nd May and 28th April respectively.
Voting can be done online: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=205006, where you can also read each candidate's manifesto.
The College points to data gathered from its 2024 VN Vision workshops which showed that many nurses believe their skills and capabilities, and the scope of tasks that can be performed within the current legal framework, are not being fully used.
This new project aims to gather insights and empower nurses to play a more central role in the sector by promoting greater involvement in:
Session dates, times and locations are as follows:
Julie Dugmore RVN, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “Informed by conversations with professionals across the sector and a deep understanding of current practice, this new project recognises that achieving meaningful change requires a fundamental cultural shift.
"Clear guidance, structured support and open dialogue will be key in empowering veterinary teams to adapt to a new way of working.
“An additional crucial focus will be on enhancing public understanding of the Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN) role, alongside support for developing stronger interprofessional and public-facing communication.”
Jill Macdonald RVN, VN Futures Lead, added: “These interactive sessions will play an important role in this new branch of VN Vision work, helping to define long term goals, identify the practical steps needed to achieve them, and determine how success will be measured and shared with the wider public.
“We were honoured to have so many fantastic nurses come together last year to help shape the future of the profession, and we’re looking forward to many more engaging conversations with vet team members this time around.
"This is more than just a conversation though – it’s a national effort to strengthen the RVN role through collaboration, clarity and confidence.”
The ‘A vision or a necessity: strengthening the role of veterinary nurses in team-based veterinary healthcare’ workshops are open to all practice team members, including, but not limited to, veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons, practice support staff, directors, managers, and practice owners.
Workshops will be informal, informative and made up of small groups.
Supper will also be provided.
https://www.eventbrite.com/cc/vet-nursing-vision-events-3253639
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/vn-vision-the-future-of-team-based-veterinary-healthcare/
The Committee had found Dr Elefterescu guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to a number of charges which covered issues such as dishonesty, poor record-keeping, and failure to carry out adequate clinical examinations.
The full charges and findings of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held the appeal hearing in October last year with three Justices of the Supreme Court - Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Kitchin – comprising the Board.
The basis of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the Committee’s findings on the facts of the case were flawed, with his counsel saying that Dr Elefterescu 'strenuously disputes the findings by the Committee of his dishonesty and lack of professional competence and submits that there is no adequate basis for them in the evidence’.
His counsel also told the Board that the Disciplinary Committee’s sanction failed to take into account mitigating factors and that the decision to remove Dr Elefterescu from the Register was disproportionate.
In relation to the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings on the facts, the Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Elefterescu. These arguments included that the RCVS had failed to call relevant witnesses and had failed to make Dr Elefterescu aware of the significance of some evidential matters, disclosed to him.
In respect of the sanction, the Board was also unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, namely that it was too harsh in its assessment of aggravating factors, did not give adequate weight to mitigating factors, and that it failed to distinguish lack of competence from misconduct.
In its judgment on the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, the Board said: "It is the opinion of the Board that these criticisms are not well founded. The Committee considered with care Dr Elefterescu’s proven and admitted conduct in relation to each of the charges and whether it fell below or far below the standard to be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that a number of the charges which were either admitted or upheld were not the subject of any challenge on this appeal.
"Overall, the Committee found that Dr Elefterescu’s clinical failures were very serious, involved failures in the basics of animal care, resulted in animal suffering and involved widespread breaches of the respondent’s [RCVS] code of professional conduct. It also expressed particular concern about its findings of dishonesty, and rightly so. That conduct was, in its view, ‘at the top end’ of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. What is more, Dr Elefterescu had a lack of insight into his failings and a wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities which constituted an ongoing risk to animal welfare."
"These were findings which the Committee was clearly entitled to make and, in the light of them, the Board is firmly of the view that the decision of the Committee to direct the removal of Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register cannot be impeached. The Board rejects the criticisms made of the Committee’s reasoning and the conclusions to which it came. The direction that Dr Elefterescu’s name must be removed from the Register was appropriate and proportionate."
The Judicial Committee’s full findings can be found at www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2018-0060-judgment.pdf.
Prior to the start of the hearing, the RCVS received correspondence from Mr Kombert confirming that he did not intend to attend the hearing, either in person or via a video-link, nor did he intend to send legal representation in his stead.
The Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Kombert and any legal representation, on the basis that it was in the public interest and the interests of justice to proceed and that Mr Kombert had been given the opportunity to attend or be represented.
The Committee heard that staff at the practice where Mr Kombert was working as a locum had undertaken a check of the medicines kept in the practice’s controlled drugs cabinet and discovered that 5.5ml of ketamine and 1.5ml of methadone was missing. After the code to the controlled drugs cabinet was changed, Mr Kombert was observed taking an additional 3ml of methadone, which he then administered to himself while on duty at the practice.
