Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS has announced that its former President, Professor Sandy Trees, will be appointed to the House of Lords as a non-party-political (cross-bench) peer, following recommendation by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Professor Trees, who was President of the RCVS in 2009-2010, has served on the College Council for 12 years. He becomes only the second veterinary surgeon to take a seat in the House of Lords, joining Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.
Professor Trees said: "This is a great honour, and a wonderful opportunity. I look forward to the prospect of ensuring that legislation relating to animal health and welfare is fit for purpose, but I also feel that veterinary surgeons have a great deal to offer society more broadly, and I will relish the opportunity of raising the profile of the profession and what it can contribute.
"Beyond the immediate veterinary sphere, my areas of experience include science, the environment, education, middle eastern politics and tropical medicine, so I hope to be able to contribute to the work of the House of Lords on many fronts."
Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted to hear that Professor Sandy Trees has been appointed to the House of Lords. I know that he will not only represent the profession on all matters of veterinary science, veterinary education, animal welfare and public health, but as a cross-bencher, he will also bring a breadth of experience to bear on issues outside the immediate interests of our profession. He is a well informed and articulate advocate of whom the profession can be rightly proud."
The BVA also welcomed the appointment. BVA President Carl Padgett said: "The British Veterinary Association is absolutely delighted at Professor Trees' appointment to the House of Lords. He will bring a wealth of experience and scientific expertise into the political arena, not only in the fields of animal health and welfare but also public health, where he has particular knowledge and experience.
"We are pleased that the value of veterinary input in legislative debate has been recognised by the Appointments Commission.
"We are also proud that Professor Trees will be formally opening this September's BVA Congress in Liverpool where he inspired two generations of vets through his teaching and research, and we look forward to working with him to deliver a healthy future for animals, vets and the country."
Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected.
At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.
The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.
“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded
“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.
“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
Mr Shillabeer faced five charges which largely related to his alleged prescription of contra-indicated NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
He was also charged with prescribing frusemide to a pregnant dog when there was no evidence of a benefit of so doing.
He was also charged with performing inadequate spay surgery.
Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges, engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.
He made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertaking to remove his name from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it.
His legal counsel also asked the Committee to consider the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had an unblemished 60-year career, has had no previous disciplinary findings against him, had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere, and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern or upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Shillabeer's counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that his undertakings would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice.
He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and Mr Shillabeer.
The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance.
She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry, that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return, that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense, that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer, and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:
Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.
She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.
She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.
In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.
In 2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.
Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months.
Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.
The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.
The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.
In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.
The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.
"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.
"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.
"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.
“This is a case involving serious malpractice.
"It was sustained over a period of time.
"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.
"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.
"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.
“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
It's the final call for comments on the draft new RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, as the consultation closes on Friday, 24 June 2011.
The new draft Code, which is intended to replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, was produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee.
The new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.
New requirements in the Code include compulsory continuing professional development, the RCVS Health Protocol and more on clinical competence. It also contains an updated declaration to be made by veterinary surgeons, which gives increased emphasis to animal welfare.
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation.
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate consultation will open shortly on a draft RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.
"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.
"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”
Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.
The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487
More meetings are planned for later in the year:
If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk
The RCVS President and Principal of the RVC, Professor Stuart Reid, has announced that he is to run the London Marathon on 26 April, in aid of the RVC Animal Care Trust, the Veterinary Benevolent Fund (VBF) and Mind.
The RVC Animal Care Trust will use the funds to assist the student bodies at all of the UK veterinary schools. The VBF, through Vetlife, the Vet Helpline and the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme, offers specific assistance to members of the veterinary team. Mind has been working with the profession and the veterinary schools at all levels in developing approaches to mental health and wellbeing.
Stuart said: "As President of the RCVS and Principal of the RVC I feel that I am in a privileged position and I would like to take every opportunity to help break down the stigma associated with mental health and wellbeing, and to raise what I can to assist these three excellent charities in dealing with what is, sadly, a major issue for us.
