The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The survey was carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), which sent it to 5,572 veterinary surgeons who graduated from a vet school in the EU (excluding the UK) and who are registered as veterinary surgeons in this country, as well as around 100 non-UK EU-trained veterinary nurses.
The survey asked a range of questions about how these individuals felt that the vote to leave the EU had affected them, how they felt about their future working in the UK veterinary sector and how they felt the College had dealt with the issue of Brexit.
3,078 people (including 19 veterinary nurses) responded to the survey – a response rate of 55.3%. The average age of the respondents was 36. 60% were female and 87% were working full-time.
The largest group of respondents (22%) qualified in Spain. 14% qualified in Italy, 10% in Poland, 9% in Romania, 7% in Portugal, 6% in Germany and 6% in the Republic of Ireland.
The remaining 26% qualified in 18 different countries, each of which accounted for fewer than 5% of EU registrants. Although these figures relate to country of qualification and not the nationality of the individuals, in 91% of cases these were the same.
The majority of respondents (78%) worked in clinical practice. Of the 603 who did not work in clinical practice, 38% worked for the Food Standards Agency, 21% worked for the Animal and Plant Health Agency and 18% worked in higher education.
The main findings of the survey were:
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "This survey makes the strongest possible case that the Government must act fast to reassure our EU colleagues in practices, universities and industry that they are welcome to stay in the UK.
"EU vets and vet nurses make a massive contribution to the UK veterinary sector and the health and welfare of animals and humans.
"Beyond this commitment we will also be lobbying the Government that, after we leave the EU, suitably qualified vets from overseas are prioritised for UK work visas or equivalent, particularly if they are working in public health and the meat industry.
"I have written to Michael Gove, the new Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, outlining our position and our Brexit Principles and have invited him to visit the RCVS at Belgravia House to discuss these further. I hope that he accepts our offer so that we can have some constructive talks on these matters.
"On a personal note, I am very sorry to see that a significant proportion of respondents had experienced prejudice at work. This is simply not acceptable and we, as a regulator, have been conscious that ‘anti-foreigner’ rhetoric in the country at large could have an effect on hard-working and talented members of our profession, which is why we raised the matter in our letter to the Prime Minister last year."
The findings of interviews with a sample of non-UK EU-graduated veterinary surgeons working in the UK will be published over the summer. Meanwhile, over the next two years, IES will also be carrying out two further pieces of research that will track the opinions and intentions of non-UK EU-graduated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over time as Brexit policies are formed and the future status of non-UK nationals made clearer.
To read the IES report and the College’s three Brexit Principles in full, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The RCVS has announced that it will be holding a free lunchtime webinar next week about its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial and its outcomes.
The webinar, titled ‘Who ADRs wins’, takes place at 1pm on Monday 7 December via The Webinar Vet and will be presented by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and RCVS Council member Niall Connell who was part of the Advisory Panel to the ADR trial.
The trial, which has been administered by Ombudsman Services, began in November 2014 in order to develop a system that addresses the many concerns received by the RCVS about the conduct of veterinary surgeons which it cannot deal with under its statutory powers.
During the webinar, Gordon and Niall will explain the roles of Ombudsman Services and the Advisory Panel, as well as examine the outcomes of some of the concerns handled by the trial.
They will also discuss the future of the ADR scheme. Following the presentation, listeners will have the opportunity to put their questions to the speakers.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/the-rcvs-alternative-dispute-resolution-scheme to register for the webinar. A recording of the webinar will be made available shortly after the event.
The RCVS has clarified its role concerning new UK veterinary schools, saying that it has no mandate to control student or graduate numbers.
Responding to calls from the profession that it should comment on the desirability of any change in the number of schools or graduates, the College has confirmed that whilst it is committed to setting, upholding and advancing the standards that any new UK veterinary degrees would need to meet in order to be approved by the Privy Council, it has no role in capping student numbers.
