Mr Adams was convicted at Gorey District Court, County Wexford, Republic of Ireland in March 2015 for:
Nine offences of prescribing animal remedies to animals not under his care;
Five offences of forging entries in official animal remedies records owned by farmers to suggest he had made visits to farms when he had not;
Seven offences of dispensing a prescription-only animal remedy but not preparing a veterinary prescription containing the details of the animals;
Two offences of failing to affix labels in the required form to prescription-only items when selling or supplying animal remedies;
Six offences of failing to annotate the dispensed prescriptions with the word ‘dispensed’ and failing to sign and date them;
Three offences of failing to keep a record or purchases and sales (including quantities administered) in respect of each incoming and outgoing transaction; and
Two offences of selling animal remedies on a wholesale basis without an animal wholesaler’s licence.
The charges related to treatment of animals not under his care throughout 2012 and 2013 which were investigated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine in the Republic of Ireland.
In relation to these convictions Mr Adams received a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, was fined a total of €40,000 and ordered to pay costs of €16,400.
Following his conviction his conduct was considered by the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s (VCI) Fitness to Practice Committee and, in September 2017, the VCI a sanction of 12 months’ suspension from its Register. This sanction was upheld by the High Court in the Republic of Ireland in November 2017.
As well as being a registered veterinary surgeon in the Republic of Ireland, Mr Adams was also on the UK-practising Register with the RCVS, so his convictions were considered under the College’s own complaints and disciplinary process.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Adams admitted the charges and accepted his convictions rendered him unfit to practise. The College also asserted that Mr Adams' convictions rendered him unfit to practise, noting a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, premeditation, financial gain and misconduct sustained and repeated over time.
In considering the College’s case and Mr Adams’ own admissions, the Disciplinary Committee agreed that his conduct rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee found the conduct to be at the serious end of the spectrum for such misconduct, it being systematic, prolonged and illegal conduct relating to the supply of animal remedies which posed a significant risk to human and animal health.
"Accordingly, the Committee found that the convictions which led to these charges cumulatively render Mr Adams unfit to practise."
In considering the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including that he had been practising since 1993 and had no previous disciplinary findings, had made open and frank admissions at all stages to the College and had practised between April 2013, when the matters first came to light, and February 2018, when he was suspended by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, without incident.
It also considered the conditions that were imposed upon Mr Adams by the VCI in terms of notification that he was intending to return to practice, auditing of his practice, his continuing professional development (CPD) and having to undertake personal and professional support programmes and arrangements for professional mentorship for one year after his return to practice.
In view of the sanctions already imposed by the court in Ireland, and his suspension by the VCI, the Disciplinary Committee decided that a period of two years’ suspension from the UK Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction.
Professor Barr said: "Whilst Mr Adams would be able to practise in the Republic of Ireland before he was able to practise in the United Kingdom again, the Committee considered that the conditions attached to his supervision in Ireland meant that he would be subject to close supervision before he was allowed to practise again in the United Kingdom and that only a longer period of suspension would allow this to happen.
"The Committee therefore decided that only a suspension of two years would maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct for the serious nature of these charges."
Mr Adams has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The College says its Veterinary Graduate Development Programme (VetGDP), which will be replacing the Professional Development Phase (PDP), has been developed in response to detailed feedback from the profession during the 2018-19 Graduate Outcomes consultation, which looked at how graduates could be better supported during their transition into working life.
One of the main changes will be the introduction of VetGDP Advisers for all new graduates enrolling onto the programme, to provide one-to-one support and advice to help build the confidence and skillsets of new vets.
Practices wanting to employ veterinary graduates from summer 2021 will need to have at least one trained VetGPD Adviser in the workplace. This will involve a short, free online training course and will contribute to their practice being recognised as an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice (for non-clinical settings they will be called RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Employers).
Dr Sue Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “When we conducted the Graduate Outcomes consultation, one very clear message that came across from graduates was that they felt there was a need for more bespoke, hands-on and one-to-one guidance from a designated person in their practice.
"The role of VetGDP Adviser is to help graduates identify areas of strength and areas for improvement, to closely monitor and provide feedback on their performance, and to support them in finding their feet as a newly-qualified professional. We hope all this will help increase their confidence and competence and, crucially, ensure we are doing more to retain our young vets in the profession and that this investment in our young talent will, in turn, benefit practices and the profession at large.
“Ahead of the introduction of VetGDP next summer, we want to give the profession advance notice of the coming changes and ask members of the profession who have been on the UK-practising Register for at least three years, and who are passionate about supporting the next generation of vets, to consider becoming VetGDP Advisers.
"We will be introducing free formal online training for VetGDP Advisers from April 2021 but we are asking vets to register their interest as soon as possible so they can find out more about what the role will entail and how it will support new graduates.”
The training will comprise approximately 20 hours of e-learning using a mixture of different methods including case studies, reflective exercises and recorded presentations and will cover topics such as giving effective feedback to support, encourage and motivate; coaching techniques; the provision of guided reflection; goal-setting; reviewing progress; and mentoring.
The training is being provided online by the RCVS and can be undertaken flexibly at any time. It can also count towards the annual continuing professional development (CPD) requirement.
Once an individual has completed the training, and committed to providing the equivalent of at least one hour of support each week per graduate employed, they will receive VetGDP Adviser status. The role will include observing their graduate’s practice and providing feedback and guidance where appropriate.
