The nomination period runs up until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2017 and, in order to stand, candidates need to submit a nomination form, a short biography and personal statement, and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs two nominators: veterinary surgeons who are on the College’s Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Dr Chris Tufnell, RCVS President, discusses RCVS Council and various committees in a video urging members of the profession to put themselves forward:
The election period starts around mid-March and will run until 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017. Ballot papers will be sent to veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote in the week commencing Monday 13 March 2017.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil17.
The report is the culmination of the work of a joint RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group, set up to explore key issues in supporting BAME veterinary students during their studies.
The Working Group made a total of 14 recommendations, which included:
Stephanie-Rae Flicker is a recent Royal Veterinary College (RVC) graduate who co-chaired the Working Group alongside Professor Rob Pettitt from the University of Liverpool.
She said: “I hope this encourages and supports our veterinary institutions to actively implement change regarding discrimination faced during studies and placements, nurturing role models and helping affected students develop sense of belonging and community during their studies and beyond.
"Many thanks to all that have contributed to the completion of this Report – we hope the recommendations have a lasting impact, and benefit those both already present and yet to enter our profession."
RCVS/VSC BAME Student Support Working Group Report.
A number of candidates have already come to the VetSurgeon.org forums to discuss their candidacy and help voters decide whether they're worthy of your vote; their individual discussion threads are linked to below.
The College points out that there is a new voting platform this year, designed to make it easier to vote online.
The new system includes regular personalised email reminders from Electoral Reform Services which include a link to the voting platform and the ability to log in securely straight away, without having to refer to the ballot paper in order to find the security codes. Using the email address provided the College, veterinary surgeons can also ask ERS to reissue the security codes if needs be.
Voting for both of this year’s elections opened on Friday 24 March with an email sent to all those eligible to vote for whom the College holds an email address. Ballot papers have also been despatched to all eligible voters along with booklets containing the candidates’ biographies, contact details and manifestos. Instructions on how to vote online and by post are included with the ballot papers.
There are 16 candidates contesting six places on RCVS Council, including three existing Council members eligible for re-election and 13 candidates not currently on Council. They are:
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017.
Once again this year the College invited members of both professions to ‘Quiz the candidates’ by putting their questions directly to all those standing for election. Some of the key themes this year included Brexit, complementary/ alternative therapies, the structure of the veterinary industry, out-of-hours work and veterinary nurse remuneration among others.
Each candidate was invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received and produce a video recording of their answers.
These videos, along with biographies and statements for each candidate, are available to view on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote17.
This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.
In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.
In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.
Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."
Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."
The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.
In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."
The Working Group, which was formed in January, is chaired by Nigel Gibbens (pictured right) and composed of representatives from BVA specialist divisions and affiliate groups, and others with relevant expertise and knowledge.
As the Association says, the RCVS review will potentially have a far-reaching impact on the future of the veterinary profession, animal health and welfare, and the relationships vets have with their clients.
Of particular concern are the impact of remote prescribing on animal welfare and how limited-service providers (ie those offering online consultations only) will affect the commercial viability of full-service providers.
It is therefore hugely important that the BVA's response represents the opinions and evidence of as many people in the profession as possible.
Information about the BVA Working Group, including the minutes of meetings held so far and the 'themes' document which reflects the group's current thoughts, can be found here: https://www.bva.co.uk/about-us/our-structure/working-groups/
Nigel said: "I encourage you to look at this information carefully, and feed in any evidence that you wish the group to consider along with your thoughts on the content of the BVA response to the RCVS. You can do this via BVA’s Head of Policy & Governance Amelia Findon (ameliaf@bva.co.uk) who will ensure that comments are collated and considered by our group.
"The breadth of opinion across the profession means that the BVA response cannot please everyone, nor should it attempt to. However, it will be based on available evidence and a good understanding of the full scope of views. BVA policy will thus reflect the majority view whilst embracing the positive potential of technological innovations that will inevitably change the way we interact with clients. I urge you to take the time to consider the implications and let us have your thoughts."
