Organisations including British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) also responded to the consultation on behalf of members.
The College’s Education Department is now in the process of analysing the consultation responses.
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, said: "We are very pleased with the number of responses we have received to this consultation which demonstrates what an important issue CPD, and our approach to it going forward, is for the profession. I am also glad that there was a good split of responses between veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses as it is important we get as wide a range of views as possible from a wide range of individuals. I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to give us their views.
"Over the coming weeks we will be going through each response with a view to preparing proposals on the next steps for our CPD Working Party’s September meeting."
Proposals are expected to go to the Education Committee and to VN Council in October and then to the November meeting of RCVS Council.
However, when asked by VetSurgeon.org which audience - veterinary professionals, it's staff or the public - it was referring to, or what threats to safety and wellbeing were posed by X, the College refused point blank to answer.
So the real motivation remains unclear.
On the one hand, it could be a ridiculously over-sensitive move to protect its unknown audience from opinions that its staff find objectionable.
On the other hand, it could perfectly well be argued that short form social media reduces every discussion or debate to "I'm effing right and you're effing wrong", which is not appropriate for a scientific profession.
Equally, one could also argue that engaging in polarised debate online is not terribly good for one's wellbeing.
Or one could just argue that it's a terrible platform owned by a strangely meddlesome and interfering American.
However, given the College's strange refusal to expand on the reasons for its withdrawal, the first explanation seems more likely.
But who knows?
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-statement-on-x-formerly-twitter/
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
The nomination period closes at 5pm on Wednesday 31 January 2018 with the election period set to start in mid-March and close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Candidates need to submit a nomination form, contact details, a short biography and candidate statement and supply a high-resolution digital photograph to use in print and online materials.
In order for a candidacy to be accepted they will also need two nominators who should be veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register but who are not current members of RCVS Council.
Registered addresses and original (hard copy) signatures of both the nominee and the proposers are required on the form in order for it to be valid.
The RCVS is also reminding candidates that the College is currently preparing for a change in its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, as outlined in a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that was agreed by Council members in March 2016.
As it stands, members of the profession are still electing six candidates to RCVS Council in the 2018 elections. However, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places as members of RCVS Council.
There will be no elections to VN Council this year as a decision was made to reduce the number of elected members.
More information on how to stand as a candidate for RCVS Council, as well as nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.
James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.
All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.
The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.
The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.
The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.
Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The hearing concerned three separate charges against Mr Mallon. The first charge related to his treatment of a Labrador named Bailey on 15 September 2016 in which he was alleged to have euthanased the animal without the owner’s consent, after having been called out to her home following concerns about Bailey’s arthritis.
The second charge related to failure to keep adequate clinical records for Bailey between 14 March 2015 and 30 September 2016.
The third charge related to failing to respond adequately to communications regarding Bailey’s treatment from his owner between 15 September 2016 and 6 January 2017.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mallon admitted the charge relating to keeping inadequate clinical records. However, he disputed the College’s evidence regarding euthanasing Bailey without his owner’s consent. He claimed to have had previous discussions with the owner’s husband about euthanasia six months prior to the event, that he had been informed that the owner had mentioned a possible need for euthanasia in a phone call earlier that day and that, on attending the premises, the owner’s mother had mentioned a need to put Bailey down. During the course of the hearing, Mr Mallon accepted that these incidents could not have reasonably amounted to consent.
The Committee also heard and accepted evidence that the owner’s mother, who was present when Mr Mallon visited, had wished to contact her daughter to inform her about the planned euthanasia but that Mr Mallon proceeded to euthanase the animal regardless. The Committee also noted there was no contemporaneous clinical records nor any signed consent form for the procedure. Furthermore, the Committee found no evidence that there was a need to put Bailey down immediately and no reason why Mr Mallon could not have waited until the owner was present and had given consent.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard that the communications between Mr Mallon and the owner amounted to a telephone call on 15 September and a letter from the owner dated 16 September in which she asked a number of questions about Bailey’s treatment. The Committee accepted that, during the phone call, the owner had made a number of threats to Mr Mallon that had caused him to be fearful for himself and his property. Furthermore, the Committee found that there were a number of points in the subsequent letter to which he could have responded and the Committee noted that, when he was giving evidence, Mr Mallon expected the owner to apologise to him and withdraw the threats before he would engage with her complaint. The Committee therefore found the charge proved.