Veterinary practices with at least one employed VetGDP Adviser will also be formally recognised as an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice, which will indicate that they are able to employ new graduate veterinary surgeons and have the necessary support and development structures in place.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, added: “Developing VetGDP has been a significant step forward in supporting graduates to establish fulfilling veterinary careers. I would like to thank all those members of the Graduate Outcomes Working Group, the Education Committee and RCVS Council who have been involved in putting together the programme, as well as all those veterinary professionals and students whose feedback was crucial in shaping the direction of travel.
“The programme recognises that the profession would like to see a range of ways to support graduates in the workplace, involving a balance between professional and clinical skills. The need was for a programme to reflect their everyday work and professional development in the workplace, with a much greater focus on structured and meaningful support. This support is crucial in developing them beyond their Day-One Competences into becoming confident, capable and independent veterinary professionals.
“As all new vet graduates from summer 2021 will be required to undertake the VetGDP, practices and other workplaces taking on new graduates will need to have at least one VetGDP Adviser and RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status. The online training is not onerous, it is free of charge and takes approximately 20 hours; furthermore, it can be counted towards CPD hourly targets for the year. We envisage that the VetGDP Adviser role will be highly rewarding, with the personal satisfaction of knowing you’re helping to shape and support the next generation of vets.
“Please do make sure to take a look at the full range of resources that we have produced about VetGDP and familiarise yourself with the coming changes.”
To aid understanding of the VetGDP, the RCVS has produced a number of resources, including FAQs, further information for those who are interested in becoming VetGDP Advisers, and information for students, which can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/vetgdp
From early 2021, the RCVS will be holding online video seminars with final-year veterinary students from all eight UK veterinary schools to discuss VetGDP in further detail.
Anyone with further questions about VetGDP should contact the RCVS Education Department on vetgdp@rcvs.org.uk
Less than a quarter of veterinary students starting their degrees in 2009 were male (24%), according to figures released today in RCVS Facts.
This is up slightly from 23% last year, but down from just over 30% in 1999: ten years before that, the gender balance of new students was approximately 50:50. Meanwhile, 53% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons are female.
RCVS Facts is part two of the RCVS Annual Report, and presents a statistical picture of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions. Other headline facts include a 21% increase in the number of practice premises registered with the College since 1 April 2009, bringing the total on the Register of Veterinary Practice Premises to 4,821; some 766 veterinary nurse students completing their training and becoming eligible to register (an increase of 28% compared with those eligible to register during the previous two-year period) and an increase of nearly 10% in the number of complaints received about veterinary surgeons, to 739.
Figures are also available for:
The reporting year is 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, and part one of the RCVS Annual Report, RCVS Review, takes a more personal look at the activities of the College during the period, through the eyes of some of those involved. Topics include reviews of Extra-Mural Studies and the Practice Standards Scheme, the modular Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing producing the first diplomates, a focus on mental health and wellbeing, fund-raising for the RCVS Trust and the College's joint work with other authorities to bring justice in cases of fraudulent 'veterinary surgeons'.
Both publications are available online at: www.rcvs.org.uk/review and www.rcvs.org.uk/facts.
The RCVS has announced the new recruits for the two independent statutory committees responsible for investigating and holding inquiries into concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons.
The Disciplinary Committee has seven new members (three laypeople and four veterinary surgeons) and is now chaired by Ian Green, a former magistrate and Chief Executive of YMCA England from 2008 to 2013, who has been a member of the Committee since 2013.
The new members are:
The Preliminary Investigation Committee has three new members (all of them veterinary surgeons) and is now chaired by Andrew Ash MRCVS, a director of a veterinary practice group and Past-President of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), who has been a member of the Committee since 2013. The new members are:
The College says these changes now bring it into line with a Legislative Reform Order which came into effect in July 2013 and which amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act to say that the two statutory committees should be constituted separately from RCVS Council.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “We pushed forward the LRO because we wanted to make sure that the College was following regulatory best practice by ensuring the independence of those who adjudicate on concerns raised about a veterinary surgeon’s professional conduct and fitness to practise.
“The LRO allowed for a two-year transitional period and so, with these new appointments, we see it come to fruition as the committee members are now wholly separate from RCVS Council members, who are ineligible to sit on the Disciplinary or Preliminary Investigation committees.
“I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the new Chairs and members of the committees. They all went through a rigorous recruitment process over a number of months this year and I am confident in their integrity, independence, judgement and abilities.”
Through the same independent recruitment process two new members have also been appointed to the VN Preliminary Investigation Committee – Suzanne May RVN and Susan Macaldowie MRCVS.
Details of the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation committees can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/committees/disciplinary-committee and www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/committees/preliminary-investigation-committee respectively.
The RCVS has published a summary of the goings on at its 6 November meeting.
Amongst other things, Council agreed to continue to display postnominals in the Register, undertake a consultation on whether members should be able to use the courtesy title 'doctor' and make amendments to the College's current registration regulations.
In addition,
More information about these decisions can be found in the latest edition of RCVS News, copies of which have been sent to all veterinary surgeons and listed/registered veterinary nurses.
The full papers for the Council meeting can be found on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/rcvs-council/council-meetings
The College says the reforms will make for a clearer and more streamlined process, and offer an alternative, more compassionate way of resolving cases that might otherwise go to a full Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The College will now establish ‘Stage 1 Preliminary Investigation Committees (PICs)’ to replace the current Case Examiner Group stage of the concerns investigation process.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “Setting up Stage 1 PICs will streamline and clarify the early stages of the concerns investigation process and could also potentially, once sufficiently bedded in, reduce the amount of time taken for a number of cases.