After Mr Kombert was confronted with the evidence, he was given the details of the Vetlife charity for support and asked not to return to the practice.
The police were contacted and, on 4 January 2019, Mr Kombert was arrested and interviewed. He received a police caution for theft, with conditions that he should attend and complete a drug-use awareness course, and engage in a restorative justice process, which involved attending the practice to discuss his offences. At this meeting, Mr Kombert admitted stealing the drugs and administering them to himself while on duty, which meant he was not in a fit state to see patients. He apologised for his actions and the matter was then also reported to the RCVS.
In relation to the fact that Mr Kombert had accepted the police caution, made the admissions at the restorative justice meeting and had emailed the RCVS apologising for his actions, the facts of the case were found proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if Mr Kombert’s actions amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect (henceforth called ‘serious professional misconduct’), something which Mr Kombert had admitted to in correspondence with the RCVS.
The Committee found that Mr Kombert’s actions did amount to serious professional misconduct. Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s conduct was dishonest; it constituted both a breach of trust and an abuse of his position with regards to access to veterinary medicines; it risked animal welfare and jeopardised the reputation of colleagues. It fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then considered what the appropriate sanction against Mr Kombert should be, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of harm to animals, his dishonesty, the premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of trust and the fact it was repeated.
It also took into account three previous matters recorded against Mr Kombert in the United States of America.
These were: a letter of admonition from the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine for practising when his licence had expired; a stipulation order from the same body in which he agreed to relinquish his licence in that state following an allegation that he took controlled substances from a veterinary practice and self-administered them; and a criminal conviction in New York State for obtaining an opioid controlled drug by deception, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation. The Committee was made aware of the New York State criminal conviction after Dianne Norris, a Probation Officer based in that state, had contacted the RCVS after hearing about the inquiry and informed the College that Mr Kombert was in breach of his probation conditions.
Dr Whiting said: “The Committee has considered the witness statement of Ms Dianne Norris, a probation officer employed by Putnam County Probation in New York, who was responsible for supervising the respondent as part of his probation. Ms Norris explained that the respondent breached his probation on numerous occasions, which took place from November 2017 to 2018…. As a result of the breaches, Ms Norris required the respondent to increase his attendance at support groups to an inpatient treatment program for 28 days from 13 July 2018. He failed to attend.
"Ms Norris explained that warrants were issued for the respondent’s arrest…. The Committee noted that the conduct of the respondent in relation to obtaining controlled drugs from his employers for his own use while in the United States of America was similar to his conduct … [described in] the charges."
In mitigation the Committee considered that Mr Kombert had consistently admitted the charges against him as well as accepting and agreeing with the evidence against him.
However, the Committee decided that in light of the seriousness of his misconduct, including dishonesty and risk of serious harm to animals, removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Summing up, Dr Whiting said: "The respondent has failed to uphold the requisite standards to be expected of him on multiple occasions. The Committee considers that the only sanction that is sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct is one of erasure."
Mr Kombert has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.
At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.
He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.
Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.
The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.
The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.
However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.
Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.
This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed.
The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".
The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.
In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.
It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.
In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking. In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.
It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act.
"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.
It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short."
After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the Register for nine months for convictions regarding docking puppies' tails and driving offences, and for failing to obtain a client's consent to treatment or explore other treatment options.
At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Leicester, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute.
They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained. Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent. Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008.
Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery. It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass."
On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over £3,000. During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children. He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues. He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008. He also drew to the Committee's attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.
The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife's death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.
It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog's tails unless for "truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons." In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.
Mrs Freedman said: "The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
She added: "Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension. However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College's Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust's Adopt-A-Book campaign has raised almost £17k in sponsorship to pay for the restoration of books in the historical collection.
The latest book to be restored under the scheme is a nineteenth century edition of Every man his own farrier, by F. Clater, which has been restored thanks to veterinary surgeon Fiona Dalzell.
Fiona said: "I have always loved books, and especially old books, but I got inspired by the Adopt-a-Book scheme when I came to the RCVS for a meeting of the Veterinary History Society".
These editions, she says, are "works of art in their own right," and it has given her a "huge amount of pleasure to know that you can do so much just from a small donation."
RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell explained the idea behind a campaign: "When you think of 'adoption', you may more readily recall the rescue animals treated in veterinary practices than old books. However, these old books also need your help - and are an important part of the veterinary heritage that the Trust seeks to preserve."
Restoring a book can cost between £25 and £250, and adopted books carry a book-plate naming their benefactor. They can also be dedicated 'in memoriam'.
