The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions.
Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.
The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law.
However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law.
The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding."
The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."
The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.
The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
The RCVS has announced that it is to host an open day on Monday 15 December for those members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions who are interested in joining the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), Disciplinary Committee (DC) or Veterinary Nurse Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC).
In January 2015 the College will be looking to recruit veterinary members for PIC and DC following a legislative reform order last year to reconstitute them separately from RCVS Council. This means that the committees must be made up of veterinary and lay members who are not on Council and members will be appointed on the advice of an independent selection committee.
The RCVS will be seeking to recruit four veterinary surgeons for DC as well as three veterinary surgeons for PIC. At the same time the College will be recruiting two registered veterinary nurses and a veterinary surgeon for VN PIC. Applications are particularly sought from practising or recently retired clinicians.
The Open Day (at Belgravia House from 9.30am to 4pm) will provide the opportunity for those who are interested in applying to hear from current members of each committee about what being a committee member is really like and the type of cases dealt with. Recruitment consultants will also be on hand to explain the hiring process and attendees will have the opportunity to put questions to Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Those who are interested in attending the Open Day should contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761 to register an interest or request an agenda.
1CPD was launched in 2020 with the aim of providing an easy-to-use platform for veterinary surgeons to use to plan, record and reflect on their continuing professional development (CPD).
The workshops, which are taking place on Wednesday 9th December 2020, are designed to help those who are not yet familiar with the platform, or have some limited experience of it but would like some additional guidance.
The first workshop takes place at midday and is for those members of the profession who haven’t yet used the platform. The session will give an overview of how 1CPD works and the benefits of using it for planning, recording and reflecting on CPD. No prior knowledge is assumed, and complete beginners are especially welcome. There'll be an opportunity to ask questions.
The second workshop takes place at 7pm and is for those who have some experience of using 1CPD but may have further questions, for example, about how to use some of its features such as the planning module and how to best make use of the reflective notes and comments feature.
Both of the workshops will last for approximately an hour each.
Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “We’ve seen fantastic take up of the 1CPD platform in less than a year – with around 65% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons and an amazing 80% of veterinary nurses using it to plan, record and reflect on their professional development. The feedback that we receive has been overwhelmingly positive, with the even the more technically-challenged amongst us finding 1CPD intuitive.
"Although the numbers are very encouraging, there is a cohort of people who have not yet actively engaged with the platform and maybe are unsure about using it or are put off by the thought of having to learn how to use a brand new online system. The aim of these workshops is to guide and reassure those who are hesitant that the 1CPD system is very simple and easy-to-use with lots of useful features. In the long run, it will save you a lot of time and effort when it comes to recording your CPD because it’s there on your phone or tablet, ready to update as-and-when you need to."
Richard Burley, Chief Technology Officer for the RCVS, added: “We are very glad that the 1CPD platform developed by our team here has been so well received. We are continuing to improve and update the platform based on user feedback to improve its design and usability and would welcome any further constructive comments that members of the professions have about it. We do hope you those who are both unfamiliar with the system, and those who have used it but need further advice, can join us for these sessions to find out both how to use 1CPD and how to get the best out of it.”
To sign up to one of the workshops, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/1cpd-online-workshop.
For those who aren’t able to make it on the day, recorded versions of all of the workshops will be made available to watch again after the event.
To download 1CPD as an app for use on iOS (Apple) or Android devices, or to access the web version, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/1CPD
The survey was held in mid-June and gathered 196 responses from UK practices. That compared with the 532 responses to the initial survey conducted early in April and 251 responses to the second survey conducted at the start of May.
One of the main findings was a marked increase in the number of practices running a near-normal caseload, from 3% in May to 32% in June. Practice turnover data similarly reflected a shift back towards normality, with 46% now reporting a reduction of less than 25%, compared with 19% last month.
Other findings included:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This latest survey has demonstrated a continuation of the previous survey’s positive trends including an increase in practice turnover with more practices approaching a ‘near normal caseload’ and with a reduction in the number of practices impacted by staff self-isolating or with confirmed cases of Covid-19.
“In this survey we also asked about what difficulties practices may be experiencing with EMS placements for vet students and VN training placements as a result of Covid-19, and this will help us to understand how we can better support students and practices in these areas.
“We will continue to monitor the situation via these regular surveys, with the next one planned for later this summer. I would urge as many practices as possible to continue to complete them, so that we can build up a stronger evidence-base on how veterinary businesses have been affected and how they are recovering.
"This information is not only vital for our own policy decisions but also allows us to present a stronger case to the Government and other public bodies where we wish to influence the decisions they make that will impact the veterinary professions and businesses.”
The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus-resources.
Dr Westwood, who now lives in Australia, had been referred to the Committee in relation to a number of charges against him relating to the treatment of a cat at his former practice in Cardiff in October 2015.
He was not present at the inquiry and had requested that his solicitor, Tony Wilson, act on his behalf.
Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee that the hearing should be adjourned contingent on a form of undertakings being accepted. These undertakings were that Dr Westwood’s name be removed from the Register with immediate effect and that he never apply to be restored to the Register under any category.