“Currently, Stage 1 of a concerns investigation is carried out by a Case Examiner Group who determine if there is an ‘arguable case’ for serious professional misconduct before referring it on to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
"However, under these reforms, the Stage 1 PICs will close cases where there is no realistic prospect of finding a case of serious professional misconduct.
"Where cases require formal statements and/or expert opinion they will be referred on to Stage 2 PIC to determine if, based on the additional evidence gathered, a case is serious enough to warrant referral to either the Charter Case Committee [see below], or a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
“In essence this change means that there will be one consistent threshold of seriousness in all our investigations, meaning it is likely that fewer cases will be unnecessarily referred to Stage 2 of the process.”
The second reform involves the implementation of the new ‘Charter Case Protocol’ to provide an alternative way to resolve suitable cases meeting certain criteria which, though they meet the threshold to go to the Disciplinary Committee, it is considered that the public interest can still be served without a full hearing.
The ‘Charter Case Committee’ to which these cases will be referred will be able to issue written warning notices.
Eleanor added: “The establishment of the Charter Case Protocol and Committee is important for the RCVS in being able to get the balance right between upholding professional conduct standards and protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the professions, while also being a compassionate regulator.
“The type of cases we envisage being dealt with by the Committee are those where the conduct of the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse has fallen far short of what is expected of them under the Code, but where there is no ongoing risk to animal welfare or public confidence, and where the level of insight and contrition about their conduct is such that it can be resolved without the need for an onerous, stressful and expensive Disciplinary Committee hearing.
"We estimate that the Charter Case Committee will deal with around 20 such cases per year.
“Of course, the most serious cases of professional misconduct, for example around dishonesty and criminality, will continue to be referred to Disciplinary Committee hearings.
“It is worth noting that Charter Case Protocol and Committee are working titles, describing the fact that we are implementing this process under the remit of our Royal Charter.
"RCVS Council has agreed that the name should be changed in due course to something that better reflects its function and remit."
Unlike the Disciplinary Committee, the Charter Case Committee will not issue to the press the full details of cases as a news article.
Instead, it will publish a warning notice on the RCVS website summarising the area of concern, the relevant sections of the Code that were breached and supporting guidance it referred to, and the reasons for issuing the warning.
These warning notices will remain on the RCVS website for a maximum of two years and will not change the registration status of the individual.
The College says that the reforms are likely to take some months to implement and it will be looking to recruit additional Preliminary Investigation Committee members in due course.
The RCVS Registered Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Northants-based registered veterinary nurse who admitted to acting dishonestly with her employer, a client and a pet database company by taking home a patient that was supposed to have been euthanised.
During the two-day hearing, the Committee heard how Sally-Ann Roberts, formerly of the Best Friends Veterinary Group in Thrapston, had deliberately gone against the wishes of the owners of a 14-year-old Maine Coon cat called Jason that he be euthanised, rather than treated further, and instead had taken the cat home with her for "intensive nursing". Jason had subsequently escaped from Ms Robert's residence, leading her to fabricate a story, first to the pet database company, and then to Jason's owners and her employer, that he had escaped from the practice, before being returned by a member of the public two days later and then euthanised as originally requested.
Ms Roberts acted with her veterinary surgeon colleague Przemyslaw Bogdanowicz, who chose not to euthanise Jason and who, for his part, received a three-month suspension from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in December 2012. She repeated the false account on a number of occasions, both orally and in written statements, and also forged the signature of Jason's owner on official documentation in order to substantiate her story.
Only when Ms Roberts was interviewed for a second time by her then employer's area manager, did she finally admit to what had actually happened. Shortly afterwards, Ms Roberts was suspended from the practice and, following an internal disciplinary hearing a few days later, was dismissed by them for gross misconduct, along with Mr Bogdanowicz. There was no evidence available as to what ultimately happened to Jason.
Explaining her actions to the Committee, Ms Roberts said she was upset that Jason's owners wanted him to be euthanised and felt that he could recover if given some love and attention. She had asked Mr Bogdanowicz to discuss this possibility with Jason's owners, but he had refused, agreeing instead that she could continue Jason's treatment at her home. After Jason escaped, Ms Roberts said she was "devastated" and had "panicked", inventing the story of Jason's escape to cover her actions, which she now acknowledged were "wrong" and "stupid", and which she "bitterly regretted". Ms Roberts expressed sorrow and remorse for her behaviour, which she said would never occur again, and stated that being a veterinary nurse was everything to her.
In view of the admitted facts, the Committee judged that Ms Robert's dishonesty and breach of client trust, as well the distinct risk of injury to which she exposed Jason, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee balanced a number of aggravating factors (in particular, the forged signature) against Ms Roberts' "strong mitigation", which included her admitting the entirety of the charges against her, her medical and personal problems at the time, the insight she had shown into the effects of her actions on Jason's owners and her previous unblemished career.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speak on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that the Respondent has shown insight into the seriousness of her misconduct and that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. In light of the Respondent's admission, her insight, her remorse and the high regard in which she is held by her professional colleagues, it is the Committee's view that the sanction of two months' suspension is appropriate and proportionate."
The Committee's full decisions on facts and sanction are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The British Association of Veterinary Emergency & Critical Care has released the results of a survey into practitioners attitudes to 24-7 and OOH home visits.
360 veterinary surgeons took part in the survey, nearly all of whom have been practising for more than 2 years. 70% work in small animal practice, 12% at a dedicated OOH provider, and the bulk of the remainder in referral or mixed practice. 81% described the work they do as small animal first opinion, and 76% were employees. 35% said they had already responded to the RCVS call for evidence on the provision of 24/7 emergency cover.