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2017, with the 339 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2017, compared to 296 last year.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-rcvs-register/) and the College is encouraging practices to check the list to be sure that no employees are named. Those who have been removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
Anyone removed from the Register can no longer call themselves a veterinary surgeon, use the postnominals MRCVS or carry out acts of veterinary surgery – to do so would be in breach of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
The College is also reminding veterinary surgeons that to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area www.rcvs.org.uk/login.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.
The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.
The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.
The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.
The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.
The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.
The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.
The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.
These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.
Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.
The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.
In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.
"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.
"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”
The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.
It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.
It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.
Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.
Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.
"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.
“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.
"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.
"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.
“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.
"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Specifically, Ms Hodgkinson was alleged to have placed five orders between 1 September 2013 and 1 April 2015:
The medications for charges (i) to (iii) above, were intended for her own personal use, as she had previously at various times been prescribed Codeine, Naproxen and Amitriptyline after being involved in a serious car accident in November 2012, as a result of which she suffered from chronic back pain and other problems.
Charges (iv) and (v) above, were intended for her dog, ‘Minnie’, but the dosages ordered were incorrect. The medications were never removed from the practice or given to Minnie, but were instead returned to the wholesaler.
From the outset Ms Hodgkinson admitted the charges against her, although she believed that other staff at the practice had placed similar personal orders and that she had been given permission to do so as well. Ms Hodgkinson also accepted that the facts amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee accepted Ms Hodgkinson’s admission of the charges and, accordingly, found the charges proved. The question of whether the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct was, however, a matter for the Committee’s judgement, notwithstanding Ms Hodgkinson’s admission.
In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account Ms Hodgkinson’s assertion that she believed she had been given permission to order medication through the practice. She did admit however that she must have been mistaken in that belief. The Committee also took note of the College’s submission that a number of aggravating features were present which amounted to serious professional misconduct, namely: the potential risk posed to animal welfare; Ms Hodgkinson’s ignorance of fundamental legislative provisions; a breach of trust placed in her by virtue of her RVN status; the fact that the misconduct was repeated over a period of time; and a lack of awareness of professional responsibilities at the time of the conduct. The Committee therefore had no hesitation that the conduct did amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then turned to the question of sanction. A number of mitigating factors were put forward in Ms Hodgkinson’s defence including the fact that a period of lengthy suspension or removal from the register would result in her losing an offer of employment, the fact that up to the relevant conduct she had had an unblemished career and the fact that she had made early admissions of guilt and shown insight into her misconduct.
The Committee decided that a period of 10 months’ suspension would be appropriate and proportionate in this case.
Chitra Karve, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The length of the period of suspension…is intended to reflect this Committee’s view, assisted as it has been by the experience and knowledge of a practising RVN and a veterinary surgeon, of the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct in its totality and of the need for the message to go out to all veterinary professionals that the ordering of POMs without the authority of a valid prescription is a most serious instance of misconduct. In such circumstances the personal mitigations that a practitioner might place before a Disciplinary Committee, whilst not immaterial, is inevitably of limited persuasion. And that is what this Committee has concluded in this particular case, having reflected carefully on the mitigation factors placed before it.
"Having weighed the matters of personal mitigation against the fact that a rudimentary knowledge of the governing legislation was effectively all that was required of the Respondent to ensure that the misconduct complained of did not occur, it is the clear view of the Committee that it would be failing in its public duty were it to do anything less than to impose a period of suspension from practice and the least period of suspension that is appropriate in this case is one of ten months. The Committee therefore instructs the Registrar to act accordingly."
The RCVS has published its 2014 Survey of the Veterinary and Veterinary Nursing Professions, a snapshot of the demographics of the profession, and the educational and work status of its members.
The results, which gauge individual views on the current state of the profession, are used to inform the College's future policy and activities.