The application was granted by the Committee, taking into account a number of factors. These included the fact that Dr Westwood has retired as a veterinary surgeon, that he has closed his practice and returned to his home in Australia with no intention of returning to the UK, and that animal welfare and the reputation of the profession have been protected as Dr Westwood will no longer be in practice.
The Committee noted that there were several precedents for concluding cases in such a manner, and that the application was not objected to by the complainant or opposed by the College.
Dr Westwood’s name was removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons with immediate effect as of Monday 14 August 2017.
The case studies were developed by the RCVS Standards Committee and use a variety of examples of where miscommunication between a client and the veterinary practice can lead to an inadequate level of consent being gained for procedures and treatment, including euthanasia.
Examples include damaged teeth being removed during a clean and polish dental procedure without the owner’s express permission and not giving the full range of options available in the case of a dog with an osteosarcoma.
The case studies follow the Standards Committee approving changes to chapter 11 (‘Communication and consent’) of the supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct in January 2018 to give further advice on how to discuss informed consent with clients, who can be responsible for gaining consent for a procedure and additional guidance on consent forms.
Dr Kate Richards MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, said: "We hope these case studies will prove useful to practitioners who are having to deal with the complexities around making sure that procedures are fully explained to ensure informed consent is gained.
"We understand the difficulties that are encountered and so these case studies, based on real-life scenarios, highlight where things may go wrong and how these incidents can be avoided by being thorough and ensuring that good communication is at the heart of all we do."
To view the case studies, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/informed-consent.
Chapter 11 of the RCVS supporting guidance on communication and consent is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/consent
Dr Botes faced a total of nine charges against him, relating to performing (or recommending) inappropriate total hip replacements on five dogs without adequate investigation and without getting informed consent from the owners.
One of the charges also related to a failure to keep adequate, clear and detailed clinical records in relation to the five dogs.
Dr Botes denied the first two charges which were later dismissed because the owner did not attend the hearing and counsels agreed that it would not be in the public interest to pursue them.
Dr Botes admitted the other seven charges and that they amounted to serious professional misconduct, and they were therefore found proven by the Committee.
In considering whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee considered an expert report from Professor John Innes, RCVS Specialist in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) and Mr Midgley, RCVS Advanced Practitioner (Small Animal Orthopaedics).
Ian Arundale, Chair of the Committee, said: “In coming to its decisions, the Committee took into account Professor Innes’ opinions that it was not reasonable for Dr Botes to have carried out the THR without sufficient investigation into Kilo’s pain; that the THR undertaken in respect of Sora was not in the animal’s best interests; and that it was ‘entirely unnecessary’ to recommend the THR in respect of Penny.
"In addition, the Committee has found that both THRs performed in respect of Daisy were not in her best interests.
"Thus, in the Committee’s view, Dr Botes’ actions and omissions did not ensure the animals’ health and welfare.”
The Committee took into account that the THRs in question were a source of financial gain, that Dr Botes’ conduct was repeated over a considerable period of time and that he was in an increased position of trust and responsibility because of perceived expertise in small animal orthopaedics and its education.
However, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, that Dr Botes has indicated some insight into some aspects of the charges in his written communications to the College, in his witness statement dated 29 December 2021, and in his admissions at the start of this inquiry.
The Committee then considered what would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, hearing from several character witnesses including Dr Midgely, who was put forward as Dr Botes’ proposed supervisor if the committee agreed to a postponement with undertakings.
When making their decision, the Committee took into account the fact that Dr Botes had been suspended from the Register in 2008 for six months for serious professional misconduct over the care of a dog that had been involved in a road traffic accident.
The Committee considered a postponement of judgment with undertakings, which was submitted by Dr Botes’ counsel.
However, the Committee took the view that a postponement would not be appropriate because the failings were not in limited aspects of practice but were wide-ranging, covering the fundamental requirements of any veterinary surgeon.
In the Committee’s view, this would mean nothing less than direct supervision, where Dr Botes’ practice was directly monitored on a day-to-day basis would be sufficient to protect animals, clients, and to uphold the wider public interest.
It would be impracticable to formulate undertakings capable of effectively addressing these issues.
The Committee also noted that the disgraceful conduct was serious and there was a pattern of sustained and persistent misconduct.
The Committee therefore did not believe that no further action, a reprimand or a warning were appropriate or proportionate outcomes.
The Committee also considered whether suspension was appropriate but concluded that there was a real risk of repetition of the behaviours outlined in the charges, and so the Committee was unable to conclude that Dr Botes would be fit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
The Committee therefore decided to direct that Dr Botes should be removed from the Register indefinitely.
In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on Dr Botes both professionally and financially, and took into account his witness statement in this regard.
Ian Arundale added: “In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
Dr Botes has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At the outset of the hearing, which was to consider evidence for a number of charges relating to the treatment of three colts at his former practice in 2015, Mr Denny made an application to the Committee that the hearing should be adjourned contingent on a form of undertakings being accepted. These undertakings were that his name be removed from the Register with immediate effect and that he never apply to be restored to the Register under any category.
The application was granted by the Committee, taking into account a number of factors. These include the fact that Mr Denny had now retired and closed his practice, his long and hitherto unblemished veterinary career and the fact that it would not be proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy hearing on the matter.
The Committee noted that there were several precedents for concluding cases in such a manner. The Committee also noted that the application was supported by both the College and the complainant.
