President of the RCVS and Principal of the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), Professor Stuart Reid has raised a very impressive £13,000 for mental health and animal welfare charities by running the Virgin Money London Marathon.
Stuart completed the 26 mile and 385 yard run in four hours and 51 minutes and, in the process, raised money for three charities with a particular focus on mental health and wellbeing, beating his target of £10,000.
The money will be split between his three nominated charities - the RVC Animal Care Trust which will use the funds to assist the student bodies at the UK vet schools; the Veterinary Benevolent Fund which, through its 24/7 Helpline and Health Support Programme, provides support directly to the profession; and, mental health charity Mind.
Stuart said: "To be perfectly honest it was probably a bit daft to run a marathon in my presidential year but when I see how much we have raised I know it was the right thing to do.
"I have been utterly humbled by the generosity and the words of encouragement on my Virgin Money Giving website and via text and Twitter and it is clear my chosen charities have touched a chord with many. I am so very grateful to everybody who chipped in. There's plenty to do so let's get on with addressing our mental health issues."
Donations can still be made to these charities via Stuart's Virgin Money Giving website - http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartReid
The RCVS Charitable Trust has teamed up with the Foundation for Social Improvement (FSI) for the launch of the Great Big Small Charity Car Draw 2011.
The draw enables small charities, such as the RCVS Charitable Trust, to sell tickets to supporters which offer a chance of winning a brand new Fiat 500 1.2 Pop. Each ticket costs only £2, and the Trust will receive £1.90 for every ticket it sells.
Tickets can be bought securely online at http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/support-us/get-involved/win-a-fiat-500/ or directly from the Trust office on 020 7202 0721 or by emailing fundraising@rcvstrust.org.uk. Books of tickets are also available to sell to colleagues, friends and family. The deadline for buying tickets is September 16th 2011 with the draw taking place on 25th October 2011.
Here are a few examples of what reviewers have been saying about the Fiat 500:
"The Fiat 500 is both stylish and fun. The modest running costs complement the engaging handling. So, this nimble little city car can be enthusiastically thrown into corners and it should emerge grinning like a Cheshire Cat." Motoring.co.uk
"I love my Fiat 500 1.2 Pop from the moment I drove off in it. Great fun to drive on the motorway and in town for parking into slots others cannot!" What Car?
"It's absolutely fantastic. It drives like a dream. Everybody admires it." Fiat Forum
For further information on the car draw, please contact Fiona O'Regan on 020 7202 0743 or Rebecca Fellows on 020 7202 0721. Alternatively email fundraising@rcvstrust.org.uk.
The completion date for the RCVS surveys of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions is Monday 8 February, and the College is urging anyone who has not yet completed their survey to do so.
The data collected will be used to help develop policy, in discussion with government and other bodies, and in response to requests from journalists and members of the public who wish to have an accurate picture of the veterinary profession today. So it's important that as many people as possible complete their surveys.
For the first time, a standard set of questions about well-being (the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) has been included. Over time, data collected will enable the College to monitor population changes in mental health and well-being, and work with other organisations to address any issues identified.
If you have mislaid your paper copy, the survey can be completed online:
Veterinary surgeons click here: www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm
Veterinary nurses click here: www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm
All responses are confidential.
RCVS Council has unanimously elected Mrs Jacqui Molyneux to become its new Junior Vice-President. She will take up office on RCVS Day, 1 July 2011.
Jacqui said: "As I have become more and more involved with the RCVS and the work of its committees I am amazed at the amount of work being done behind the scenes by both Council Members and the RCVS staff. It's sad that many of the profession live in fear of the RCVS as they are only aware of its regulatory function.
"During my time on the Officer team, communication with the profession will be a priority, not for the vocal minority, but with the silent majority who have no idea of the breadth of the work that the RCVS undertakes each year."
Jacqui graduated in 1981 from the University of Bristol and started her career in small animal practice in Liverpool, before moving to the North East, and setting up her own practice. Following its rebuilding, the practice was accredited as a Veterinary Hospital in 2002 and, four years later, has become RCVS Practice Standards Scheme accredited.