After finding the charges proved the Committee then went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they constituted serious professional misconduct. It found this to be the case in respect of all three charges. Commenting on the first charge Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "He should have allowed the owner to come to an informed decision. He had an opportunity to obtain informed consent and he failed in this regard. By failing to take this opportunity he overrode the possibility of allowing [the owner] the right to choose whether to be present or to discuss Bailey’s prognosis."
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Mallon and heard from a number of clients and professional colleagues who spoke to his skill, care, passion for animal welfare and high standing in his community. The Committee also considered 30 written testimonials from clients. In mitigation, the Committee also considered Mr Mallon’s otherwise unblemished 30-year career, the fact it was a single isolated event related to one animal and the fact that there was no evidence of systemic or repeated behaviour.
Jane Downes added: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a reprimand in this case. The Committee is confident that Mr Mallon will not repeat the conduct identified in this case again. The Committee wishes to advise Mr Mallon of the need to reflect on the outcome of this case, the need to have clear communication systems in place at this practice that are effective so as to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. The Committee further advises Mr Mallon of the need to be familiar and comply with all aspects of the Code [of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons] and its associated guidance, particularly in respect of keeping clinical records, informed consent and effective complaint management."
7,383 veterinary surgeons voted in this year's election, a turnout of 19.7%.
This compares to turnouts of 16.7% in 2023, 18.6% in 2022, 24.5% in 2021, and 26.2% in 2020.
Of the 14 candidates, Professor David Barratt, Sinead Bennett and Zara Kennedy were all elected to serve for a four year term, with 1,747 votes, 1,796 and 2,264 votes respectively.
Mark Bowen (1,404), Richard Brown (1,030), Paddy Gordon (1,612), Gerard Henry (1,157), Peter Higgins (496), Penelope Morgan (1,584), Kate Richards (1,264), Richard Sanderson (1,380), Sally Schroeder (1,630), Lara Wilson (1,399) and the inevitable Thomas Lonsdale (257) were all unsuccessful.
The winning candidates will take up their posts at Royal College Day, which is open to all vets to attend on Friday 5th July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24
Miss Panait faced the charge that on 3 April 2018, at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, she was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving for which she was sentenced to 10 months in prison, disqualified from driving for 41 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £140.
At the start of the hearing Miss Panait admitted to the charge against her which related to an accident on 15 May 2017 in which, following an attempt to overtake a number of vehicles, she lost control of her car and collided with a vehicle on the other side of the road, causing serious injuries to herself and life-changing injuries to the other driver. The Committee subsequently found this charge to be proved.
The Committee then considered whether the charge found proved made her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In doing so, it took into account the fact that Miss Panait was convicted of a serious crime which resulted in serious harm to another and for which she received a custodial sentence.
The Committee decided that the criminal conviction and the custodial sentence fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In considering her sanction, the Committee heard directly from Miss Panait who attended the hearing having been released from prison on licence.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "After the submissions the respondent spoke directly to the Committee. She was understandably emotional and was remorseful and apologetic. She acknowledged that she had made a mistake and apologised for bringing the profession into disrepute…. To the Committee her sense of personal responsibility or shame was palpable."
The Committee also took into account other aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.
The Committee recognised that it was a serious offence with significant consequences for both the victim and Miss Panait but accepted it was a single isolated incident, that Miss Panait has made efforts to avoid repetition of the incident by undertaking further driving instruction and recognised that she had displayed full insight and remorse. Furthermore, it also considered the many testimonials from colleagues and clients and that she had received significant support from her employers.
Mr Drummond added: "The Committee came to the conclusion that this was one of those exceptionally unfortunate and sad cases where it is appropriate and proportionate to take no further action. The respondent has insight and is deeply remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for what has happened.
"In the circumstances of this case the Committee determined that the public interest has been met by the finding that the respondent’s conviction renders her unfit to practise. The Committee was of the view that to impose any sanction now would be disproportionate."
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons on 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, providing greater definition of the professional and legal responsibilities of veterinary surgeons in the provision of emergency care, as well as owners' responsibilities for their animals.
Two sections of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct have been updated - Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' and Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' - placing a greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for their animals while obligating veterinary surgeons to provide full details of their 24-hour emergency cover provision to clients.
Although veterinary surgeons are professionally obliged to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, the new supporting guidance clarifies situations where delaying or declining attendance to an animal may be appropriate. It is hoped this will assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from practice where they feel it is unnecessary or unsafe.
The changes are the culmination of an evidence-gathering process with both members of the profession and animal owners about each group's expectations around the provision of 24-hour emergency care.