6,988 veterinary surgeons (27% of the profession), 3,612 registered/listed veterinary nurses (31% of the profession) and 1,792 student veterinary nurses took part in the surveys, which are conducted once every four years by the Institute for Employment Studies.
This year's surveys included a set of questions about 24-hour emergency cover, which contributed to the recent review of the College's guidance in this area, and, for the first time, questions from the government-backed Social Mobility Toolkit, which aim to assess the social background of members of the profession.
Highlights from the survey of veterinary surgeons included:
Highlights from the survey of veterinary nurses included:
Both the Survey of the Veterinary Profession and the Survey of the Veterinary Nursing Profession, together with a report that brings together common themes, can be downloaded from the RCVS publications page.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and the Veterinary Nursing Council have decided that there will be no increase in registration and retention fees for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for 2012.
Last year, the Councils decided that a lower than inflation increase should apply to fees for 2011 to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Members who are over 70 and who cease practising do not have to pay fees if they wish to remain on the Register.
Bradley Viner, RCVS Treasurer said: "We know times are tough financially for many people and hope that freezing fees will help a little. Professional regulation can be costly, but we try to keep fees as low as possible."
The RCVS financial policy remains that fee increases should be small and incremental in order to avoid a need for periodic sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
Fees for 2012 will be as follows:
2012 fees (£)
Veterinary surgeons
UK-practising retention fee
299
Overseas-practising retention fee
150
Non-practising retention fee
49
Non-practising retention fee (over 70 years old)
0
Registration fee
Temporary registration fee
Restoration fee
Restoration fee following voluntary removal
75
Veterinary nurses
Retention fee
61
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
Dr Mostert admitted to his conviction but denied that it rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
He also admitted not disclosing his conviction to the RCVS but denied that it amounted to dishonesty or was misleading and that failing to do so amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee first considered whether Dr Mostert’s conviction affected the public interest, which included the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour for members of the profession.
The Committee noted that the conviction involved dishonesty relating to false statements about the value of goods sent to the USA.
The Committee felt that a conviction for a serious offence involving dishonesty would have a negative impact on public confidence in the profession, and that its reputation would be damaged if proper standards of conduct and behaviour were not upheld.
The Committee also noted that as the products that Dr Mostert imported into the USA were not labelled as coming from a foreign market and were not labelled as needing to be administered by a vet, his conviction also related to animal safety, as anyone who accessed the medications could believe that it was safe for them to be given to an animal.
The Committee then considered Dr Mostert’s failure to declare the conviction to the College on three separate occasions.
Dr Mostert testified that, at the time, he did not believe he had to disclose his conviction as it occurred in a country where he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon.
He also said he had not taken the time to read and interpret the application form accurately.
However, the Committee considered that the wording around convictions on the application and annual renewal forms is very clear and that, as a veterinary surgeon, Dr Mostert would be familiar with such documents.
The Committee considered that it was inconceivable that an experienced veterinary surgeon, making a declaration of this kind to his regulator, would not have understood that a serious conviction in the USA, dating from June 2017, was a conviction that he was obliged to disclose.
The Committee therefore found Dr Mostert’s failures to declare his conviction dishonest.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, noted that in deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the case did not involve any actual harm to an animal or human and that Dr Mostert had had a long and otherwise unblemished career.
However, a key aggravating factor was that the action that led to the conviction resulted in financial gain through the creation of a business enterprise and that Dr Mostert falsely declared the value of goods.
The extent of any financial gain was not known to the Committee, but the business operated on the basis that false declarations were repeatedly made.
Judith said: “After careful consideration the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances, a lengthy period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the case and satisfy the public interest. The Committee has decided that the appropriate length of suspension is one of 18 months.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Buttler was charged with having been under the influence of alcohol whilst at work on two separate occasions. On both occasions, she was working as a locum veterinary nurse.