Since her election to the RCVS Council in 2005, Jacqui has chaired the Small Animal Certificate Board and served for four years on the Disciplinary Committee. She has also been Vice-Chairman of the Veterinary Nurses Council since 2007.
From 2009, Jacqui has chaired the RCVS Awarding Body Board, including the review of Veterinary Nursing.
Jacqui is currently President of the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS). She is studying for a Masters in Clinical Oncology with the University of Birmingham, and holds an RCVS Certificate in Small Animal Surgery awarded in 2000.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Cardigan veterinary surgeon from the RCVS Register for five months, for failure to perform accurate bovine tuberculin testing and for falsely certifying the test results.
During the two-day hearing, Dewi Wyn Lewis, of Priory Veterinary Ltd, Cardigan, answered charges about inaccurate skin fold measurements and false certification relating to two visits he made as an Official Veterinarian to a farm in April 2009 to undertake tuberculin testing.
Mr Lewis accepted that he had not carried out the tuberculin tests in the way required by Animal Health (AH) - an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - and had taken short cuts to save time. However, he denied the charges, arguing that, although instructions to Official Veterinarians clearly required the use of callipers to measure the skin folds of cattle necks on Day One of testing, not using callipers and using his finger and thumb did not amount to failing to measure.
He also argued (and it was accepted by the Committee) that, regarding Day Two of testing, there was inconsistency in AH's instructions on calliper use, which in written form required using callipers for measuring every animal but in practice accepted use of callipers when a reaction could be detected by manually palpating the skin. On Day Two, Mr Lewis said, he had done what AH required: he had used callipers on the cattle he identified for closer examination.
The Committee, however, found that by failing to use callipers on the first day, as required by AH, Mr Lewis had failed to measure the skin folds of almost all of the 104 cattle. The Committee was also satisfied that, on the second day, 10-20% of the herd were not even touched by Mr Lewis and the Committee accepted the evidence of the three other witnesses present during the testing, which indicated that Mr Lewis had failed to carry out careful assessment and manual palpation of every animal.
The Committee then considered whether Mr Lewis had dishonestly signed the certificate, or had signed a false certificate which he ought to have known was inaccurate. The Committee noted that there were no previous Disciplinary findings against Mr Lewis, and was prepared to believe his assertion that, although he knew he had not carried out the tests in strict compliance with AH's instructions, he genuinely believed his methods to be at least as accurate as measuring with callipers and did not think he was doing anything wrong or dishonest. The Committee could not then be sure that Mr Lewis had realised what he was doing was dishonest. However, the Committee noted that 'false' also means 'inaccurate' and, as Mr Lewis ought to have known that as his testing methods were not adequate, he also should have known that a considerable number of measurements on the certificate were inaccurate and that the certificate itself was inaccurate.
After considering the facts of the case, the Committee concluded that Mr Lewis's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and directed that he should be suspended from the Register for five months, after which he may return to practice. In relation to the sanction, the Committee said: "In reaching this decision it is relevant that the false certification was not dishonest and that there was professional and personal mitigation put forward on behalf of Mr Lewis. The Committee has paid regard to the fact that Mr Lewis is an experienced veterinary surgeon who is highly thought of in his local area. It does not believe that there is any likelihood that he will repeat his previous conduct."
The Committee also said it gave considerable weight to the fact that Mr Lewis had had to wait an additional three-month period for the hearing because of an earlier adjournment.
The first cohort of students started the course in September 2014 and graduated in July 2019 this year. During that time, the College worked with the University to make sure its programme was developed to meet RCVS standards. That included interim visitations by a team of accreditation reviewers and a final accreditation visitation by representatives of the RCVS, the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) and the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC).
After the final visitation, a report was submitted to the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), which then recommended to the Education Committee that the RCVS recognises the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree (subject to satisfactory external examiner reports, which were subsequently received). In turn, the RCVS Council then approved the degree last week.
Dr Sue Paterson, the Chair of the Education Committee, said: "We are very glad to have reached the stage where we can formally welcome the University of Surrey on board as the eighth UK veterinary school to offer an approved degree, and that we will, from now on and pending Privy Council’s approval, be able to welcome its graduates onto the Register as proud members of the RCVS.