"Most of all, I am doing it for the nine people I know personally who are no longer with us, and the many more who have found, and will find, help in time."
If you'd like to help Stuart meet his sponsorship target of £10,000, you can sponsor him at: uk.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartReid.
Ms Padron Vega had also been found to have failed in her duties as an OV by being unprepared for, and unaware of, new regulations. She also did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
Ms Padron Vega originally applied for restoration in December last year, at which time the Disciplinary Committee had concerns about her keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills needed to return to practice, and decided to adjourn for six months to allow her to prove that it was appropriate to restore her name to the Register.
At the latest hearing, Ms Padron Vega sought to address the concerns that the Committee had raised about her professional development. In addition to the documentation she provided in her original restoration hearing, which included positive testimonials from colleagues, she provided evidence of her continuing professional development (CPD).
This included a letter from her previous employer, who confirmed she had more recently worked for them as a Certification Support Officer from February to March 2021, where they received positive feedback on her conduct.
The documentation also included a letter from another practice confirming that Ms Padron Vega had been offered a position of employment with them, and a separate letter from practice veterinary surgeon, Dr Khan MRCVS, confirming that he would be her mentor. Dr Khan also confirmed that she had been coming to the practice for work experience and he considered her to have good working knowledge of current medicines used within the practice. He further outlined in his letter what CPD support the practice would be providing for Ms Padron Vega as part of her employment with them.
An additional piece of evidence was a testimonial from Dr Max Rutana MRCVS who confirmed that Ms Padron Vega had worked unsupervised for a period of three weeks, and that he found her clinical notes during this period to be satisfactory and they received no complaints about her conduct from clients.
Ms Padron Vega also submitted CPD documentation which confirmed she has taken a Certification Support Officers’ course and examination in mid-December 2020.
In response to questions from the Committee about her small animal practice experience and how long she had been shadowing Dr Khan for, Ms Padron Vega explained that she had completed 80 hours of shadowing with Dr Khan and that in her future employment under his mentorship, he would be available to support her. She also explained that her job offer was evidence that she would continue to be trained in the relevant area of veterinary work.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “During the hearing, we heard evidence from Dr Khan who provided reassurance of Ms Padron Vega’s continued professional development with his practice and the ongoing supervision that she would be under. He explained that the supervision would last at least three months.
“The Committee’s view is that Ms Padron Vega accepts the findings of dishonesty that were made against her at the original Inquiry hearing. In her Reflective Statement, she acknowledges that veterinarians have a professional responsibility to ensure the integrity of veterinary certification, that she is now aware that when signing documents as a veterinary surgeon they need to be approached with care and accuracy. Further she has undertaken a CPD course on this very ethical issue and has passed the examination set at the end of that course. The Committee is confident that Ms Padron Vega is unlikely to repeat the conduct which resulted in her being removed from the Register. It is the Committee’s decision that she should be restored to the Register.”
The RCVS has brought out a new publication to help members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions understand their legal and professional obligations regarding controlled drugs.
Controlled Drugs Guidance is a consolidation of existing advice and guidance on controlled drugs from a number of organisations including the RCVS itself, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the Home Office. The guide also gives details of the existing legislation concerning controlled drugs, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated regulations.
The guidance provides advice on a variety of topics to reflect the common queries the RCVS Advice Team receives, such as storage, destruction and disposal; keys and keyholders for controlled drugs cabinets; controlled drugs in vehicles; and veterinary nurses administering controlled drugs.
The publication also deals with specific controlled drugs such as ketamine which, on 30 November 2015, was rescheduled to a Schedule 2 controlled drug, meaning that it is now subject to the same strict storage, prescription, dispending, destruction and record-keeping requirements as other medicines in this Schedule.
Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: “We hope that this publication will help members of the profession navigate the often complex legislative and professional requirements regarding controlled drugs, as well as imparting best practice advice on how they should be stored and disposed and so on.
"This publication has also been endorsed by our colleagues in the Home Office, VMD and BSAVA and, because this is an area that is subject to regular change, we will make sure to keep it up-to-date as and when the regulations change."