The first occasion was between 25th and 28th April 2016 in Frome, and the second from 3rd July to 4th July 2016 in Salisbury.
It was also alleged that a prior conviction of drunk driving on 19th November 2013 rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee decided to hear the case in Ms Buttler’s absence as it was satisfied that she had properly been served with the notice of hearing and because she had stated that she was aware of the proceedings but did not wish to engage with the process. The Committee also noted that she had not requested any adjournment.
The Committee heard from five witnesses for the first charge, including three veterinary nurses and one veterinary surgeon. They gave testimony that they had had cause to suspect that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work due to her demeanour, and recalled Ms Buttler repeatedly retreating upstairs to her accommodation during the working day. Further, an open wine bottle was found in Ms Buttler’s accommodation and was observed to have been drunk during the course of her shift. The Committee found the first charge proved.
The Committee heard from four witnesses in respect of the second charge. Two of the witnesses stated that they smelt alcohol on Ms Buttler’s breath while she was on duty, with one of them stating that Ms Buttler had slurred speech and a flushed face at the end of a fourteen-hour shift. The other two witnesses also presented evidence to support the assertion that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work, while the Committee found that Ms Buttler lacked credibility because she had denied having any alcohol on the premises when originally confronted, but later admitted in an email to the College that she had had an open bottle of wine in her bag. The Committee found the second charge proved.
The Committee then considered the third charge, namely the conviction in 2013. The Committee considered the certificate of conviction obtained from the North East Devon Magistrates Court and was satisfied that Ms Buttler had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol as set out within charge 3.
When considering whether these all amounted to a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee was concerned about Ms Buttler showing no insight into her drinking, and the repeated nature of the offences. The Committee also considered that being under the influence of alcohol when working as a veterinary nurse was conduct which fell far short of the standards to be expected of members of the veterinary nursing profession.
It therefore concluded that Ms Buttler was guilty of disgraceful conduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Buttler’s conviction (charge 3) rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. The Committee concluded that Ms Buttler had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions in 2013, or learnt any lessons from it. Accordingly, it felt that she continued to pose a risk to animals and the public in the future. The Committee also felt that the conviction undermined the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession because the offence inevitably involved a risk of injury to herself and other road users.
Having found Ms Buttler guilty of misconduct, the Committee went on to consider sanction.
The Committee took into account aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to an animal, the fact that the first two charges involved an element of premeditation, the fact that Ms Buttler was under the influence on more than one shift in each practice, that there is no evidence of insight from Ms Buttler and there is a future risk to animals if she continued to practice unrestricted.
They also considered mitigating factors, including the fact that this is the first disciplinary hearing she has faced, that she did not cause any harm to any animal and that she did not gain financially from her conduct.
In reaching its decision Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Ms Buttler said she had worked for twenty years without any problem and that she was previously of good character. However because there was no evidence that Ms Buttler would not repeat the conduct with regards to working whilst under the influence of alcohol she could continue to pose a risk to animals or the public in the future. The Committee therefore was bound to consider her removal from the register.
"Although it noted from the brief email correspondence Ms Buttler had sent to the College that she said she did not intend to practice in the future, the Committee decided that until she had shown insight into her behaviour in 2016, she remained a risk to animals. It therefore decided that the proportionate action was to instruct the Registrar to remove her name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith."
If Ms Buttler chose to re-engage with the College, she could apply for restoration to the register after ten months.
The follow up service ‘can be provided personally by the veterinary surgeon or practice, or by written agreement with a veterinary services provider which is local to the client (as with the current situation for [out-of-hours] care provision)’.
The new rule comes into force on the 1st November, to allow practices to make any necessary arrangements.
The RCVS Council also decided that the temporary derogation from the usual requirement to conduct a physical examination before an animal is regarded as ‘under care’ be reviewed as a standing item at each subsequent Standards Committee meeting, until the normal guidance provisions are fully restored.