This process began with a call for evidence at the end of 2013, which garnered some 656 pages of written evidence, as well as a petition on home visits with over 2,800 signatures. Following this, in March 2014 there was a three-day hearing in which 15 organisations and 10 individuals were invited to attend to give evidence to the RCVS Standards Committee. Also taken into account were more than 1,000 responses from veterinary surgeons taking part in the Survey of the Professions and an online survey with 1,250 animal owners.
After a thorough review of the evidence the Standards Committee developed the new supporting guidance, which was agreed in principle by RCVS Council in its June meeting.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "Following the considerable disquiet within the profession following the Disciplinary Committee's decision on the Chikosi hearing in June 2013, we decided that only a thorough evidence-gathering process with all parties could resolve the apparent gap between the expectation of the public regarding 24-hour emergency care and the profession's ability to meet this.
"We are very happy with the way that this process was carried out and would like to thank the many individual veterinary surgeons and animal owners, as well as representative organisations, who have contributed to this outcome.
"By making the legal and professional obligations of veterinary surgeons and the welfare obligations of animal owners clearer we hope that this new guidance should allay some of the frustrations and concerns of the profession."
The new supporting guidance for Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/247care, while the additional guidance for Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcare
A webinar in which Gordon Hockey and Clare Tapsfield-Wright, former Chairman of Standards Committee, explain the guidance in greater detail takes place at 8.30pm tonight.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs to register.
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.
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.
The new changes are being introduced in the following phases:
The new Environmental Sustainability Award allows practices to demonstrate that they have embedded environmentally sustainable behaviours and are excelling with their sustainability goals.
The Award includes points for reducing waste, consolidating medicines orders and minimising drug wastage, and calculating the practice’s carbon footprint and setting reduction targets.
The changes and additions to the standards at Core Standards and General Practice level cover the sustainability of a wide range of practice areas, including requiring a sustainability policy, communicating sustainability achievements, and minimising anaesthetic gas usage.
As well as improving environmental sustainability, the new and amended standards also include requirements to help make practices more socially sustainable, through measures including increasing diversity and inclusion.
The PSS has produced a list of resources to support veterinary practices with meeting the new environmental sustainability standards and implementing sustainable practices in general.
Mandisa Greene, Chair of the Practice Standards Group, said: “We want to assure PSS-accredited practices that the new standards won’t mean an overhaul of ways of working or result in expensive investment in resources.
"Instead, the standards explain ways that practices can increase their sustainability by putting in place new measures gradually over the next 12 months, in time for them becoming mandatory.
"As with all standards updates, the PSS team are always available to answer any questions that practices have and anyone who is unsure about how to apply them is encouraged to get in touch with the PSS team.”
During the last Standards Committee meeting, there were also several approved clarifications to the standards in the form of guidance notes and minor changes across a range of accreditation levels.
These include updates to the guidance notes for requirements on sterilisation of dental instruments, environmental swabbing of clinical areas, and anaesthetic monitoring.
The new version of the standards that includes all the latest changes, and a separate document listing all the updates, are available to download here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/practice-standards-scheme/additional-resources
Any questions from practices about the updates can be sent to the PSS team at pss@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS has announced that 19 people are standing in this year's RCVS Council elections, including, for the first time, more women than men, and a much lower average candidate age.
Of the 19 candidates - believed to be the highest number since records began - ten are women. Not only is this the most women ever to stand, but it is in direct contrast to last year where all 13 candidates were men. Additionally, whereas the average age of all elected Council members in March 2013 was 56.5 (57 for women and 56 for men), the average age of this year's candidates is 47 (45 for women and 48 for men).
The RCVS Council candidates are:
Last year, the all-male candidate list prompted concern from the profession and calls for the College to investigate the reasons behind the lack of women and to take steps to redress the balance. The then RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux invited feedback from the profession about the barriers to joining Council, and set up a working party, chaired by Council member Amanda Boag, to look at how participation could be widened, not only to women, but also younger members of the profession and those actively engaged in clinical practice.
The working party suggested a number of initiatives, including a mentoring scheme, providing more practical information about being a Council member (see www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos), and inviting prospective candidates to the RCVS to discuss the role in more detail.
Amanda said: "The College's efforts to broaden participation in its election process seem to have paid dividends. I'm delighted there is so much more diversity amongst the election candidates this year, and that so many women have decided to throw their hat into the ring, especially as women now form over 50% of the profession. I'm very much looking forward to the outcome of the elections, and hope that this dramatic increase in candidates in turn prompts an excellent turnout."
In a slightly later start to the voting period this year, ballot papers and candidate details will be posted on 19 March 2014, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 25 April 2014.