Since its inception six years ago, the Adopt-a-Book campaign has raised £16, 851, and funded the restoration of 139 volumes:
Those interested in supporting this work by adopting a book can view available titles at www.rcvs.org.uk/adoptabook or contact Clare Boulton, RCVS Trust Librarian (c.boulton@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0752).
David Chalkley MRCVS faces four alleged charges:
At the start of the hearing Mr Chalkley made no admissions as to the charges but he had made an application for an adjournment based on undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In addressing the Committee on behalf of Mr Chalkley, his counsel said that Mr Chalkley denied all charges of dishonesty, that there was no evidence of harm to animals as a result of the alleged conduct, that there had been no complaint from the client and that he had repaid all the sums he had received for tuberculin testing on the farm in question.
His counsel also submitted that a full hearing would be expensive and time-consuming, and that it would serve no useful purpose as animal welfare and the protection of the public would be served by Mr Chalkley’s proposed undertakings.
Counsel on behalf of the RCVS confirmed that the College did not oppose the application and confirmed that the Animal Plant and Health Agency did not object.
However, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that because the case concerned issues of alleged dishonesty in veterinary certification over a prolonged period of time and the importance of public trust in the accuracy and reliability of that process, there was a need to hold a full, public hearing into Mr Chalkley’s alleged conduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee expressed no view as to whether the allegations could be substantiated or not and it recognised that the process of determining the allegations would be burdensome for many, particularly the respondent.
"It was satisfied, however, that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would be disturbed to learn that allegations of this kind had not been the subject of a formal determination by the Disciplinary Committee. The respondent’s own interests had to take second place to this important public interest.
“The Committee therefore declined to accept the application to adjourn this inquiry [until an unspecified date] and directed that arrangements should now be considered for the listing of a hearing in this case.”
It is expected that the full hearing will take place in spring 2021.
The RCVS has launched a survey to discover what the profession thinks it does well and what it could improve upon.
The confidential online survey asks about your recent interactions with the College, what you think the organisation does well and what can be improved upon.
The survey is one of several activities that the College is undertaking as part of its First-Rate Regulator initiative. Others include a survey amongst those who have made complaints; research amongst RCVS staff and Council / VN Council members; in-depth phone interviews with veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers; and, questionnaires aimed at stakeholder organisations that work regularly with the College.
Desk-based research is also being carried out, to see how the RCVS shapes up when compared to other similar regulators, both in the UK and overseas.
Following this evidence-gathering stage, an assessment will be made about where gaps exist between how the College performs and what it ought to be achieving, together with recommendations for change.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "Becoming a first-rate regulator is the aim, building on the good things we do, and challenging ourselves to be better where we fall short."
"Although the RCVS has a long and proud history, we also need to have a sustainable future. Careful scrutiny of what we do, and how we can improve, will ensure this. I would urge all members of the veterinary team to take this unique opportunity to help improve the regulation of their professions."
The survey closes on 4 January 2013. All veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for whom the RCVS holds unique email addresses will be sent a link to the survey. Others are invited to visit www.rcvs.org.uk/firstratesurvey to take part. Practice managers, and student vets and VNs are also encouraged to complete the survey. Individuals who are not veterinary surgeons, nurses, students or practice managers, and who have views about how the College could improve, are invited to contact Nick Stace on nick@rcvs.org.uk.
Last year saw the highest ever increase in the number of people enrolling as veterinary nursing (VN) students on vocational courses, according to figures released by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
In 2011, some 1,041 students registered with the RCVS to pursue vocational VN qualifications, compared with 809 in 2010 - a 29% increase.
The total number of people enrolling as student veterinary nurses on either vocational or degree courses in 2011 was 1,439, compared with 1,083 the preceding year - an overall increase of a third.
Libby Earle, head of the RCVS VN Department said: "The overall increase could partially be explained by degree students seeking to avoid increased university tuition fees. However, although there is a noticeable increase in enrolments linked to higher educational courses, this does not explain the increase in further education students.
"A more significant factor is likely to be the inception of the Level 3 Diploma, as this can be undertaken as a full-time programme," Libby continued. "As Colleges running such programmes arrange the practical training placements for their students, this opens up opportunities for the considerable number of people who want to become VNs but who are not employed by a training practice. When we introduced the qualification in 2010 we hoped that this would help to increase the number of VN students - so it's great to see this is happening already and with such a marked increase."
Student VN enrolment figures for 2010 and 2011:
2010
2011
RCVS Level 3 Diploma
647
1,041
RCVS NVQ/VRQ (now superseded)
162
-
Higher education students
274
398
Total student VN enrolments
1,083
1,439
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: "Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders."
"The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession."
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: "We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
"It takes real courage to reach out for help when you're struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call."
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible viawww.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group 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 and the Association of Veterinary Students.