Mandisa qualified from the Royal (Dick) Vet School in Edinburgh in 2008 and has since spent much of her career working in emergency and critical care.
She served as the first black president of the RCVS in 2020/21 and has also worked for Harper Adams University as a lecturer in veterinary sciences.
Mandisa will replace Laura Playforth, who is joining IVC Evidensia as group QI director, on the Vets Now board.
She said: “I’m delighted to be joining the Vets Now family at such an interesting and challenging time for the veterinary professions.
“I look forward to working together through innovative approaches to ensure our teams continue to deliver the highest standards of clinical care and client services.”
RCVS Council had introduced temporary guidance allowing the remote prescription of drugs for animals not under care back in March, to ensure that animal health and welfare could be maintained during lockdown without risking the health of veterinary teams or their clients.
Since then, the College has twice extended this guidance, because of the ongoing situation.
However the College says it now recognises that many practices are returning more to 'business as usual' and that the guidance and associated flowchart should be updated according.
Consequently, before deciding to prescribe POM-Vs remotely, the updated guidance now requires veterinary surgeons to first consider whether the animal is already under their care; or, if not, whether it is possible to physically examine the animal in order to bring the animal under their care. If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, POM-Vs may still be prescribed remotely providing the guidelines set out in the College’s coronavirus advice hub are adhered to.
Surprisingly, the College says that its surveys of the profession have thus far identified no immediate safety concerns around remote prescribing.
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “The reason for maintaining the possibility of remote prescribing without a physical examination was that we recognised that the current situation is unpredictable, and while the ability for the public to visit practices in person has improved over the last few months, we felt that situations might still arise where that would not be possible, and where access to remote prescribing would be necessary. These could include further local lockdowns, ongoing quarantine arrangements, and the remaining fact that some members of both the veterinary team and the public continue to shield.
“It remains our intention that this guidance will continue to be a temporary measure and may be subject to further extensions or updates given the uncertain nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
RCVS Council will review the position on 8 October, with any changes being effective by 1 November at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the RCVS review of ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover has now resumed, starting with a number of virtual focus groups and consultation with stakeholders within the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
The findings from these focus group discussions will then inform a wider survey to be sent to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in early 2021, along with stakeholder organisations and the animal-owning public. Remote prescribing will continue to form a part of this review.
The introduction of the new Level 3 Diploma in Veterinary Nursing has seen an increase in numbers of both students and training practices, according to statistics released today by the RCVS.
Since January, the RCVS has approved over 30 more Training and Auxiliary Training Practices, bringing to a total of 1,559 the number of practices approved for veterinary nurse (VN) training. Scope for practices to train student VNs is increased through the emphasis on Auxiliary Training Practices (aTPs), an option for practices without the full facilities or caseload needed for student training. Students at aTPs complete their in-practice training at other aTPs or full Training Practices. Of the 31 new practices approved since January for student training, eight are aTPs.
The number of VN students enrolling with the RCVS has also increased, with almost double the number enrolling in January 2011, compared with January 2010. There were a total of 1,168 student enrolments in the 12 months from 1 February 2010, compared with 1,121 enrolments in the same period from 1 February 2009.
Libby Earle, Head of the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Department said: "The Level 3 Diploma has been in place for little more than six months, yet VN student numbers are already up. This bodes well for the supply of qualified, competent registered veterinary nurses demanded by veterinary practices, and for those keen to enter the veterinary nursing profession."
The qualification was introduced when the government abolished the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) system last summer, forcing a change in the vocational qualifications for VNs. The resulting Level 3 Diploma is designed to better meet the needs of practices, colleges, and students themselves.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Those veterinary surgeons being audited are being asked to share their records for 2013 to 2015 by either allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the RCVS a copy of their CPD record cards. The deadline for sharing records is Friday 14 October 2016.