Mr Denny was removed from the Register as of Monday 24 April 2017.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust is offering a bursary for one delegate to attend the Veterinary Biomedical and Pharma Sciences (VBMPS) Congress on 15 and 16 October 2012 at the ICC in Birmingham.
Members of the RCVS with an interest in 'one health' are eligible to apply. Entrants are asked to explain, in no more than 400 words, their interest in the concept of one health and why they should be granted a bursary.
Entrants should also demonstrate how they would disseminate their learning from the event to the wider veterinary community.
Entries should be sent to grants@rcvstrust.org.uk by Monday 3 September 2012, and the winner will be notified within two weeks.
The bursary winner will be given a delegate pass worth £175 for entry to the conference and admission to all scientific sessions. Reasonable transport costs and accommodation will be reimbursed.
Further details are available at http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants-and-collaborations
At a hearing in April Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him, which related fraudulent claims for the treatment of animals, two of which were fictitious, where he arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account.
Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee Chair Paul Morris said: “The Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the respondent’s dishonest conduct will have severely undermined the confidence of the public in the veterinary profession and, further, that his conduct fell far short of the standards and conduct properly to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee is satisfied that this conduct by the respondent brought the profession into disrepute.”
The proceedings were then adjourned to allow a psychiatric report and other mitigation to be prepared.
At its resumed hearing on earlier this month, the Committee considered what sanction to impose.
The Committee found that aggravating features of his misconduct were that it was premeditated, carefully planned and sophisticated in that it involved the creation of numerous and extensive false clinical records to support his fraudulent claims.
It also considered the fact that he implicated an innocent professional colleague who worked alongside him at the practice, that he abused the trust placed in him by clients, that the dishonest conduct was repeated and that it involved significant financial gain in excess of £13,200 to be further aggravating features of his conduct
In terms of mitigation, the Committee accepted that he had made early admissions regarding his conduct to his employer and the College and accepted responsibility.
The Committee also heard that he had made attempts at remediation involving repayments of some of the sums lost by the practice and insurers.
It also considered positive testimonials from family and professional colleagues and the fact that Dr Johnston had taken significant steps to deal with the gambling addiction that was at the root cause of his misconduct.
Having considered all the evidence, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of 2 years on the condition that Dr Johnston agree to undertakings including refraining from any form of gambling, subjecting himself to a close regime of support and supervision, and repaying some of the sums he had defrauded.
Paul added: “In reaching this conclusion the Committee wishes to make it clear that it has taken an exceptional course in this case.
"Ordinarily conduct of the type covered by the charges which this respondent has accepted will merit the imposition of a sanction of removal from the Register or a period of suspension from the Register.
"In this instance the Committee has found it possible to take the course that it has because it is satisfied that the respondent was, at the time, suffering from a recognisable psychiatric compulsive addiction… and that the fraudulent attempts by the respondent to obtain funds with which to gamble would not have occurred but for this psychiatric condition.
“The Committee further considers that the undertakings offered by the respondent will serve to reduce the risk that he will relapse into gambling again, for his conduct will be closely monitored and he will accept continuing support and guidance from the organisations currently assisting him.
“The Committee is also satisfied of the requirements that neither animals nor the public will be put at risk by this proposed course of action; that the respondent has demonstrated insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and that there is currently no significant risk of repeat behaviour; that his practicing standards are not in need of improvement so long as he continues to fulfil his CPD obligations; that the undertakings offered are capable of being met, are appropriate and are measurable; that there is evidence that his underlying medical problem is being appropriately addressed, will be monitored and reported on; and that he has responded positively to the opportunities for support and counselling which have been offered to him.”
If Dr Johnston fails to comply with his undertakings the Committee will reconvene and consider the charges with the full range of sanctions at its disposal.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
The College says the aim of the programme, which will replace the current Professional Development Phase (PDP), is to ensure that new graduates are fully supported in their new role and able to progress from day one competencies into confident and capable independent practitioners.
The new programme builds on the results of the Graduate Outcomes Consultation, a consultation which reported in 2019 to gather the views of the profession with regards to day one competencies, the PDP, extra-mural studies and clinical education for general practice.
The Graduate Outcomes consultation found that the profession felt that support mechanisms for new graduates needed to be strengthened, and the proposal to develop this new programme of support was approved by RCVS Council in January.
The first of the two working groups is the EPA Working Group, which is tasked with assisting the development of a bank of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). EPAs describe the everyday professional tasks carried out by vets in practice, covering a wide range of areas of clinical and professional practice which graduates and their mentors can access to build into their own e-portfolio.
The second working group is the Mentor Working Group, which will assist in shaping the role of the mentor in the new programme and create a training package for workplace mentors.
Sue Paterson, Chair of RCVS Education Committee said: "It is incredibly important for us to have input from veterinary surgeons who are working in general practice as they are well positioned to comment on how the development programme can effectively support graduates on a day to day basis."
The College is looking for veterinary surgeons working in practice and who have an interest in helping new graduates gain the best possible experience to join as members of these new working groups. It would be beneficial for applicants to have experience with mentoring and/or workplace training.