26% said they work for a practice that outsources its OOH to a dedicated provider, and more than 85% of those said they would not return to an on-call system.
In terms of dedicated out-of-hours providers, a clear pattern emerged. Namely those practitioners who outsource their OOH feel that patient care, staff safety and professional well-being are all enhanced by dedicated OOH services, but that dedicated OOH comes at a cost of reduced value for money for the pet owner. Customer service between the different OOH provisions is perceived to be similar (on-call better 25%, same 48%, and dedicated better 27%).
Among those practitioners who work for a dedicated OOH service, dedicated OOH services perform best in all categories. 68% responded that OOH customer service is better with a dedicated OOH service compared to an on-call system (12% responded that on-call provided better customer service on average). 44% responded that customer value for money was better with dedicated OOH service compared to 19% who responded that customer value for money was on average better with an on-call system.
Among those practitioners who do their own on-call, customer service and value for money were perceived to be better with an on-call system (42% v 26% and 61% v 15% respectively). In the other categories dedicated OOH services again out-performed an on-call system.
Whether routine or emergency, 'owner demands' were felt to be the biggest reason for home visit requests (41% and 30% respectively). However, 'genuine clinical need' was the main reason cited by 19% of respondents as the main reason for emergency home visits. Inability to move the animal was given as the main reason by a further 28%.
Participants in the survey were asked to score (out of 10) how much their decision to perform a home visit was affected by the threat of a complaint, either to their employer or to the RCVS. Interestingly, 37% said a complaint to their employer weighed heavily on the decision (ranking it 8 or higher) where, by comparison, 52% said the threat of a complaint to the College ranked 8 or higher in their decision making.
69% of respondents said they make visits alone, either sometimes or always. When asked if they had ever felt threatened whilst performing an OOH visit, 48% said yes. This compared to 23% who said that they had felt threatened when performing a visit in normal hours.
When asked to rank (out of 10) the stress home visits cause, 7% said none at all and 36% said 8 or above.
72% said they believe that the profession should continue to be obligated to provide 24/7 for animals.
Respondents were then asked to say whether they support or disagree with the suggestion that the need to perform house visits is removed from the CoPC. 59% were strongly for the idea (scoring it up to 3), compared to 22% who were strongly against it (scoring it 8 or above).
Opinions about whether the College should clarify the need to perform house visits was far more clear cut. 77% strongly supported clarification (scored up to 3), whereas only 16% said there was no need (scored 8 or above).
However, an overwhelming 93% said that they would continue to perform visits in the case of genuine clinical need even if the Code of Professional Conduct was changed to make it dear that there was no risk of disciplinary action for not attending off-site.
The VCMS, which is administered by Nockolds Solicitors, was formally launched by the RCVS as an alternative dispute resolution service in October 2017 following a year-long trial.
The aim of the service is to resolve, by mediation, disputes between clients and veterinary practices that do not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct that is needed for the RCVS to investigate a concern through its formal processes.
Since the service’s trial, which started in October 2016, the VCMS has given preliminary mediation advice on how to resolve a case in more than 1,700 instances with over 580 cases having gone to full mediation of which 89% have concluded with a resolution.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: "From the perspective of both the public and the profession, the establishment of the VCMS has been a "win-win" situation. For the public it has provided them with an additional route to solve those complaints which wouldn’t cross the threshold to progress in the concerns investigation process.
"For the profession it has provided a more appropriate format for resolving a client dispute that doesn’t involve the time, effort and formal process of an RCVS investigation for those cases that will never amount to serious professional misconduct. I think this has been demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of the profession are willing to engage with the VCMS process, even though it is entirely voluntary.
"The VCMS has also had a positive impact on the College and its concerns investigation process, allowing us to focus greater resources on those cases that do meet our threshold of serious professional misconduct. This has had a very clear impact on the speed with which we either close cases or move them on to the next stage of consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), which, again, is important to both the public and the profession."
The College says that around 90% of cases investigated at Stage 1 of the process are now either closed or referred to PIC within four months – the College’s key performance indicator at this stage. This compares to around 50% of these cases being closed or referred within four months at Stage 1 in 2016.
The College also says that in total (including both preliminary and full mediation cases), 86% of the cases dealt with by VCMS were successfully mediated and feedback from both clients and veterinary practices has been largely positive. In client feedback from the third quarter of 2018, 93% said they would use the VCMS again and 79% considered it to be fair, while the equivalent figure amongst veterinary practices was 94% and 87% respectively.
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors who heads up the VCMS, said: "It is a good sign that mediation is largely working as it should when both parties are reporting similar satisfaction rates and we pride ourselves on negotiating resolutions that are acceptable and beneficial for both the clients and the practices.
"It is great to see that our efforts are also having an impact on the RCVS concerns investigation system by allowing it to concentrate on more serious cases."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation process, including the different stages of an investigation, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Further information about the VCMS can be found on its website at www.vetmediation.co.uk or by calling 0345 040 5834.
Fourteen veterinary surgeons stood for election this year and 8,542 voted, a turnout of 24.5% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 26.2% in 2020, 25.5% in 2019 and 22.7% in 2018.
Danny scored a total of 4,759 votes, leaving the other successful candidates Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum nevertheless trailing in his wake, with 3,228 votes, 2,957 votes and 2,368 votes respectively.
The VN Council election also had fourteen candidates standing for one elected place, the other having been taken by Susan Howarth RVN who was automatically re-elected as the only candidate standing at the time of the original deadline in January.