The audit is focused on six groups:
If any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant (ie. less than 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period), they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The College says it is also keen to remind veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
More information about what counts as CPD can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, Education Officer at the College, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
Ed's note: Don't forget to claim your VetSurgeon.org CPD certificate detailing time you've recorded reading content and taking part in qualifying discussions on the site. Click 'My Account' and then the 'CPD' tab to view your records and create your certificate.
Professor Susan Dawson (pictured right), Chair of the Mind Matters Taskforce, will introduce the event and will be followed by the symposium’s plenary speaker, Rory O’Connor, Professor of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow and President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention.
Rory's talk: ‘When It is Darkest: Understanding Suicide Risk’ will draw upon his research and work on the psychological processes which precipitate suicidal behaviour and self-harm, an area of expertise that has seen him advise the Scottish Government, as well as other national and international organisations, on suicide prevention strategies.
The next presentation will be from Dr Victoria Crossley from the Royal Veterinary College and Navaratnam Partheeban, co-founder of the British Veterinary Ethnicity & Diversity Society (BVEDS), on their research into the mental health impact of racism and discrimination on Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) veterinary surgeons.
They'll be followed by Professor Neil Greenberg and Dr Victoria Williamson from King’s College London, who will talk about their research into the impact of ‘moral injury’ on the mental health and wellbeing of vets.
The day will then split into different research streams with presentations on a variety of topics including: the impact of cyberbullying and harassment; the wellbeing of veterinary interns and residents; stigma and stress in veterinary nursing; mental health awareness training in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum; and the relationship between ‘patient safety culture’ and staff burnout.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As with previous years the Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium promises to be a very informative and important day in terms of international researchers coming together to share their research, their conclusions, areas for further work and study, and best practice.
"Some of the topics we will be discussing, such as suicide, will be difficult, but research into issues affecting the international veterinary community is a vital first step to putting in place strategies and support mechanisms to help those in need. This is why research will be one of the key strategic priorities for the Mind Matters Initiative and our forthcoming actions in this area will be published later this year in our Mind Matters Initiative Strategic Plan.
“I would like to thank Dr Rosie Allister, a veterinary mental health researcher from the University of Edinburgh and manager of Vetlife Helpline, for putting together an excellent programme.
"As with previous years we are also offering free attendance of the symposium to those who have lived experience of mental ill-health, those who are currently not working, and veterinary and veterinary nursing students. If you have any queries about the event, please don’t hesitate to contact me on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk to discuss further.”
Registration for those not entitled to a free ticket is £10.
To register for the event visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/events.
The Codes of Professional Conduct for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses stress the need for effective communication with clients and ensuring that informed consent is obtained and documented before treatments or procedures are carried out.
At its January meeting RCVS Standards Committee approved changes to chapter 11 (‘Communication and consent’) of the supporting guidance to the Codes to provide further advice to the professions on matters that should be discussed with clients to ensure informed consent is gained, provide clarification on who can gain consent for a procedure and give some additional guidance on consent forms.
Nick Oldham, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: "We hope that this updated guidance is more accessible, readable and will aid members of the profession in developing a more comprehensive approach to gaining informed consent for treatments and procedures and therefore reduce the risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding which can lead to concerns being raised by clients.
"For example, we have updated our guidance to encourage veterinary surgeons to consider discussing a number of additional factors with a client before obtaining consent. This includes the nature, purpose and benefits of any treatment or procedures, the likely outcomes including potential risks, financial estimates, informing the client when other treatments may have available and checking that the client understands what they are agreeing to rather than assuming the client understands both the potential financial outlay and possible side effects.
"Furthermore, there is now additional guidance for veterinary surgeons on who should be seeking consent. While ordinarily it is expected that the veterinary surgeon undertaking the procedure or providing treatment is responsible for obtaining the client’s consent we know that this is not always practical.