Successful applicants would be required to visit the RCVS for three half-day meetings over the period of a year and the RCVS would cover travel and subsistence expenses. There would be an additional time commitment to review and feedback on material via email.
Those general practitioners who are interested in applying should email Britta Crawford, RCVS Education Manager, via b.crawford@rcvs.org.uk giving a brief description of their current position and why they feel they would be an asset to the working group. The closing date for applications is 6 March 2020.
From 31 October 2008, veterinary surgeons will again be allowed to charge animal owners for writing prescriptions, when a three-year ban on such fees comes to an end.
The Supply of Relevant Veterinary Medicinal Products Order 2005 was introduced by the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to implement recommendations from a 2003 Competition Commission inquiry into the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines, which, among other things, found that prescription charges were against the public interest. It was hoped by the DTI that the move would benefit consumers by providing for pharmacies and other suppliers to have an opportunity to establish themselves as competitors to veterinary surgeons in supplying prescription-only veterinary medicines.
Although veterinary practices will be able to make a charge for writing a prescription from 31 October 2008, one thing does not change: practices must not charge different fees for other services or veterinary medicines to those who take a prescription and those who do not.
Jill Nute, RCVS President said: "The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) will monitor the reintroduction of prescription charges and has indicated that the level of monitoring will be proportionate to the perceived need - how well the market is working.
In addition, the RCVS will monitor complaints that relate to prescription charges and meet with the OFT to review the situation in six months time. Care must be taken to ensure that prescription fees are calculated sensibly, or the zero-fee ruling may be reintroduced."
The OFT has advised that veterinary practices must not agree between themselves what constitutes a suitable fee: it is prohibited by competition law.
General guidance for members of the profession is available on RCVSonline (Advice Note 15): www.rcvs.org.uk/advicenotes. Guidance for members of the public is also available online at:
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/thinking_about/560042/
Other Competition Commission recommendations, such as displaying a price-list of the ten relevant veterinary medicinal products most commonly prescribed during a recent period, have been enforced since 2005 via the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and will remain in place.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon who qualified in 1969, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At the hearing, which had originally been listed for seven days, Geoffrey Raymond Oliver, 68, was charged with serious professional misconduct over allegations of his inadequate treatment of two dogs and a cat (belonging to three different clients) between 2010 and 2012; inadequate record keeping; failures to deal honestly or properly with his clients; and, failure to heed advice from the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee about the importance of proper communication between veterinary surgeons and their clients.
However, before the Committee heard evidence on any aspect of these charges, Mr Oliver lodged his application for adjournment. The Committee therefore made no findings on the charges, and emphasised they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, him.
The Committee noted that there had been no adverse findings against Mr Oliver during his professional career, that his practice was now closed and that he had no intention of returning to practise in the future. Should he subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertaking.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have incurred considerable time and costs - dissented from the proposed course of action.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has concluded that no useful purpose would be served were it to insist on a full hearing [and it] would be a disproportionate waste of...resources [to do so]. The Committee is satisfied that [granting the adjournment application] protects the welfare of animals and...is in the public interest."
The Committee then accepted Mr Oliver's undertakings, including the removal of his name from the Register with immediate effect.
Professor Lees added: "So that he is in no doubt about the matter, the Committee reminds [Mr Oliver] that, when referring clients of his former practice elsewhere, he should be careful to avoid giving them any advice about the diagnosis or treatment of their animals."
In mid-September, the Association wrote to the RCVS expressing concern about the August extension to the temporary guidance.
In the latest update from the RCVS, the temporary measure has now been extended to 31 October but the flowchart and guidance have been updated to add some additional steps before a POM-V product can be prescribed remotely.
The BVA says that while it supported the original decision in March as a pragmatic solution and direct response to government restrictions surrounding Covid-19, it is now questioning the ongoing need for such a relaxation in the rules.
In the letter to the RCVS, the BVA also asked for a timeframe for the publication of the results of the RCVS survey of practices’ experiences of remote consulting and prescribing. The Association's own under care working group, chaired by Nigel Gibbens, has been developing a position to respond to the RCVS review.
BVA President James Russell (pictured right) said: "We understand that allowing remote prescription of POM-Vs was a necessary measure at the height of the lockdown, as practices struggled to assess patients in person.
"However, the veterinary professions have done a fantastic job in adapting to the restrictions and are now able to work safely and see patients.
"Whilst we recognise the RCVS has provided additional guidance for the remote prescribing of POM-V, we cannot currently see any reason why a new client would be unable to access in-person veterinary care in the first instance and we are asking RCVS Council to reconsider this measure when it meets in Oct.
"It makes sense to continue allowing vets to remotely prescribe for existing patients, for example if an owner is shielding, but we feel it is no longer appropriate to be remotely prescribing to animals that have never been physically examined by the vet.
“The question of whether we should be able to remotely prescribe POM-V products without first seeing an animal is an important and live debate, and we welcome the resumption of the College’s review. But the longer that temporary measures are in place, the greater the expectation from animal owners that they will always be in place, and the harder it will be to have the discussion about the best way forward.
“As a profession, we are rightly concerned about antimicrobial resistance and we pride ourselves on the responsible use of medicines. Continually extending the temporary measures without a full analysis would risk undermining our position.”