"We appreciate the immense hard work of both the faculty and the student body over the past five years in working to meet the College’s stringent accreditation standards and the effort that they have made to address our feedback and advice in a constructive and engaged way.
"When I observed at the final accreditation visit earlier this year I, along with the other visitors, was particularly impressed with the enthusiasm and commitment of the staff, the network of partner veterinary practices and the student body to the school’s ethos and success. We also recognised that, with its unique ‘distributive model’ meaning that students can get direct clinical experience across 49 veterinary practice partners, the students have access to a large and diverse medical and surgical caseload.
"The final report contained a number of further recommendations and we look forward to continuing to work with the school over the next two years to help them meet our recommendations and suggestions."
Professor Chris Proudman, Head of School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, added: "I am delighted that our new degree programme in veterinary medicine and science has been approved by RCVS Council for recognition by the Privy Council.
"This decision recognises the huge investment in veterinary education made by the university and the quality of the education that we offer. It is also validation of our innovative model of delivering clinical teaching through working in partnership with clinical practices and other organisations involved in animal health, which has proven very popular with our students."
“The commitment and enthusiasm of our partners has been truly inspiring and energising. I look forward to Surrey veterinary graduates making valuable contributions to the profession in a variety of ways over the coming years.”
A Recognition Order to recognise the University of Surrey’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) will now be put before the Privy Council and, if it approves the Order, this will then be laid before Parliament. If the Order is approved by both the Privy Council and Parliament, the University of Surrey will then enter the cyclical RCVS accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring.
The executive summary of the final visitation report can be found in the papers for the October 2019 meeting of RCVS Council: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/3-october-2019/. The full report will be published in due course.
Picture shows:(from left to right) Dr Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee; Professor Chris Proudman, Head of School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey; and Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President.
George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
There were two charges against Mr Staton, the first being that he failed to comply with eight requests from the RCVS sent by letter between November 2014 and August 2017 in relation to his continuing professional development (CPD) records.
The second charge was that between 1st January 2012 and 7th November 2017 he failed to have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements in place.
Mr Staton’s request to adjourn the hearing and agree undertakings was not opposed by the RCVS. The Committee had regard to advice of the Legal Assessor and submissions from both counsel for the RCVS and legal advisor for Mr Staton. In accepting Mr Staton’s request for adjournment and his undertakings no admissions have been made in respect of the charges against him.
In deciding whether to accept the adjournment and undertakings, the Committee was asked to consider a number of factors including Mr Staton’s age and health, his unblemished career of more than 50 years, the fact that he had closed his practice and retired from clinical practice on 31 March 2018 and that he had no intention of practising as a veterinary surgeon again. For those reasons the Committee felt it would be disproportionate to take Mr Staton through a full hearing.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to this decision the Committee considered the respondent’s application to adjourn this inquiry in the light of the evidence he adduced. It had regard to the interests of justice, the public interest in ensuring high standards are maintained by veterinary surgeons and the need to ensure the protection of animals and their welfare."
Should Mr Staton seek to apply to rejoin the Register then the proceedings will become active again and a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be scheduled.
The RCVS has asked 6,700 veterinary surgeons to submit their CPD records for 2012-2014 as part of its second annual CPD audit.
The news came at more or less the same time that VetSurgeon.org announced that it is developing a new feature to make it easy for veterinary surgeons to document time they spend on the website towards their CPD requirement.
Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, members of the profession must undertake at least 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period, averaging 35 hours per year.
Those being audited include 5,568 vets who failed to confirm whether or not they complied with the CPD requirement in this year’s annual renewal process; 488 vets who failed to respond to last year’s audit and did not confirm their compliance this year; 43 pre-2012 graduates who have not yet completed the Professional Development Phase; and 184 veterinary surgeons who specifically declared they were not compliant during this year’s annual renewal process.
In addition to these, a random sample of 400 veterinary surgeons who did declare they were compliant this year will be asked to share their records.