The College also points out that the free market and mobility of workers in the EU makes any control at the level of a sovereign state effectively meaningless with respect to workforce management. However, the College says it is committed to ensuring that standards are maintained, and to continue working with bodies such as the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education, which evaluates veterinary degrees across Europe.
The College also seeks to support healthy debate through providing information on the state of the profession - an example of which is the survey that it recently commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies on job availability for veterinary graduates over the last five years.
The headline results from that survey were released in the summer, and showed that increasing graduate numbers over the last five years have so far appeared to have had little impact on veterinary job prospects, with 94% of graduate respondents seeking a role in clinical practice obtaining work within six months of starting to look.
The full RCVS Survey of Recent Graduates report is now available, and also shows that, of the 43% of veterinary surgeons who graduated in the last five years who responded:
The answers were analysed by year of graduation, veterinary school, age and gender, and the full report is available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
The investment is being made to increase the speed at which concerns are either closed or referred, ensure that the process meets its service standards and reduce stress for the public and profession.
The decision to increase investment in the process was made by the College’s Operational Board in response to a steady increase in the number of concerns being investigated. The College forecasts that it will receive in excess of 1,000 concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses this year.
The RCVS developed a simplified, three-stage concerns process in 2014 which included the introduction of targets for cases to be either closed or referred at each stage. In order to ensure that these targets can be met, the College will now be hiring five paralegals to assist the existing five case managers.
Eleanor Ferguson, Acting Registrar, said: "Currently we are only closing or referring just over half of concerns we receive at stage 1 (case examiner stage) within our four month target. In order for the system to run more smoothly we will be investing in extra staff to help clear the backlog and ensure that these targets are met going forward.
"Similarly, in order to deal with the increase in the number of cases being referred to Preliminary Investigation Committee (stage 2), we will be increasing the frequency of these committee meetings from one to two per month.
"It is important to add that this investment is not just about dealing with concerns more quickly but is also about quality of service and having more staff on hand will ensure that this quality is maintained in terms of how we communicate with complainants and members of the profession. Speeding up the process will reduce the stress and anxiety felt by all involved."
More details about the College’s concerns investigation process and its different stages can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
One £20,000 grant will be awarded each year for five years, starting in 2019 (making a £100,000 total by 2023) to fund research that focuses on mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary professions, including areas such as prevention, diagnosis, intervention and treatment.
Applications are welcome from individuals at all stages of their research careers, including those who have not previously been published, with research proposals relating to any aspect of mental health or wellbeing in the veterinary professions. Researchers must be affiliated with a university, and ethical approval must be in place.
RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett, said: "Sarah Brown was a talented veterinary surgeon who was passionate about her profession. She was respected and loved by so many people and worked hard to support others. So it is fitting that, with the blessing of Sarah’s family, we are able to launch this grant in her memory. It’s only by improving the veterinary mental health evidence base that we will be able to hone the interventions and support that is available to members of the veterinary team."
Applicants should send their research proposal, along with a CV and short biography for all lead researchers, to Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, by 5pm on Friday 31 May 2019.
Each proposal should be a maximum of 3,000 words and should include aims, methods, ethical considerations, proposed timelines, and a bibliography. Any academic literature referred to within the proposal should be accurately referenced. The winner of the grant will be decided in June 2019, with the winner then receiving their award at Royal College Day in London on Friday 12 July 2019.
The recipient of the Sarah Brown Mental Health Research Grant for 2019 will be invited to present their research findings at the biennial Mind Matters Initiative Research Symposium in 2021.
Applications are particularly welcomed from those at an early stage in their research career. Guidance on how to prepare a research proposal is available at: https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/how-to-write-a-good-research-grant-proposal
The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:
In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.
Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.
In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct.
In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping.
"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."
In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.
However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register.
Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."
Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.
Since 2014 the RCVS has trialled two different ADR services with the aim of helping resolve complaints between animal owners and veterinary practices that do not meet its threshold for serious professional misconduct.