A total of 8,234 votes were cast in this year’s election, a turnout of 25.5%. The College says the previous highest turnout recorded this century was 22.8%, and it thinks this year's result may even be an all-time record.
It is unclear how much the results were influenced by VetSurgeon.org's reporting of the candidates standing for election, but in another first, Niall Connell was later seen sporting a t-shirt displaying the story: "Arlo said I'm 'by all accounts, something of a national treasure'. Had to do it. Got the T Shirt."
You're welcome, Niall. And huge congratulations to Jo Dyer, who is such a passionate advocate for coal face vets, and to Linda Belton too.
At the other end of the results, isn't it staggering that there are as many as 422 MsRCVS who are prepared to vote for a single non-issue candidate based the other side of the world. Who are you? Why do you do it? I mean, one can understand a few people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party out of the general population numbering millions. But 5% of a small, highly educated and qualified profession? What on earth is that about?
The full results, in order of number of votes, are:
Niall Connell – 3,766 votes (re-elected)
Linda Belton – 3,581 votes (elected)
Jo Dyer – 3,146 votes (re-elected)
John Innes – 2,716 votes
Kate Richards – 2,283 votes
Tim Greet – 2,280 votes
Peter Robinson – 1,791 votes
John Davies – 507 votes
Tom Lonsdale – 422 votes
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Congratulations to Niall and Jo for being re-elected to Council and congratulations also to Linda who we look forward to welcoming to Council at this year’s Royal College Day on Friday 12 July. I would also like to thank Kate, Tim and Peter for their contributions during their time on Council and give my commiserations to them and the other candidates who were unsuccessful this year.
"I was delighted to see that, this year, we had over a quarter of those eligible to vote doing so which means both a record number of votes and a record turnout – it seems this was assisted by our email reminders which, each time they were sent out, lead to a significant boost in uptake.
"However, we will not rest on our laurels and will continue to think about how we can further improve engagement in the election process and turnout for subsequent years."
The results of the election will be declared formally at this year’s Royal College Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 12 July 2019 where the successful candidates will also start their new four-year terms.
No election to Veterinary Nursing Council was held this year due to the fact that there were only two candidates – Liz Cox and Jane Davidson – standing for the two elected places. Both Liz and Jane will take up their three-year terms at Royal College Day.
The RCVS has released the results of a survey it conducted which has found that the vast majority of recent graduates from UK veterinary schools consider extra-mural studies (EMS) to be an essential component of the veterinary degree.
The survey was launched earlier this year in order to help the RCVS build up a picture of how EMS placements are currently working and whether graduates felt that they had gained knowledge and experience from placements that they could not have learnt from their core studies. Some 287 veterinary graduates from 2012 and 2013 participated in the survey, the overwhelming majority of whom (95.6%) agreed that EMS was essential.
Furthermore, the majority of the recent graduates said that they had found EMS placements to be beneficial in terms of the variety of clinical skills, professional skills and working practices they encountered. The only area in which a large number of graduates (42.9%) said that they did not find EMS placements useful was in gaining experience of out-of-hours and weekend work.
Despite the overall positive results, however, a number of concerns about EMS were raised. Issues included variable quality of placements; significant numbers of respondents feeling they were not able to gain as much 'hands-on' experience from placements as they would like; costs of accommodation and travel; and a lack of farm/mixed animal practices for placements.
Other key findings included the fact that the vast majority of veterinary students identified and booked their own placements at EMS practices and that their placements were at the type of practice they were looking for.
Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "We launched this survey as an information-gathering exercise to see how EMS placements are currently working, following our last review of EMS in 2009 - and the results have certainly been very interesting.
"What is clear is that the current system is working well and that there is no need for an immediate review or urgent action. Most graduates found the experience gained on placements useful for their studies and find that EMS sets them up well for their first job in practice.
"However, there are a number of issues that we will keep a watching brief over and we plan to repeat the survey every two years in order to monitor these."
The full results of the survey are available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/emssurvey2014. Detailed guidance on EMS placements for students, university staff and EMS practices is also available at www.rcvs.org.uk/ems.
Any queries about EMS can also be directed to the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0704.
Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."
The RCVS has announced that registrations for the new RCVS Register of Veterinary Practice Premises will be accepted from 1 November 2008, allowing all those who wish to supply medicines from veterinary practice premises from 1 April 2009 onwards a full five months to comply with the latest medicines legislation.
In order to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines, the UK Government decided that any veterinary surgeon may only supply veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) from premises registered with the Secretary of State, with effect from 1 April 2009.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is responsible for the inspection and registration of practices under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Steve Dean, VMD's Chief Executive, says the new veterinary practice premises register will complete the UK information base by bringing veterinary practices in line with other suppliers of veterinary medicines who already have to operate from registered premises.
The Register will enable the supply of veterinary medicines by veterinary surgeons, including controlled drugs, to be subjected to inspection and verification. As a result, DEFRA Ministers and the European Commission can be re-assured that veterinary medicines are being supplied in the UK in accordance with EC legislation.
In discussion with the VMD, it was agreed that the most appropriate body to maintain this register would be the RCVS, not least because the College already manages the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and publishes the (voluntary) Directory of Veterinary Practices, so has the necessary systems already in place. The register will be published on RCVSonline and updated quarterly.