Donna Lewis was elected with 404 votes from those cast by 2,341 veterinary nurses, which amounted to a turnout of 12.4% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 17.1% in 2020, 14.5% in 2017 and 10.9% in 2016.
All of those elected to either RCVS or VN Councils will formally take up their seats at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 9 July 2021.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Thank you to all those who stood as candidates and all those who voted in this year’s elections, especially in view of all the extra demands on everyone’s time at the moment. Many congratulations to our five successful candidates with whom we look forward to working over the coming months and years.
“Even though the elections were held during the ongoing pandemic, the RCVS Council election still produced the third highest turnout on record, and turnout in both elections was above the average for those held over the last ten years.
“As always, we made concerted efforts to let people know about this year’s election, which included additional reminder emails sent on behalf of the RCVS by our election provider Civica Election Services, as well as regular email reminders and social media posts from the RCVS. We do, of course, always endeavour to improve turnout, and will continue to review this going forward.”
Photo: Left to right, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum.
The nurse, who admitted the charges against her, successfully applied for anonymity at the outset of the case, on the basis that the shock factor of the removal of the animals' heads could greatly upset members of the public and veterinary staff, leading to a backlash which would present a threat to her safety.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the nurse, who was working as a locum, asked a permanent member of staff if she could take a couple of skulls from the strays, because she had a friend who 'cleaned up' dead strays and wildlife and displayed the skulls at home.
The College’s case was that the nurse’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct because she failed to afford the dead animals with the respect and dignity they deserved, there was a risk to human health because she failed to comply with biosecurity measures, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession.
Although she admitted that her conduct fell short of what was expected, the nurse countered that her actions were not intended to be disrespectful to the animals, that she was an animal-lover who had three cats of her own, and that her actions were not malicious but misjudged.
Weighing up the case, the Committee found that the aggravating features of her conduct were around biosecurity and abuse of her professional position, while in mitigation it found that there was no financial gain in her actions and that it was a one-off incident.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct represented a biosecurity risk.
"Any body part would be in some degree of decomposition.
"As the cats were strays, it was unclear as to whether or not they had been in good health.
"Although the respondent transferred the body parts to her home and kept them in the freezer in cadaver bags, there was a risk that they could leak.
"In short, her actions were not without risk to human or animal health.
“The respondent abused her professional position.
"She had an obligation to treat the cadavers with respect.
"Her professional position gave her access to the cadavers.
"She abused her professional position by severing the cats’ heads and, using a scalpel, body bags and other equipment she pursued an interest of her own, rather than performed the role she was employed to undertake.
"Although she may say that she obtained permission to remove the cats’ heads from a permanent member of staff, she was a Registered Veterinary Nurse and therefore an autonomous professional.
"Whatever permissions she received should not have made her believe she had a licence to act as she did.”
Considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account her relative youth and inexperience, the fact she made open and frank admissions at an early stage, the fact she made efforts to avoid a repetition of the behaviours, the insight she had shown into why her conduct was wrong, and the amount of time that had passed since her conduct relative to the total length of her four-year veterinary nursing career.
The Committee also considered positive character references from fellow veterinary nurses with whom she worked and trained.
Kathryn added: “The Committee considered that a reprimand was the sanction it should impose.
"A reprimand marks the Committee’s view of the respondent’s behaviour, thereby satisfying the public interest.
“The Committee did consider issuing a warning as to future conduct, but it had no concerns that the respondent would fail to follow the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses in the future.
"It therefore rejected a warning as an appropriate alternative.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The FAQs cover everything within the College’s guidance on veterinary medicines, including questions around controlled drugs, their storage, destruction and prescription, supplying medicines under the cascade, and prescriptions in general including topics such as what written information to provide, broach dates, and repeat prescriptions.
Lisa Price, RCVS Head of Standards, said: “Queries about veterinary medicines are some of the most frequent questions that our Standards & Advice Team deal with and we recognise that this is quite a complex and potentially confusing area of practice, with information being contained in a variety of places including the RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct, the Veterinary Medicines Regulations and the Practice Standards Guidance.
“We felt it would be helpful to try and draw much of this information into one place and provide answers to questions applicable to common scenarios that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses encounter within everyday practice.
“The 17 questions and answers have all been approved by the RCVS Standards Committee and we hope members of the professions find them useful.
"We are also open to feedback and suggestions for further questions to be added to the FAQs and you can contact us on advice@rcvs.org.uk if you have any.”
The full FAQs can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/medicines-faqs
The RCVS Code of Professional Conduct’s chapter of supporting guidance on veterinary medicines can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/medicines
Linda, who was first elected to Council in 2019, will take up the post at the RCVS Annual General Meeting in July.
She is currently Chair of both the RCVS Standards Committee and the Riding Establishment Subcommittee and also sits on the Primary Qualifications Subcommittee and the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Liaison Committee.
Outside of the RCVS, Linda is a Director at The George Veterinary Group in Wiltshire, an independently owned practice providing equine, farm, pig and small animal veterinary services.
Linda has been part of The George since 1992, having started her career in practice in Winchester after graduating from Bristol University Vet School the previous year.
She is a member of the British Veterinary Association, the British Equine Veterinary Association and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and is also a Trustee for Brooke – an international equine animal welfare charity.
Linda said: “Having recently been re-elected to Council for another term by fellow members of our profession, I am really looking forward to joining the Officer Team in my role as Junior Vice-President and I thank my colleagues on Council for their endorsement and support.