For last year’s audit, the College wrote to 3,975 veterinary surgeons, of whom 82% were found to be compliant. However, 910 veterinary surgeons did not respond to the request at all.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “The purpose of the exercise is not only to gauge levels of compliance, but also to gain a greater understanding of why some people are unable to meet the requirement. Therefore, we will be asking those who are still non-compliant to provide us with an explanation as to why, and to submit a learning and development plan outlining the steps they will take to become compliant.
“Since 2012, the Code of Professional Conduct has made it very clear that, as professionals, veterinary surgeons have an obligation to maintain and improve their skills and experience so as to provide a better service to their patients and clients.
“Last year’s audit proved that the majority of the profession do take CPD seriously and do engage with it over-and-above what is required, but a small minority do not. It is important to remind this small minority that persistent failure to comply with CPD requirements, or to respond to requests from the College, may result in them being reported to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.”
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, added: “This audit is also an opportunity to remind people that we are not prescriptive when it comes to CPD and that it is not the case that we only count attendance at courses as learning and development.
“Broadly, any activities that you undertake to further your competence and provide tangible learning that can be put to use in your professional life, can be classed as CPD. For example, this could include private reading, webinars, clinical audit activities, mentoring, work-based observation and many more activities besides.
“What we ask is that you record and document these activities, reflecting on what you learnt and how it will affect your practice.”
Veterinary surgeons who are being asked to submit their records can do so by allowing the RCVS to access their online Professional Development Record (PDR) or to send in their CPD record card via email or post. The deadline for responding is Friday 13 November.
Those who wish to sign up to the free, online PDR can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk. More information about what constitutes CPD and the Code of Professional Conduct requirements can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.
The report also revealed the devastating impact on overworked veterinary staff, with some left in tears by abusive owners venting their frustration at being unable to find care for their animal.
Anecdotally, the problems highlighted by ITV News are being seen elsewhere in the country, with more and more vets now starting to question whether or not the current requirement to provide out of hours care is sustainable in a world where there are more clients who increasingly expect flea treatment advice and other non emergency situations to be dealt with at 3:00am in the morning.
Various solutions have been proposed in a forum discussion on VetSurgeon.org, including the removal of the requirement to provide an OOH service, for the RCVS to give vets the confidence to say no to non emergencies, a change to the CoPC to require vets to provide emergency care within 24 hours, not 24 hours a day, a requirement for new grads to undertake OOH as part of their PDP, and/or a requirement for OOH centres to have 3 vets on duty at any one time (which could improve working conditions).
As the ITV report pointed out, the fundamental issue is one of a shortage of supply over demand, for which there is no overnight fix. However, many feel that reducing the demands of providing OOH could ease the situation considerably.
The RCVS is calling on veterinary surgeons and students, and listed or registered veterinary nurses to complete its Survey of the Professions 2014.
The four-yearly, confidential survey provides the College with data that helps it develop policy, plan its activities and respond to questions from stakeholders such as government and the media.
The survey aims to find out more about individuals' employment type and experiences, working patterns and professional development. It also asks about aspirations for the short- and long-term and current views on the veterinary profession.
Questions are also asked about mental health and well-being, using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. The data will be used to track the mental well-being of the profession at a population level over successive years - a process that started with the 2010 survey - which will feed into other work being carried out across the profession.
Finally, the survey includes a set of questions about 24/7 emergency cover, the answers to which will feed into the RCVS Standards Committee's current evidence-gathering exercise.
This year the survey, which is being carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies, will only be available online. All those for whom the RCVS has a personal email address (ie not 'info@' or similar) have been sent a participation request. Others will be sent a letter, including the survey URL. Those who do not receive this letter by Monday 14 April should contact Lizzie Lockett, on l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0725.
The deadline for completion of the survey is 30 April.
Telemedicine can be defined as any clinical healthcare service that is provided using remote telecommunications services.
The aim of the consultation, which starts on the 13th February, is to receive feedback to help the College develop an appropriate regulatory framework for such services in the veterinary sector. The College’s current Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance is generally concerned with face-to-face provision of veterinary services.