Whilst there will now be a statutory fee levied for each practice premises registered on the new Register, the College's existing database framework has kept this to a relatively low £40 compared to what other bodies might have had to charge after starting from scratch.
Practices could appear in the Directory for free because the cost of producing it was partially covered by subsequent data sales. However, the new Register will need to be self-funding, as the data it contains will be freely available online.
Not all practices will have to pay the statutory fee. RCVS President Jill Nute said: "For those practice premises already accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), the fee will be taken from their existing PSS annual fee.
"What's more, accredited practices will not face additional four-yearly inspections by VMD inspectors (unless there is an investigation for enforcement purposes) as their PSS inspections already ensure that they keep up to date with current medicines legislation."
Practice premises that have applied to join the Scheme, but have not yet been accredited, will not face additional VMD inspections either, but will still need to pay the statutory fee.
To help practices understand the new requirements and what they need to do before next April, the RCVS has produced a range of guidance, including a series of Frequently Asked Questions (www.rcvs.org.uk).
"In particular, we hope this guidance will help to explain which premises are likely to be considered ‘veterinary practice premises' and the difference between those premises and places where medicines might simply be stored or kept," said Mrs Nute.
"It is important to realise that there is a legal requirement to register veterinary practice premises for the supply of medicines, and a professional obligation, set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct, to keep a record of where all medicines are stored or kept. This record should avoid the need for additional registration of car boots, farms and homes."
Over the coming weeks, application forms will be posted to all practices currently listed in the Directory and accredited under the PSS, containing all the practice information currently held. These forms must be checked, signed and returned, even if no fee is due. Separate application forms will be available for any non-accredited practice premises not published in the Directory, and a letter will be sent to all RCVS members to ensure the whole profession is aware of the new requirements.
The campaign gives 11 reasons why owners should register their pets with a veterinary practice, and encourages them to visit www.findavet.org.uk to find the right vet practice for them and their pet.:
Just like people, your pet can benefit from regular health checks to help stay happy and healthy.
Emergencies can happen at any time – registering means you’ll have easier access to emergency vet care whenever you need it.
Your vet knows a lot more about your animal than Dr Google and can provide tailored advice for your pet.
Regular weight checks and nutritional advice can help to keep your pet in shape – your practice’s vet nurses can often help with this.
Many vet practices run pet socialisation and training classes where you can meet other pet owners.
Your vet practice will hold your pet’s medical history to help diagnose any problems quickly.
Your veterinary practice can offer great advice about which pet is right for you because they will know you and your family.
Your vet practice is best placed to recommend other services for your animal, whether that’s pet groomers and trainers, or referral to an advanced practitioner or specialist.
Veterinary staff are often animal owners too, so they understand that pets are a much-loved part of the family.
Vets and nurses have made a solemn promise to look after animals under their care; they study for many years and have to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.
There are some medicines that only vets can prescribe, so it helps to be registered with a practice.
BVA President John Fishwick said: "Pets need vets to ensure their lifelong wellbeing, which is why it is concerning that a large number of pet owners in the country have not registered their animals with a practice. It is important that owners have access to reliable advice and veterinary care to be able to best look after their pets, and so we are calling on the profession to get involved in promoting the wealth of benefits that registering with a vet practice provides."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May added: "Owning an animal is a huge responsibility, which is why access to professional veterinary advice is vital. With this campaign we aim to highlight some of the very considerable benefits of registering pets with a veterinary practice, and raise awareness amongst pet owners who have not yet registered of the value of having access to professional veterinary advice, expertise and treatment to keep their animals healthy. We would be delighted if practices across the country would help share these messages on their own social media accounts."
Vets, vet nurses and veterinary practices can help spread the word on the value of registering pets by sharing campaign resources on social media using the hashtag ‘#petsneedvets’, downloading campaign resources and using the opportunity to encourage local pet owners to register with their practice.
To further highlight the value of veterinary care and the special bond between a veterinary professional and the animals under their care, BVA is also encouraging existing clients to share pictures of their pets at the vets online using the hashtags #lovemyvet and #lovemyvetnurse.
The Pets Need Vets campaign stems from the aim of the joint BVA and RCVS Vet Futures Action Plan to develop communications tools to assist the public’s understanding of veterinary costs and fees, and promote the value of veterinary care.
More information on the campaign and shareable resources are available at https://www.bva.co.uk/petsneedvets and www.rcvs.org.uk/petsneedvets
Reference
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The campaign was officially launched at an event at the Palace of Westminster sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression, and featured first-hand testimonials from senior veterinary surgeons and doctors who have experienced mental ill-health.
‘&me’ is a collaboration between the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative, which seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, and the Doctors’ Support Network, which provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.
Introducing the campaign, Mr Jones said: "The key message I have today in regards to mental health is talking about it and trying to get it out of the dark corners rather than it being something you are ashamed to talk about. That is how we get people to help themselves with their own condition and to seek help. The other key thing is not to write people off if they have a mental illness."
The floor was then opened to personal stories from those who have lived experience of mental ill-health. Dr Louise Freeman is Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and was diagnosed with depression in 2009 as a result of the way in which her return to work was handled after having time off work as an emergency medicine consultant following a bereavement.