“Since joining Council four years ago, I have learned a lot – one of the difficulties I have observed is the tension of our profession having a Royal College which regulates.
"Wearing two hats is never easy, and being both our leadership body and our regulator can position the College in a difficult place in the eyes of its members.
"There are, however, advantages for us as a profession in being self-regulating.
“As Junior Vice-President, I look forward to increasing Council’s direct contact with vets working in first-opinion practice.
"Working as part of a large independently owned practice, I am aware of many of the day-to-day issues currently facing the different species sectors.
"I understand what it takes to be a good workplace delivering veterinary care in a commercial environment and want, through my contribution to Council and the governance and regulation of our profession, to support others to have a successful and fulfilling career in practice.”
Photo: Linda (right) shaking hands with current President Melissa Donald MRCVS
The charity reports that 2020 was its busiest year ever, with 3,921 calls to its Helpline - a 25% increase over 2019.
Similarly, Vetlife's Health Support service saw a record number of referrals in 2020. There were 190 referrals made over the year, compared to 149 in 2019.
At the same time, the charity says it has seen a decrease in income, putting a strain on its resources. The pledge from the RCVS comes in addition to the annual donation of £100,000 made by the Mind Matters Initiative towards the Health Support service. On top of this, the Mind Matters Initiative also helps to fund other essential running costs for the charity, including the Helpline call directing service and by its contribution to the annual Helpline training for volunteers.
Graham Dick, Vetlife President (pictured right) said: “The last 12 months have brought significant challenges for Vetlife as restrictions in fundraising have combined with a significant uplift in demand for our Vetlife Helpline and Health Support services. Against this background the substantial ongoing financial support provided by the RCVS through MMI, both for the costs of professional mental health support and for the necessary call-handling facilities which underpin our Helpline, continues to be an invaluable contribution to the wellbeing of the veterinary community we serve."
The work done by vetsurgeon.org and vetnurse.co.uk attempted to identify the sorts of unpleasant behaviour that veterinary surgeons and and nurses found themselves on the receiving end of, and the impact that it had on them. It was not, however, able to quantify the prevalence of these types of behaviour other than to the extent that there were 677 reports.
The new survey of over 650 vet nurses and student vet nurses found that not only did 96% agree or strongly agree that bullying and incivility is a serious problem in the profession, but 70% of respondents had personally experienced a mental health concern as a result.
Other findings from the survey were:
The full findings of the survey will be revealed at the MMI Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum, taking place on Wednesday 3rd November.
Attendees will have the opportunity to discuss the challenges highlighted in the survey and how they can be addressed. The results will also be published at a session led by Jill McDonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator at BVNA Congress, taking place Saturday 2nd – Monday 4th October.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “A number of our survey findings are extremely concerning, particularly the high levels of bullying, incivility and discrimination reported by participants. We conducted the survey with the intention of finding out more about what systemic issues across workplace practices were impacting on the profession’s mental health.
"We want to thank everyone who took part and shared their experiences with us. There were some upsetting accounts shared with us about experiences of bullying and discrimination – no one should go through this at any point in their life, let alone at their place of work.
"Decisive action needs to be taken to tackle this and we will be using the findings of the survey to help form our 2022-2027 strategy and decide what resources and training we create for the profession. Supporting the wellbeing of veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses is one of our key priorities, and will be part of all future MMI activities.”
“I would encourage as many veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses as possible to attend the upcoming Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum and our session at BVNA to have your voice heard about what steps need to be taken to improve the mental wellbeing of the profession.
"We recognise that these results may bring some difficult emotions to the fore for many people, and we would encourage anyone who has experienced bullying or discrimination to seek help from an organisation such as Vetlife or the National Bullying Helpline.
"I would urge anyone who witnesses bullying or discrimination in the workplace to speak out, wherever it is safe to do so. This takes immense courage, but it is only by calling out this behaviour that it can begin to be addressed. We will be launching Active Bystander training in early 2022, to equip people with the confidence to call out unacceptable behaviour, and the skills to proactively support colleagues who have been targeted.”
Matthew Rendle, Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, added: “As a veterinary nurse some of these results were a difficult read and I would like to thank those student vet nurses and newly qualified vet nurses who came forward with great honesty and bravery with their views and experiences, as it couldn’t have been easy.
“We take these matters very seriously and opening up the conversation is an important first step. I hope that, following these results, we can take look at things such as strengthening reporting mechanisms for bullying and discrimination and encouraging better workplace practices to mitigate against these incidents.
“While it’s easy to focus on the negatives, I do think that these survey results have given us positive steps to build on, not least that people know how to access mental health support so they’re not suffering in silence and the role that our amazing clinical coaches are playing in supporting people with their mental health, and how we can better give them the tools for this support.”
The Vet Futures Action Plan included a series of 24 work-streams to be completed over five years (2016-2020), building on the six core themes of: animal health and welfare; veterinary professionals’ wider roles in society; the health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals; diverse and rewarding veterinary careers; sustainable businesses and user-focused services; and leadership.
Vet Futures reports that over the last twelve months, key activities have included:
VN Futures
The VN Futures project (Action X of Vet Futures) isolated six ambitions to achieve by 2020, with the shorter time-scale reflecting the faster rate of both turnover and training for veterinary nurses.
A number of development groups have been created, focusing on each of these ambitions and creating specific actions to ensure their completion. Of these:
RCVS President, Chris Tufnell said: "When we launched Vet Futures back in 2014, the scope of the project seemed daunting and some were sceptical of our ability to succeed. However, through a robust process of evidence-gathering, analysis, action planning and now taking action itself, we are starting to make an impact on some of those core areas that are so fundamental to the future of our profession, such as animal welfare, technology, veterinary skills and knowledge, and leadership.