The consultation will consider issues such as who is responsible for veterinary care if it is provided remotely, how 'under veterinary care' is defined in the context of the telemedicine delivery of services, the potential risks as well as opportunities for improving animal welfare that may arise out of new technologies and the appropriate regulation of veterinary services provided directly to clients using new remote technologies.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "We want the UK’s veterinary surgeons to be at the forefront of innovation and to be making use of, and developing, new technology to extend the reach of veterinary services and thereby improve animal welfare.
"However, while the adoption of technology can greatly benefit veterinary services, we also need to develop a regulatory framework that takes into account the questions it poses, for example, in areas such as remote diagnosis and prescribing, to ensure that animal health and welfare is the foremost consideration."
David Catlow, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee that approved the consultation, added: "What we are looking for in this consultation are comments that will help inform a new position for the College on the use of telemedicine. There are questions that need to be answered around the principles of using telemedicine and we hope that we will get the views of a broad range of the profession.
"I would strongly encourage all members of the profession to engage with this survey so that we can build a better picture of how this technology is currently being used, how it might be used in the future and how we can best regulate it."
The consultation questionnaire will be available to complete for six weeks from Monday 13 February 2017 at www.rcvs.org.uk/telemedicine
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Council has decided that the final enrolments for the remaining RCVS Diplomas must be made by 1 November 2012.
According to the College, this is in line with the recommendation made by the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee to Council that the RCVS should speed up the process of phasing out all of the remaining RCVS Diplomas in favour of the increasingly popular European Diplomas.
There are now such small numbers of candidates sitting RCVS Diploma exams that benchmarking and determining a consistent examination standard becomes increasingly difficult, and the examination increasingly indefensible and unsustainable. For example, in each of the past three years, only two candidates have entered the Diploma in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) exam, and there was only one candidate in 2008. Similarly, it is now usual for only one or two candidates per year to sit Diploma exams in Zoo Medicine, Cattle Health and Production or Ophthalmology.
A number of RCVS Diplomas have already been phased out, and new enrolments are no longer being taken in subjects such as Small Animal Medicine, Dermatology, Anaesthesia and Diagnostic Imaging.
Examinations will continue to be held for enrolled candidates (including candidates who enrol ahead of the 1 November 2012 deadline). The last Diploma examinations held in each subject will depend upon when its final candidates complete the pre-examination requirements. For candidates enrolling this year, this means 2019 at the latest.
The phasing out of RCVS Diplomas has been an agreed strategy of Council for many years after the then Education Strategy Steering Group recommended greater convergence with European Colleges in a report to Council in 2002 entitled "A framework for veterinary education and training for 2010 and beyond".
The position of each subject has been under review by the respective subject boards at their annual board meetings for the last few years, and some have already been closed to new entrants.
Professor Mike Herrtage, Chairman of the RCVS Diplomas and Certificates Subcommittee said: "For some subjects, there had been a perception that the European route required the candidate to follow a residency in an academic institution, which could be a barrier to UK practitioners' chances of completing a Diploma.
"However, all the European Colleges allow an alternate training route for practitioners provided the programme is planned and specified at the time of enrolment and approved by the College before training starts."
In some subjects, the European Diploma syllabus may not cover exactly the same ground as the RCVS equivalent - for example, small animal surgery encompasses both soft tissue surgery as well as orthopaedics - but the trend for residency positions in both universities and specialists practices has been to take candidates through the European style programmes, which produces more surgical specialists who thereafter can major in one aspect of another.
Mike said: "Recent experience has shown that many diplomates take the European Diploma first, and this entitles them to apply to join the list of RCVS Recognised Specialists. If they then want to specialise in a narrower field they can do so, by providing supporting data and references to show that they are practising at a specialist level in the area concerned."
Veterinary surgeons will continue to have multiple routes to RCVS Recognised Specialist status - including via European Diplomas, which also offer a route for those not in a standard residency position, American Diplomas, the RCVS Fellowship, or other such high level qualifications.
Neurodiversity Celebration Week is a worldwide initiative that challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences, and the neurodiversity resource hub (www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/) aims to help members of the veterinary professions better understand how, for over one million people in the UK, neurological differences mean they learn and think in a way that is different to what is considered ‘neurotypical’.