The publication is available to download from the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS Charitable Trust is offering two 'Blue Sky' grants of between £10,000 and £20,000 for basic or pure research intended to advance veterinary science.
Applications may be made for either an 'open' grant or a Robert Daubney Fellowship. Both are open to academic staff and students within UK veterinary schools. However, the Robert Daubney Fellowship is granted specifically for research within the fields of virology and helminthology, and has additional criteria including that applicants must be on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons, and hold a postgraduate veterinary qualification.
Cherry Bushell, the Trust's Director said: "This funding is offered for veterinary scientific research projects which meet our interests in innovation and development. In particular, pilot projects aiming to show a 'proof of concept' as a first stage of a more substantial project will be looked on favourably - if the project can then attract support from major funders this is likely to have more impact over the longer term."
The Trust aims to develop mutually beneficial partnerships with grant recipients, and innovative and exciting projects which can respond to these objectives through the grant-giving process and beyond are also preferred.
Further information, including full application criteria, is available from www.trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants. Preliminary applications should be made via the head of a UK veterinary school, and submitted to the Trust by 20 May 2011.
Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so.
The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement.
Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.
Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.
They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.
Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation.
In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends.
"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner.
"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."
Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.
During the webinar, which took place earlier this month, senior officers and staff from the College explained the new guidance, what it will mean for the profession, and answered questions submitted by delegates.
The webinar was chaired by RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS with a panel comprising Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and RCVS Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The webinar included an overview of the main changes, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “We have also now published a range of practice-based scenarios to help explain how the new guidance should be followed in various circumstances, and in relation to different species.
"These scenarios cover a variety of different situations, including how the guidance applies to two or more practices with mutual clients, consultancy services and the prescription of long-term controlled drugs.”
A second webinar will be held on Monday 17th July, with priority for those who wanted to attend the June webinar but were not able to do because it was over-subscribed.
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.
She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.
There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.
Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.
The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.
Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.
Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.
Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).
Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.
Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.
At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.
Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.
After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.
Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.
In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.
Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.
In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:
The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.
The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.
When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:
The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”
She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.
"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.
“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.
"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”
What is 'quality improvement', you ask? Good question. Sure, it's an improvement in, er, quality. But of what?
'Quality improvement' is a term adopted from the human healthcare sector, variously defined as anything which makes: "healthcare safer, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable (NHS)", or "the combined and unceasing efforts of everyone—healthcare professionals, patients and their families, researchers, payers, planners and educators—to make the changes that will lead to better patient outcomes (health), better system performance (care) and better professional development (BMJ)."
The RCVS research project, which is being conducted by RAND EUROPE, will assess current perceptions and adoption of quality improvement in the veterinary profession.
Specifically, it'll look at the drivers, barriers and expectations associated with QI, with the ultimate goal of strengthening the support provided to the profession.
Chris Gush, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge, said: "We are delighted to be launching this research project with RAND Europe.
"We know that many of our colleagues across the profession have embedded quality improvement into their practice to great benefit, while we are also aware that it can be a challenge to do so all of the time.
"This research will provide an unprecedented body of evidence on the experiences and perceptions of QI, which will be critical to how we work to support the sector in this area going forward."
Integral to the research is a survey which all members of the profession are invited to take part in, here: bit.ly/QIvetsurvey.
The survey will be live for six weeks, closing early April. It takes around ten minutes to complete, with a prize of one £150 Amazon voucher on offer. Responses will be anonymised.
You can read more about Quality Improvement on the RCVS Knowledge website, here: https://knowledge.rcvs.org.uk/quality-improvement/
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has launched its new website, which also marks the first public outing for its new livery.
The College highlights the following key changes:
The RCVS says the new corporate look is designed to be fresh, uncluttered and professional, and the new RCVS logo and strapline - "setting veterinary standards" - should leave visitors in no doubt as to the key purpose of the RCVS as a regulatory body. And whilst the new identity is modern in feel, the use of a shield device aims to maintain the link with the College's long history.