"Our Action Plan set out a five-year timeframe and we have made some really excellent progress in year one. This will form the foundation of work yet to come – although it remains important to ensure we scan the horizon for new issues that will have an impact on the profession, navigating our way through challenges as they arise."
BVA President Gudrun Ravetz added: "The excitement was palpable at the Vet Futures Summit last year and it spurred us on to roll up our sleeves immediately to start working on the Action Plan, and so a lot has been achieved already.
"Many of the actions are interlinked and so BVA, RCVS and the VSC are working closely together to oversee their delivery, but we have been particularly pleased at the high level of engagement and enthusiasm from others. The success of Vet Futures will be in the profession coming together to bring about the changes we need for a sustainable future.”
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has released a series of photographs taken at its last council meeting on 7th March 2013.
Anyone for a photo-caption competition?
The full album can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcvs/sets/72157633046308352/
The recommendations were proposed by the Legislation Working Party (LWP), which was set up in 2017 to consider the principles governing any new legislation affecting veterinary regulation and come up with recommendations for what innovations could and should be included in any future replacement for the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The LWP comprises members of RCVS Council, RCVS staff and representatives from the BVA and the BVNA.
The approved recommendations were grouped into five key headings: embracing the vet-led team; enhancing the veterinary nurse role; assuring practice standards; introducing a modern ‘fitness to practise’ regime; and, modernising RCVS registration processes.
The recommendations include:
Professor Stephen May, RCVS Council member and Chair of the LWP since its inception in 2017, said: “The scale of the changes that are recommended in this report are very significant indeed and, if implemented via new primary legislation, would really change the face of veterinary regulation, bringing it up to date with that of other healthcare professions, and ironing out many of the oddities and closing many of the gaps in our current regulatory regime.
"Changes to the legislative framework for veterinary regulation have been mooted for some time. While the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 has served the profession well for over 50 years, and we have been able to make some changes to it – for example, reducing the size of Council, the separation of the Disciplinary Committee from Council and introducing the concept of delegation to veterinary nurses via Schedule 3 of the Act. However, there are limits to how much we can continue to tinker around the edges, and it has become increasingly clear that new legislation is needed if we are to make progress.
"I have been very grateful to my colleagues on the Legislation Working Party for their hard-work over the past three years. There has been a lot of robust debate on how we can move veterinary regulation forward, but ultimately we have a consensus that there are significant deficiencies, imperfections and blind-spots in the current regime and, in order to ensure that the professions are able to best fulfil their mandate to protect animal health and welfare, and that the RCVS is able to meet its mission to set, uphold and advance veterinary standards, significant changes are needed.
"I am delighted that members of RCVS Council have agreed to put our recommendations to a full consultation and I look forward to seeing how this report and its, sometimes quite radical, recommendations will spark important debate of these big ideas.”
A full public consultation process on the recommendations is expected to take place later this year. After this has taken place, and depending on its outcome, and Council’s final decision on how to proceed, a full set of proposals on legislative reform will be put to the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in the hope of seeking support for new legislation.
While RCVS Council approved, in principle, the report as a whole, there was a separate debate on some of the report’s recommendations concerning reform to the RCVS disciplinary regime which do not require changes to primary legislation, but could be made through powers granted to the College via its 2015 Royal Charter. Further details on this will be announced separately.
The full Report of the LWP is available to view in the papers for the June 2020 meeting of RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-legislation-working-party-report-to-council-2020
The RCVS has also published a blog from Professor Stephen May explaining, in more detail, the workings of the LWP and the rationale behind its recommendations. This is available to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/blog/a-step-change-in-veterinary-regulation
Professor May’s presentation from the Council meeting is also available to view on the RCVS YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.
Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.
Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.
Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.
In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.
However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.
The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”
However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.
In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”
In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”
In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”
It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.
Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”
Lucy Evans and Jamie Hollis, who work in the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, will join RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell to raise funds in the British 10K London Run on 12 July.
None of the three runners have run any kind of race since their school sports days - and are appealing for support as they aim to raise at least £300 each for the Trust.
To sponsor a runner, you can log onto http://www.justgiving.com/rcvstrust and, if you are a UK tax-payer, this also means the Trust gets your tax back. Or, if you prefer to send a cheque, sponsorship forms are available from info@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0743.
Lucy said: "The RCVS Trust is a great charity which supports veterinary education and has specialist library and information services for vets and VNs to use. Small charities like the Trust can get overlooked in big fundraising events so I'm glad to be able to help out - even if the thought of running 10K is a bit daunting!"
The race will be broadcast through the British 10K London Run website: http://www.thebritish10klondon.co.uk/.
Pam Mosedale, Lead Practice Standards Scheme Assessor, said: “We are very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause, but based on the UK Government’s advice and our duty of care to our team of Assessors, as well as team members and clients at veterinary practices, our only option was to postpone and reschedule all visits in the short-term.
"Although we have cancelled all assessments until the end of April, we will be constantly monitoring the situation over the coming weeks, and it is likely that there may be some further postponement of assessments planned for May and beyond."
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which carries out assessment inspections of veterinary premises that are not within the ambit of the Practice Standards Scheme, has also confirmed that it has postponed its forthcoming inspections. Further information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-vmd-remains-open-for-business.
The RCVS Practice Standards Team can be contacted on pss@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0767 for further advice.