"Therefore we clarify that the responsibility of obtaining consent can be delegated to another veterinary surgeon and, failing that, a registered veterinary nurse or student veterinary nurse could obtain consent provided that they are suitably trained, have sufficient knowledge of the proposed procedure or treatment and understand the risks involved.
"The RCVS Standards and Advice Team is also in the process of producing a series of fictional case studies based on informed consent issues encountered by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee which we hope will further help the profession."
The updated supporting guidance can be found in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/consent
The Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance can also be downloaded as an app for smartphones and tablets at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeapp
Members of the profession seeking confidential advice on matters relating to professional conduct can contact the Standards and Advice Team on 020 7202 0789 or advice@rcvs.org.uk
The Royal College is calling for views on the Day One Competences required of newly qualified veterinary surgeons, via an online survey.
The survey can be accessed from the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations), and can be completed until 31 May.
The College says that the survey is the first step in a review of the Day One Competences, which define the level to be expected of new veterinary graduates when they first qualify. The competences set out in broad terms what is required of new graduates at the end of their veterinary degree, and provide the foundation for curriculum design and student assessment in UK veterinary courses.
RCVS Council member David Catlow, who chairs the Working Party undertaking the review, said: "The Day One Competences are deliberately general as they aim to convey the important principles that all students must master by the time they graduate, regardless of the precise curriculum they have followed, so they are safe to practise in a range of veterinary contexts from day one after they graduate.
"As it is over ten years since these competences were confirmed, we are reviewing them to ensure they remain valid, and to seek to ensure they reflect current and likely future expectations."
The Working Party will report to the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee (EPSC), and includes representatives from the veterinary schools and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), as well as a recent veterinary graduate.
Since being confirmed by the RCVS, the Day One Competences have also been adopted across Europe, through the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE), and in countries such as Australia.
Mr Kashiv first appeared before the Committee in December 2016 in relation to four charges against him regarding his inadequate treatment of a Scottish Terrier called Tanzy which was ultimately euthanased due to renal failure.
The first charge related to Mr Kashiv’s original consultation with the owner in March 2015 and his failure to investigate for renal disease; his failure to discuss with the owner investigations to assess metastatic spread; failure to discuss with the owner alternative options to surgery such as palliative care or euthanasia and failure to explain to the owner key factors with regards to the surgery he had suggested to her, including its nature and extent, the risks involved, the fact another vet would be performing the surgery, and what to expect post-operatively.
The second charge related to the fact that, having admitted the dog as an in-patient at the practice, he failed to conduct further investigations regarding her poor condition; provide any or any adequate pain relief, or fail to record the same; failed to discuss with the owner the dog’s poor prognosis and failed to discuss with the owner the option of euthanasia.
The third charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv discharged the animal back into her owner’s care when she was not in a fit state for discharge. The fourth and final charge related to the fact that Mr Kashiv failed to keep sufficient clear, detailed and accurate clinical records for his treatment of the dog.
At his original hearing in December 2016, the Committee found the four charges proven and also found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee decided to postpone the judgement for two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to improve his clinical practice, including putting together a personal development plan, having a mentor, accepting regular practice visits and undertaking additional continuing professional development (CPD).
The resumed hearing took place on Tuesday 18 December 2018, during which the Committee heard evidence from Dr Writer-Davies MRCVS (the veterinary surgeon appointed to review Mr Kashiv’s practice and report back to the Disciplinary Committee over the two year period), Mrs Somers MRCVS, (his appointed mentor), and Mr Kashiv himself.
Dr Writer-Davies told the Committee that she had no concerns about Mr Kashiv’s abilities regarding patient safety and that, in her view, he now meets the standards of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon. She cited the fact he had gained in confidence when communicating with clients, had undertaken a considerable amount of CPD focused on the areas of concern identified in the case, that she had observed more detailed record keeping from him and that a veterinary nurse had been appointed to assist in running Mr Kashiv’s practice.
The evidence from Mrs Somers also found that Mr Kashiv’s knowledge was in line with that expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon and that she had observed a good quality of care for pets and their owners from him.