According to the College, the new brand was described by the veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who helped to develop it as "simple, clear and clean, with a strong message" and "modern and approachable".
President Peter Jinman said: "The College has been accused of being 'confused and confusing' in the past. With the new identity we have endeavoured to clarify that the College is a forward-thinking regulator - despite being established when Queen Victoria was only recently on the throne, and working to 45-year-old legislation.
"Changing the logo, font and colours we use is only a small part of the process though. Our branding review included several layers of research and we now have a better understanding of how we have been perceived, how we would like to be perceived, and what we need to do to get there. This includes changing how we behave and communicate as an organisation, as well as how we position ourselves to the outside world."
The new look, which includes new logos for RCVS Awards, the RCVS Charitable Trust and the Practice Standards Scheme, will be rolled out across other communications elements as the year unfolds, to avoid the unnecessary wastage of materials branded with the old identity.
Meanwhile, the website is a living medium, and the College says it is keen to hear feedback from users about what they like, and what could be improved, to help inform further developments.
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received the funds from the EU (which amounted to a few thousand euros), and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
As part of its review, the College had planned a series of focus groups of veterinary surgeons and nurses across the UK. However, these have had to be delayed both because of social distancing rules and because of the pressures that practice teams are currently working under. However, the agency tasked with hosting the focus groups is now exploring alternative options and it is hoped there will be a revised timetable soon.
In the meantime, the College says it now plans to commission an additional independent agency to survey veterinary surgeons about their experience of remote prescribing during lockdown.
In March, RCVS Council agreed to temporarily allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, subject to a number of conditions and safeguards being in place.
This position is due for review by 30th June, and the College will be looking for feedback and data from veterinary surgeons about your experience of remote prescribing, in order to determine whether these arrangements can continue, with or without any extra safeguards.
Because remote prescribing is also one of the most important aspects of the planned under care review, feedback gathered now will help inform future discussions too.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: “We recognise the current conditions that veterinary practices are working under in no way represent normal practice life. Most practices will not have been set up to offer remote services and remote prescribing in a way that they might have chosen, given sufficient time and appropriate detailed guidance, if indeed there are any future guidance changes after the review.
"However, we feel it would be remiss of us not to seize the opportunity arising from this current crisis to ask about the experiences – good or bad – of those on the frontline of clinical veterinary practice in providing remote services to their clients.
"Whilst this will be no substitute for the formal evidence gathered by the research agency in due course, whatever data and feedback we can collate from veterinary practices at this unique time for our professions will, I’m sure, be extremely valuable to our ongoing discussions."
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
The webinar was hosted by RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Melissa Donald, with Standards Committee Chair and Junior Vice-President Linda Belton, Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The panel gave an overview of the main changes for the guidance, which comes into effect on 1st September, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
The webinar also dealt with issues raised in a previous webinar, including a query about prescribing under the cascade and an update on the position when prescribing based on cultures and sensitivities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTZKdbVD8g
For further information about the new guidance, including a range of practice-based scenarios and FAQs, visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/under-care-new-guidance/
Questions about the under care guidance can be sent to advice@rcvs.org.uk
RCVS Council member and Chief Veterinary Officer Professor Nigel Gibbens has been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the New Year’s Honours list for 2016.
Professor Gibbens (pictured right), who was appointed by the Privy Council to RCVS Council in 2008, has been recognised for his services to the veterinary profession and animal welfare.
Over on the other side of the world, Professor Norman Williamson, Chair of the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), has been appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, following an application supported by the RCVS.
Professor Williamson has been working with the College as part of the veterinary education accreditation process, taking part in university visitations both in the UK and abroad.
Bradley Viner, President of the RCVS, said: "Many congratulations to Professor Nigel Gibbens for his appointment as a CBE. As CVO, Nigel has made great strides in shaping and influencing animal health and welfare policy throughout the United Kingdom and strengthening the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the College and the profession at large.
"As an organisation we were also very happy to write in support of the application for Professor Williamson to become an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit and it is gladdening to see that his contribution to international cooperation in veterinary education has been recognised."
Photograph courtesy RCVS