Among the resources contained in the hub is information about neurological conditions closely associated with neurodivergence such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia and dyslexia, as well as information for employers about neurodiversity, including inclusive working tools and sources of government support.
A new ‘kite’ with six new modules are also being added to the MMI Kite App – a specialist microlearning platform for topics related to veterinary wellbeing – that deal specifically with issues related to neurodiversity. The six modules cover: what is neurodiversity; the importance of talking about neurodiversity; different types of neurodiversity; bespoke considerations for neurodivergent individuals; how neurodivergence can lead to innovation through thinking differently; and, exploring further how different brains work and how we can make our brains work best for us.
The College is also publishing a blog on the resource website by Dr Kirstie Pickles, Clinical Assistant Professor in Equine Medicine at the University of Nottingham, about her current MMI-funded research investigating the various workplace stressors that affect autistic veterinary professionals and what adjustments can be introduced to mitigate these stressors.
Lastly, at BSAVA Congress on Saturday 26 March between 3pm and 4pm, the RCVS has organised a discussion session on neurodiversity.
The discussion will be led by Roxanne Hobbs, a consultant in workplace inclusion particularly around neurodiversity, and will look at how to nurture and cultivate neurodiversity in the veterinary professions.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As a project focused on the mental health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, the Mind Matters project has a commitment to recognising and providing a space for all forms of diversity, and so we are very glad to be supporting Neurodiversity Celebration Week again this year.
“We hope that our neurodiversity resource hub and our other initiatives during Neurodiversity Celebration Week will be useful source of information for everyone and will aid people in understanding neurodivergence, how it can manifest and how it can be supported in the workplace and educational settings.”
The changes are designed to make the process more accessible and the College says most were proposed as a result of candidate feedback. They are:
The changes will come into effect from 1 January 2025, in time for the 2025 Stat Exam cohort.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We have been listening to the concerns of various stakeholders, including those who have undertaken the Stat Exam previously and veterinary employers, and we used this feedback to work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to come up with a set of practical, deliverable changes that improve the experience of Stat Exam for all candidates, and hopefully alleviate some of the stress involved around timescales, opportunity and finance.
“These changes will make the exam more accessible, as it will allow candidates to have two attempts at the written papers within the same diet, which need to be passed before being allowed to proceed to the practical exam and it will also help improve accessibility to the exam from the perspective of candidate finances.
www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2019, with the 346 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2019, compared to 308 last year.
Those who were removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
The RCVS says it sent reminders to all MsRCVS, including emails and text messages, reminding them that the fee was due. Letters were sent to those members that the College does not have an email address or mobile telephone number for.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published. Practices are encouraged to check the list to ensure that no employees are named.
The College also wants to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, 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.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
The Royal College has announced that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute its disciplinary committees separately from its Council has been signed by Defra Minister David Heath, and will come into force on 6 April 2013.
The LRO will amend Part I of Schedule 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA) and require that the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently.
This will ensure that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication, and will bring lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
The LRO will also allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, reducing the workload on the individual Committee members whose primary appointment is to RCVS Council.
The RCVS has been working on the LRO with Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) officials since late 2010, and the Order was based on consultations undertaken by the RCVS and Defra.
According to the College, the Order was commended at every stage of Parliamentary scrutiny as an effective means to address the single biggest deficit of the VSA and to improve how the RCVS regulates the profession. During debate in Grand Committee of the House of Lords on 10 January, the RCVS received considerable praise for its strenuous efforts to modernise under the constraints of the present legislation, and the LRO received unanimous support.
Following the Order coming into force, the first external members will join the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees from July 2013. After a two-year transition period, members of the RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of these committees. Information about how to apply to join these committees will be available shortly.
President Jacqui Molyneux said: "I am delighted the LRO has been made and I am immensely thankful for the hard work of the Defra team and my colleagues in the College. The LRO is the single biggest reform to the regulation of veterinary surgeons since the 1966 Act, and it will bring the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and improve the perception of the independence of the RCVS disciplinary processes."