Mr Kashiv also gave evidence, which the Committee said demonstrated considerable insight into his previous conduct and a good attitude towards self-reflective practice. The Committee also felt that the testimonials provided by Mr Kashiv showed him to be a kind and caring veterinary surgeon.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that, having successfully completed the undertakings, Mr Kashiv is now a safe practitioner. The last two years has allowed Mr Kashiv to develop his skills particularly in the area of communication.
"However, the Committee has not lost sight of the fact that this was a serious case and that there was substantial harm caused to Tanzy.
"The Committee considers that in the intervening two years Mr Kashiv has gained considerable insight, developed better communication skills and remains open to improving his practice. It therefore imposes a reprimand on Mr Kashiv. The Committee considers that a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the veterinary profession."
Having sold Belgravia House – its Westminster offices since 1995 – to a private investor in March 2021 for £14.5m, RCVS Council agreed the purchase of the new building for £20.5m.
The additional cost has been funded from College reserves.
The new building is a converted Victorian warehouse with open-plan office space spread across six floors.
The new premises are large enough to accommodate more staff and for the College to host more meetings and events.
Alternatively, the space can be used for greater social distancing and hybrid working if needed.
The College says any unwanted space can be rented out.
Two existing tenants will continue to lease office space at the premises for the time being and some refurbishment work will need to be completed before the College and RCVS Knowledge teams can start moving in.
Following Council’s earlier decision to terminate the lease on Belgravia House at the end of March 2022, RCVS staff will continue to work either remotely, or in temporary office space leased from the workplace provider, WeWork, in Chancery Lane.
The College says this arrangement offers a significant saving over leasing back Belgravia House.
Chief Executive Lizzie Lockett said: “Like any property purchase, it has been an extremely long and difficult journey to get to this point, with many challenges to navigate along the way, but I am delighted that we are finally able to announce our new home.
“Whilst we will have to wait a while longer before we can enjoy everything 1-2 Hardwick Street has to offer, we are very much looking forward to welcoming members of the professions to visit our new offices, and being able to host a variety of meetings and new events there for them.
The RCVS has announced that the first members of its reconstituted Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees have been appointed and will join the Committees from July 2013.
Beverley Cottrell and Catherine Goldie (pictured right) have been appointed to the new Disciplinary Committee (DC), and are retiring as elected veterinary surgeons on Council to take up the posts. Veterinary surgeons Jane Downes and Charles Gruchy, and lay members Stuart Drummond, Ian Green, Chitra Karve and Mehmuda Mian, will also join the DC.
The new Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) members will include veterinary surgeons Andrew Ash and William Reilly, plus lay members Penny Howe, Sarah Pond and Elana Tessler.
These new appointments result from a legislative reform order (LRO) made to separate the RCVS disciplinary committees from the RCVS Council. The Royal College says this will improve the independence of the disciplinary process and bring it into line with regulatory best practice.
The LRO came into force on 6 April 2013, and amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA). The VSA now requires that the RCVS PIC and DC are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently. The change to the legislation ensures that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints, and adjudication.
The LRO also brings lay people formally into the PIC and will increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings.
RCVS Registrar and Head of Legal Services, Gordon Hockey said: "The LRO fundamentally improves the way the veterinary profession is regulated, and will help to ensure public confidence in our disciplinary processes. I am delighted by the constructive and collaborative working relationship that we had with Defra and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), which has allowed this major reform to be introduced."
To make these appointments, a long-list of lay and veterinary surgeon candidates was put together by recruitment consultants, and a shortlist was referred to an independent selection committee chaired by Sir Michael Buckley and including Christopher Laurence and Dr Joan Martin. The selection committee's choices were then ratified by RCVS Council at the June 2013 meeting.
As part of a transition phase, both committees will also include some Council members; after a two-year period, members of RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of either committee.