She said: "This experience made me think that doctors with mental health problems were in a small minority and that it was probably our own fault anyway. Both impressions are completely wrong. The incidence of mental health problems is one in four people in any one year and is actually higher for doctors, who are often slower to seek help than non-medics. The good news is that well supported doctors have excellent treatment outcomes.
"During my own return to work, I was told by my clinical lead that they had 'always thought that I was a mental health problem waiting to happen.' I think this says more about them than it did about me! On reflection, yes that was true, but only inasmuch as this applies to all of us during our lives.
"I hope that the ‘&me’ campaign can start to address this by encouraging senior healthcare professionals, who are currently well, but have experienced mental health problems, to disclose that they have 'been there themselves'. I think that this will help to normalise mental ill health for healthcare professionals and therefore remove some of the barriers to unwell professionals seeking help at an earlier stage. Overall this would be better for healthcare professionals, their colleagues and their patients."
David Bartram, Director of Outcomes Research for the international operations of the largest global animal health company and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' governing Council, spoke next. He gave his perspective on coming to terms with a mental health condition in a profession that has some stigma attached to it.
A number of years ago David attempted suicide following the breakup of his marriage and explains what happened from there: "I just thought I was stressed – after all, who wouldn’t be in those circumstances? But in fact I was becoming progressively more unwell. What started as worry, early waking and palpitations – which I recognised – led to patterns of thinking which I did not recognise as being disordered. I felt trapped and worthless – suicide was the only escape. From a medical perspective, my biological, social and psychological risk factors had converged and tipped me into major depression.
"That was the first of multiple suicide attempts and several prolonged stays in hospital. Over a three-year period I spent 12 months as a psychiatric inpatient. I was treated with antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, talking therapies and electroconvulsive therapy.
"But now thankfully I am well – and I have been for 14 years…. To what do I attribute my recovery? A mixture of medical treatment, psychological therapies, supportive friends and family, rest and time – they all contributed, probably in similar measure."
He added that while his episode of mental ill-health does not define him it has changed him in a positive way and that no one is immune from it.
Dr Jonathan Richardson is Group Medical Director for Community Services at the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust who had a mental health condition when he was a medical student and spoke about how it is possible to flourish in your career with a mental health diagnosis.
"I was unwell as a teenager with a physical illness and later as a medical student with a mental illness… these two experiences crystallised my drive to become a doctor and my own approach to healthcare. I wanted to be able to deliver the care that I was fortunate to receive. I wanted to be as patient-centred and compassionate with the patients I would serve, in the same way as the teams who delivered my care. I was lucky to have support when I was unwell from very good friends, some from school and some from university; and a very close family. I have been able to recover.
"It is 24 years since my mental illness. I now work in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, one of the largest mental and learning disability health trusts in England – and one of only two to be rated outstanding by the Care Quality Commission…. I do not feel that my illnesses have stopped me."
Dr Angelika Luehrs is the chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and a consultant psychiatrist who was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder while she was a trainee psychiatrist. She said: “When I asked for advice about how to access help one of the answer I got was one of ‘whatever you do, make sure that you don't have any mental illness in your medical records otherwise you will never go anywhere in your medical career. However, getting the diagnosis and help from a Consultant Psychiatrist was the best thing that ever happened.”
She added: "The reality is that my diagnosis has not stopped me – I have been a consultant psychiatrist since 2010 with the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, last year I was appointed as medical lead for West Wiltshire including early intervention, intensive services and primary care liaison services. I have a special interest in supporting doctors with mental illness and I am delighted to be appointed by the newly launched GP Health Service as a special advisor for complex mental health cases."
The last speaker was veterinary surgeon Neil Smith who chairs the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and outlined how to participate in the campaign. He said: "This event is just the start… the real challenge is to start to get this message out to the wider professions. Stigma is a difficult thing to tackle, but the good news is that changing our minds is within the power of every individual to do."
Following the launch the ‘&me’ campaign is now encouraging other senior health professionals to step forward and talk about their own experiences with mental ill-health, especially as both medical doctors and veterinary surgeons have higher suicide rates than the general population but often have more reluctance to seek help because of the impact it may have on their career.
The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health. To participate in the campaign email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.
Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon for submitting a certificate of Clinical Inspection for Veterinary Inspectors ("TB52") for tuberculin tests he had undertaken on cattle, despite knowing that he had not fully complied with the standard operating procedures (SOP) for these tests.
At the outset of the three-day hearing, John Wilson admitted that, when acting as an Official Veterinarian (OV) he had not carried out tuberculin tests on cattle at a Wiltshire farm on 19 May 2011 strictly in accordance with the SOP required by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), an executive agency of Defra.
The admitted shortcomings were that on 19 May, the second day of testing, Mr Wilson had failed to confirm the identity of all the animals, failed to inspect the animals digitally (ie using his hands) and had not measured the fold of skin at the injection site of all the animals. The College argued that this was contrary to the directions of the AHVLA and, in subsequently signing the TB52 certificate, he was either dishonest or should have known that the certification was incorrect. Mr Wilson admitted that he ought to have known the certification was incorrect but denied dishonesty, because he believed that he had conducted the test in a satisfactory manner and had correctly identified all the reactors in the herd.