The hearing proceeded in Ms Kay’s absence as she failed to attend. The Committee heard a number of charges relating to her practising while under the influence of alcohol, breaching undertakings to the College to abstain completely from alcohol, alleged serious clinical failings in relation to the treatment of two dogs, Izzy and Alfie, and making disparaging remarks to a client about other veterinary surgeons (the complete list of charges can be found on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/).
In relation to the first charge, (that in September 2016, while a locum veterinary surgeon at Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group, Great Yarmouth, she was under the influence of alcohol), the Committee heard from a veterinary nurse at the practice who told how on different occasions Miss Kay had appeared to need more assistance than expected, was overly friendly in speaking to clients, was unable to prepare a syringe correctly, and finally, on 14 September 2016, was found asleep in the car with an open can of alcohol by her feet. The Committee also heard from a number of other witnesses from the Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group who also provided evidence of Ms Kay’s behaviour on the day in question. Following deliberations, the Committee found the first charge to be proved.
The second charge related to the breaching of undertakings which Ms Kay had given to the College to the effect that she would abstain completely from alcohol. When samples were taken on 3 August 2017, however, it was found that she had been consuming alcohol in the recent past. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the second charge was proved.
The Committee then turned to the third charge, that in March 2017 Ms Kay had displayed a number of clinical failings when performing surgery on a cocker spaniel, Izzy, belonging to Mrs Debbie Coe. The Committee found the majority of the charges proved, amongst others that she failed to obtain informed consent for surgery, performed surgery in her own home when it was not registered as a veterinary practice and it was not possible to ensure sterility, and that she failed to provide suitable post-operative analgesia to Izzy.
The College then turned to the fourth charge, which concerned her treatment of Mrs Coe’s other dog, Alfie, a Miniature Schnauzer. The charge was that in March 2017, Ms Kay euthanased Alfie in an inappropriate manner, and used a controlled drug without having a registered veterinary premise from which to dispense it. After hearing from an expert witness the Committee found the charges proved.
Finally, the Committee heard evidence relating to the fifth charge, namely that in or around July 2016, Ms Kay made disparaging remarks to Mrs Coe about other veterinary surgeons who had treated Alfie, and that between 17 March and 31 March 2017 she had sent inappropriate texts and voicemail messages to Mrs Coe about the treatment of her dogs and payments owed in relation to this. The Committee thought there was not enough evidence in relation to the voicemails, but found the remainder of the charge proved.
Taking all into account, the Committee found that Ms Kay’s conduct had fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the veterinary profession and concluded that her conduct clearly amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to protect animals and to send a clear message to the Respondent, and to all veterinary surgeons, of the unacceptability of the conduct identified in this case. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided that removal from the Register is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case."
Ms Kay has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
Colonel Neil Smith has been elected Vice-President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. He takes up office at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.
Neil graduated from the Royal Veterinary College in 1989, and was commissioned into the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) with the intention of staying for four years. Twenty-two years later, he is now the Director Army Veterinary and Remount Services, effectively the Chief Veterinary Officer for the Army and head of the RAVC, which currently has over 35 Veterinary Officers.
He has held a mixture of clinical, staff and command positions, and has worked in the UK, US and Germany. He has Masters' Degrees in Food Science, Defence Administration and Defence Studies. He has also worked part-time in small animal practice (including the Blue Cross, of which he is now a Trustee), and was heavily involved in the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001.
First elected to Council in 2004, Neil was re-elected in 2010 after a short break. He has served on Education, Advisory, Preliminary Investigation and Planning and Resources Committees, and on VN Council (currently Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Awarding Body).
He has also previously been President of the RVC Student Union Society, the RVC Alumnus Association, Southern Counties, and the Association of Government Veterinarians. He is currently a Council member of the Central Veterinary Society, and has previously sat on the BVA's Veterinary Policy Group.
Neil said: "I am honoured to have been elected as the next Vice-President. The College is about to go through some significant organisational changes, not least because of the proposed legislative reform order. However, I aim to ensure that we remain focused on our primary role in safeguarding the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care. The functions of the RCVS are quite diverse, and I am keen that we try to enhance both the profession's and the public's understanding of our remit, including our responsibility for educational, ethical and clinical standards."