In the meantime, the College is inviting all voters to think about the one question they would like to put to the candidates and submit it in time for this year's 'Quiz the Candidates', to be broadcast by the Webinar Vet on the evening of 20 March. All questions received will be put to the candidates, who will each then answer two questions of their choice, as well as explaining what they consider sets them apart as a potential Council member. The candidates' answers will be pre-recorded (due to the large number of candidates) and made available online at around 8:00pm on 20th March.
Questions (one per person) for RCVS Council should be submitted to the RCVS by 12 March via its dedicated election websites, available soon at www.votebyinternet.com/vetvote14, on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote14, or by email to vetvote14@rcvs.org.uk.
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mr Stuart Drummond, considered six charges against Dr Gunn.
The first charge alleged that, early in 2018, Dr Gunn failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the dog. In particular, having removed a mass from the right thorax, he undertook an excess number of surgical procedures, including under general anaesthetic, within a 13 day period; performed these procedures without offering alternative treatments or discussing referral with the owners; failed to recognise infected wounds; and administered an antibiotic when the dog was infected with MRSA and E-coli.
The second charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to communicate adequately, openly and honestly with the owners of the terrier on multiple occasions between 16 January and 3 February 2018. This included but was not limited to: failing to provide the owners with an estimation of fees; failing to inform them in advance of the procedures performed; failing to inform them of options for treatment; and failing to inform them that the terrier had an infection when he knew or ought to have known that she did.
The third charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to obtain informed consent in relation to the further procedures performed on the terrier in charge one.
The fourth charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to maintain adequate clinical records in relation to the management of the dog, and that he failed to record the prescription and administration of drugs to treat the terrier.
The fifth charge alleged that Dr Gunn indicated to the owners that euthanasia was the most appropriate treatment option and/or that there were no other realistic treatment options, when this was not the case and when he ought to have known this was not the case.
The sixth charge alleged that, during the course of a referral of the terrier to another practice, Dr Gunn failed to provide an adequate history of his management of the dog and that he informed the practice that the owners had no finances when this was not true, amounting to an incomplete account of his dealings with the owners and to a breach of their confidence.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted to a number of the allegations within the main six charges, which were found proved by the Committee.
Of the charges not admitted to, a number were found proved and the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Gunn’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that the dog’s suffering was prolonged because of the persistence of Dr Gunn in pursuing a single ineffective treatment approach.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee found that Dr Gunn was remorseful as to his actions, that there was no financial motivation on the part of Dr Gunn in respect of his treatment of the terrier, and that there is a low risk of repetition because Dr Gunn has sought to learn from this experience. A number of relevant and high-quality testimonials were also provided by colleagues and many satisfied owners on behalf of Dr Gunn.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Gunn’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon for a number of the charges.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Gunn. The Committee was satisfied that the misconduct found proved was in relation to the treatment of one dog only and therefore it was at the lower end of the spectrum. However, the conduct took place over a prolonged period of two weeks which in the Committee’s view required a sanction. In such circumstances, and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Dr Gunn and to warn him about his future conduct.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Mr Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee concluded that the effect of a reprimand alongside the Committee’s findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect was a sufficient and proportionate sanction. The Committee found Dr Gunn to have developed sufficient insight into his failings and it was satisfied that the disciplinary process had been a salutary experience and that he is very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future or to contravene professional standards.
"The Committee decided that a warning as to future conduct was necessary to reduce the risk of any repetition of any similar conduct for Dr Gunn in the future. It therefore concluded that the sanction of a reprimand and warning would be a sufficient in the circumstances of this case having taking into consideration all the powerful personal mitigation."
The complete list of charges and the Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald, said: “We were very aware of the likelihood that both practice staff and clients will increasingly have to isolate over the coming weeks due to direct infection or positive contacts, particularly with the rise in cases amongst school children.
“Added to this, we know there are already workforce pressures across the profession, which will be exacerbated by reduced staffing levels over the Christmas and New Year period.
“We therefore felt it was appropriate to reintroduce these temporary remote prescribing measures at this time to help relieve pressure on practising professionals, and to provide them with the means to continue to look after the health and welfare of their patients in all circumstances.”
As before, the temporary dispensation is subject to the specific guidance found in FAQ4 (www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4), including that veterinary surgeons must be able provide a 24/7 follow-up service involving physical examination, for example where the animal does not improve, or suffers an adverse reaction, or deteriorates, subsequent to the remote prescription of medicines.
The Committee agreed that the position should be reviewed in February 2022 at its next meeting.