Mr Wilson was a veterinary surgeon of over 40 years experience and unblemished record, and the Committee found his account of events to be accurate and honest. He said the farm involved was unprepared and test arrangements were chaotic, with poor handling facilities, and he would have been concerned for the safety of the animals and their handlers if he had complied fully with the SOP. He had advised the farmer to delay the test but his advice was rejected.
The Committee accepted that the testing had been carried out under exceptional and difficult circumstances. It noted that Mr Wilson had identified a reactor and taken appropriate actions, knowing that the outcome would be the quarantining of the whole herd. He had made no financial or other gain, other than the nominal fee charged for the work. Although failing to comply with the SOP fell short of what was expected of a veterinary surgeon, because of these circumstances, and as he had acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the animals and personnel, these actions did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that, even allowing for these difficulties and concerns, in signing the TB52 certificate a few days later, without any qualification, Mr Wilson ought to have known that it was incorrect, and his actions fell far short of the standards expected of the veterinary profession. They did not however find that he had been dishonest.
The Committee stressed the importance attached to accurate and reliable certification, in maintaining the confidence of the public and the profession, and in ensuring animal welfare.
Professor Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the committee said: "The Committee is aware, as confirmed by AHVLA, that this is a single, isolated event and the first offence in some 40 years of the Respondent working as a LVI [local veterinary inspector] or OV. After considering all the mitigating factors.and, given the exceptional circumstances of this specific case, the decision of the Committee is to reprimand Mr Wilson."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a London-based veterinary surgeon, having found charges related to fraudulent registration not proved.
Miss Maria Becerra Parga was charged with fraudulently entering her name on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, by submitting a registration application in 2005 that contained a forged certificate of good standing from the Distinguished Official Veterinary Association of Lugo, Spain.
The Committee said that, in order to conclude Miss Becerra Parga had acted dishonestly, it needed to be sure that when she submitted the certificate to the RCVS she knew it was not genuine.
Miss Becerra Parga admitted that she did not make any application for the certificate directly to the Lugo Association. She accepted that the certificate she supplied to the College (the number of which was genuine and corresponded to a male veterinary surgeon registered in Spain) was a forgery, and that it contained a reference to her degree, a statement of good conduct, and was dated before she had a need for it; however, she said, this had been given to her by a friend and veterinary colleague and she had understood that she had been given a temporary membership of the Lugo Association for the purpose of registering with the RCVS. She also said that she had left these arrangements to her colleague and assumed that the document she had been given was genuine.
Her colleague, called as a witness by the College, said that Miss Becerra Parga had admitted the fraud to her and she denied that she had given the certificate to Miss Becerra Parga. Her friend said that she gave no more than general guidance because she knew that Miss Becerra Parga would be guided by a UK company that would arrange for her registration with the RCVS and through which she would be employed. She thought it possible that she had told Ms Becerra Parga that she needed a letter of recommendation, but she was not sure.
After careful consideration, the Committee preferred the evidence of Miss Becerra Parga and found her account to be "consistent with her naivety, inexperience and trusting nature" and "was sure that she did not forge the document herself". It found that to the extent that Miss Becerra Parga read the certificate at all when given it, she obviously did not notice its date or significance. The Committee was not able to say who was responsible for forging the certificate.
The Committee also dismissed an argument RCVS Counsel put forward, that Miss Becerra Parga had neither offered nor made payment for the certificate, and that she had forged the certificate to avoid a payment. The Committee said it did not find it credible that a veterinary surgeon, in work with a supportive family, who obviously was easily able to obtain proof of her good character directly from the university if necessary, would have jeopardised her entire career by forging the document, let alone for a small financial advantage.
The Committee directed that the charges be dismissed.
The new Mind Matters Initiative (MMI) Kite App is the result of a collaboration with The Kite Programme. It offers a series of bespoke microlearning modules - known as 'kites' - about mental health and wellbeing.
Microlearning is a type of learning which delivers content in bite-size modules. It usually combines a mixture of interactive activities, images and videos, which can be worked through in as little as five minutes.
The first ‘Kites’ available on the app will cover subjects like breathing activities, mindfulness, time management and physical activity for mental health.
New modules will be added over the weeks and months ahead, in response to feedback from users.
Angharad Belcher, RCVS Director for Advancement of the Professions, said: “Veterinary professionals undertake vital work for animal health and welfare, but the intensity and pressure of their work can take its toll on mental health and wellbeing. Sadly, research shows that compared to the general population, veterinary professionals are more likely to experience mental health distress, including depression and anxiety.
“We recognise how hard it can be for veterinary professionals to fit wellbeing activities into their busy workdays and understand that everyone’s mental health needs are different. By collaborating with The Kite Program, we wanted to create a wellbeing platform that was accessible, flexible and had a range of activities to meet a variety of mental health and wellbeing needs. This app will be another useful tool for the professions, and we are pleased to be able to offer it free of charge.
“We are really looking forward to hearing feedback from the professions about the platform and creating more modules based on their wants and needs.”
The College highlights that users cannot input any personal information into the app and the only data it will hold is a record of active users.
To register for the app, visit: https://www.vetmindmatters.org/mmi-app.
The app will also be demoed at BEVA Congress 2021 (5th-7th September, Birmingham ICC).