Jacqui Molyneux has been confirmed as President, and Dr Jerry Davies as Vice-President, effective July 2012.
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.
Musculoskeletal therapists currently have their work underpinned by an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which allows them to treat an animal under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has first examined that animal.
The College says it has recognised that there has been confusion over whether musculoskeletal therapists need a veterinary referral for maintenance work, such as massage, in a healthy animal. This may lead to delays in animals receiving maintenance care.
The new guidance, found in Chapter 19 (www.rcvs.org.uk/unqualified) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, sets out the existing rules for musculoskeletal treatment of illness, disease or pathology, and clarifies that healthy animals do not need a veterinary referral for maintenance care.
The guidance stresses that musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team, and that any animal, including healthy ones, should be registered with a veterinary surgeon and referred to a vet at the first sign of any symptoms that may suggest underlying health issues.
The guidance also says that vets should be confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified; indicators of this can include membership of a voluntary regulatory body with a register of practitioners, and associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a complaints and disciplinary process.
In March 2019 the RCVS published the Review of Minor Procedures Regime (www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/report-to-defra-on-the-review-of-minor-procedures-regime-and/) which noted that the existing exemption order was not suitable for underpinning the work of musculoskeletal therapists, and recommended that this be remedied by reform of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, alongside regulation by the RCVS through Associate status for musculoskeletal therapists.
This would allow the RCVS to set and uphold standards for musculoskeletal therapists in a similar way to veterinary nurses, giving further assurance to both the veterinary professions and the public. The recent Legislation Working Party Report recommendations builds on that recommendation, and is currently open for consultation at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.
The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.
The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.
Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."
The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.
Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."
The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia
Ed's comment: The new guidance seems like common sense to me. A couple of things stand out as useful reminders, though. The first is to anonymise details of the cases you discuss on vetsurgeon.org, or get your clients' prior permission to discuss their animal in a professional forum. The other is the fact that being disparaging about a colleague online is as much of a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct as if you do it offline. So don't!
There are 10 candidates standing this year and vets can vote for up to three of them until 5pm on Friday 21st April 2023:
The biographies and statements for each candidate are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July 2023.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com stating which election they intend to vote in.
The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council has celebrated the 50th anniversary of veterinary nursing at the House of Commons with a call for statutory regulation for the profession.
At a Golden Jubilee event hosted by Mr Roger Gale MP, Veterinary Nurses Council Chairman Liz Branscombe drew attention to the fact that there is no legal protection for the title 'veterinary nurse', despite qualified nurses playing "a unique role in the practice team".
This effectively means that anyone could work in a veterinary practice as a nurse, without taking the three- or four-year training required for Listed or Registered Veterinary Nurses.
Liz said: "We believe that the nation's animals and their owners deserve better than this. And it's not just a question of animal welfare: public health is at risk from the incorrect use of medicines - for example, the well documented development of antimicrobial resistance."
The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 was put in place only five years after the introduction of veterinary nurse training and too soon to fully recognise the potential of veterinary nursing as a profession in its own right.
As an interim measure, the RCVS has put in place a non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses, to which 86% of eligible nurses have signed up. Registered Veterinary Nurses agree to follow a code of conduct, keep their skills and knowledge up to date and abide by a disciplinary system. However, it is not possible for the College to bar those removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct from working as a veterinary nurse.
The Register also does not address the misuse of the title 'veterinary nurse' by unqualified people.
Liz asked MPs present at the House of Commons reception to sign up to an Early Day Motion tabled by Andrew Rosindell MP, which calls for statutory regulation for the veterinary nursing profession.
Others are urged to sign a petition on the Government's website which has been mounted by the British Veterinary Nursing Association and is supported by the College and the British Veterinary Association: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18700.
The issues are being considered by the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Legislation Working Party and the group's recommendations will feed into the wider work of the RCVS Legislation Working Party, which will be reporting to the Defra Minister of State in the summer of 2012 with proposals as to how statutory regulation could be provided for a range of veterinary services, including veterinary nursing.