Dr Thomason initially denied both heads of charge, but on the third day of the hearing he changed his plea and admitted the charge in its entirety.
The first part of the charge related to the fact that the seller of the horse was a both a client of Dr Thomason’s practice and a personal friend of his, and he therefore had a potential and/or actual conflict of interest.
Dr Thomason did not disclose this professional and personal relationship to the prospective purchaser before the pre-purchase exam.
The prospective purchaser only discovered Dr Thomason’s relationship with the seller when reading the vetting certificate at home, and stated that, in the past, she had had a similar experience in which the horse was then found to be lame. She later found out the extent of the personal relationship, when invited to join the seller on a social media site.
The Committee found that, in this set of circumstances, Dr Thomason should not have undertaken the pre-purchase exam at all, and, at the very least, disclosed his personal and professional relationship with the vendor.
The Committee also found that although Dr Thomason did have a system in place to inform any prospective purchasers if the vendor was a client of his practice, this failed to work on this occasion and neither the practice nor Dr Thomason told the prospective buyer that the seller was a client before booking the pre-purchase exam. Dr Thomason had no similar system in place to disclose any close friendships with sellers.
Dr Thomason did not consider there was a conflict of interest as he felt confident he could carry out the pre-purchase exam impartially. In addition, it was his belief that the seller had been alerted to the conflict through a system in place at his practice, implemented to safeguard against this type of error. He stated that he in no way attempted to hide his relationship with the seller to the prospective purchaser.
It was not alleged that Dr Thomason had acted dishonestly.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Thomason not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the Committee concluded that the respondent’s view of his obligations to disclose both the professional and personal relationships he had with the vendor was mistaken, it did not find any improper motivation on his part. It has already noted that he sought to disclose to the prospective purchaser through his system the fact that the vendor was a professional client of his.
"The Committee has weighed all these matters very carefully. It is for the client to determine whether or not to proceed with a PPE when in possession of all relevant facts in relation to any potential conflict of interest, and not for the veterinary surgeon to decide. The autonomy of the client must be respected. The Committee was firmly of the opinion that a failure to comply with the Code is very serious. However, taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee does not consider that the actions of the respondent amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The College says the online library, which is free to access, aims to encourage people to develop their leadership skills, regardless of what stage of their career they are at.
The Library has a range of materials that learners can work through at their own pace, including presentations, interviews, videos, blogs, articles and webinars on key leadership topics such as Delegation Skills, Difficult Conversations and Inclusive Leadership.
The RCVS Leadership Team will be adding more content to the library, and the profession will have opportunities to suggest topics that they would like to learn more about.
Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, said: “In terms of veterinary CPD, importance often tends to be placed more on clinical and technical capabilities, but leadership skills are a critical aspect of every veterinary practice and organisation.
“It is also assumed that leadership is a condition of status or position, but this is not necessarily the case.
"Leadership is an everyday practice that is applicable to everyone, regardless of their role.
"The Leadership Library provides learning opportunities for anyone looking to develop and reflect on their leadership skills, which will also count towards the annual CPD requirement.”
The Leadership Library can be accessed now from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/rcvs-leadership-initiative/rcvs-leadership-library/
The RCVS has released the results of a survey which has found that increasing numbers of graduates over the last five years have had little impact on veterinary job prospects.
The survey was carried out for the RCVS by the Institute for Employment Studies, which asked the last five years' UK graduates who have registered with the College how long it took them to find work, how long they stayed in their first jobs, and why they moved on.
The online survey, which achieved a 43% response rate (1,354 responders), found that an average of 94% of graduates seeking a role in clinical practice obtained work within six months of starting to look.
The actual figure ranged from a high of 96% in 2008 to a low of 92% in 2010, and did not change significantly over the five years under consideration, despite UK graduate numbers increasing by around a quarter during the same period (from 650 in 2007, to 819 in 2012). Meanwhile, the College has registered an average of 618 overseas graduates annually during this time.
The survey did show that it was taking graduates slightly longer to secure their posts, with a shift from 85% securing work under three months in 2008, to 71% in 2012.
The results seem to suggest some small differences in the time taken for men and women to find their first jobs, with men finding jobs slightly quicker, although the vast majority of both genders found veterinary work.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "After the announcement from the University of Surrey that it will be opening a new vet school in the near future, there was a great deal of discussion amongst the profession about how easily new graduates could find employment. I undertook to get some real facts and am pleased to find that the picture is not as gloomy as predicted.
However, Jacqui said she was concerned that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents who left their first position after a relatively short period of time. Amongst 2012 graduates, over 40% of those who had left their first position did so within three months of starting work. However it must be stressed that only 18% of those answering the survey who graduated in 2012 had already left their first position. Jacqui said: "Although the turn-over in first jobs seems to be, in part, due to an increase in temporary posts, I am saddened to see that the most commonly-cited reason for graduates leaving their first job was lack of support from their employers or professional colleagues.
"This is an area that we, as a profession, must address. As I have told all the students I have admitted to the College, their first jobs will influence their whole careers, and getting adequate support is probably the single most important factor. Meanwhile, it is heartening to see that nearly all of those moving on have obtained further employment."
Although the survey was sent to all those UK graduates who had registered with the RCVS within the last five years, the contact details for those who had subsequently de-registered may not have been up to date, which may mean that those who had de-registered because they could not find work were not well represented. However, the College says it thinks it is more likely that these individuals would have switched to the 'non-practising' category.
A summary of the headline survey results will be available at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. The full findings, which also looked at the time taken to complete the Professional Development Phase and the type and location of work sought, will be available in due course.