Since October 2016, this has been in the form of the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), administered by Nockolds Solicitors. The VCMS is free for both animal owners and veterinary professionals and cases will only be taken with the consent of both parties.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are very pleased that ADR in the form of mediation has received the unanimous support of RCVS Council members as part of the process for handling veterinary complaints.
"Throughout its trial period the VCMS has very much been complementary to our concerns investigation and disciplinary process. While we are bound by statute to investigate concerns, it has allowed our Professional Conduct Team to 'triage' cases, and to signpost complainants either to the College or the VCMS as appropriate. This has allowed greater time and resources to investigate concerns that could constitute serious professional misconduct.
"We also believe that the VCMS is good for both the public and the profession because it encourages both parties to communicate, find areas of agreement and come to constructive solutions, rather than being an adversarial process that assigns blame and adjudicates remedies."
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors which administers the VCMS, said: "The service is here to help veterinary clients and practices find a resolution for complaints that cannot be resolved within the practice. Complaints are referred to the VCMS by clients and practices where the relationship has become strained or communication may be difficult. Importantly the service does not look at who is right or wrong, but focuses on finding an outcome that both parties can live with and bringing an end to the complaint.
"In our experience this has ranged from reassuring clients and helping them to come to terms with what has happened, refunding fees, further explanations, apologies, small goodwill payments, securing procedural changes at the practice and agreement by the client to settle outstanding fees which have been withheld because of the complaint.
"We understand complaints are highly emotional and stressful for both parties, so the VCMS team will not ask parties to speak to one another directly. It is also not about assigning blame but is about moving forward to allow both parties to bring the complaint to a conclusion. When we hear from practices and clients alike that they can now sleep at night, or their relief that a complaint is resolved, I know ADR and the VCMS does help and make a difference."
The College says that during the trial period, 165 of the 870 enquiries received by the VCMS went to mediation. Of these, 129 were successfully mediated with the other 36 remaining unresolved. Of the other enquiries 297 resulted in the animal owner being referred back to the practice so that internal complaints processes could be exhausted first, 93 did not progress because the animal owner did not pursue the complaint, 73 were dealt with through advice, 66 did not progress as the practice declined to engage, 76 were outside the service’s remit and 100 are currently ongoing.
Taking into account the overall feedback received from both animal owners and veterinary professionals and the positive responses on the independence and fairness of the VCMS, Council agreed that Nockolds continue administering the scheme, with a review starting in 18 months’ time to take into account experience and learning as the scheme continues to evolve. During the Council meeting statements of support for the VCMS were also heard from a representative of the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS) and an independent consultant on consumer affairs.
A spokesperson for the VDS said: "The VDS assisted over 150 practices that agreed to participate in the ADR trial and developed a constructive working relationship with the VCMS staff. In the vast majority of cases mediation has resulted in a satisfactory outcome with little or no financial consequences.
"The Society considers this voluntary scheme particularly suited to the many client care complaints that are directed at the RCVS due to public misunderstanding of the College’s role, but the investigation of which creates disproportionate concern to the professionals involved. The independent nature of the VCMS has been a key feature of the trial, although access to experienced, non-judgemental, veterinary advice has provided the necessary professional expertise when necessary."
More information about the VCMS and its processes can be found on the service’s dedicated website: https://www.vetmediation.co.uk/
To contact the service directly call 0345 040 5834 or enquiries@vetmediation.co.uk
The briefing highlighted to members of both Houses the vital role the veterinary profession plays in order to ensure that the veterinary resource in clinical practice, public health, government services, academia and research is appropriately considered and effectively used during Brexit negotiations.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), environment spokespeople for the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru, and other parliamentarians from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, joined Crossbenchers, senior civil servants and key stakeholders at the event.
BVA President Gudrun Ravetz delivered a speech highlighting the main asks from the association's Brexit and the veterinary profession report, which was developed through consultation with BVA members, devolved branches, BVA specialist divisions and other key stakeholders.
The report sets out 52 recommendations for the short, medium and long term across seven areas of public policy: veterinary workforce, animal health, animal welfare, food hygiene and safety, veterinary medicines, research and development, and trade.
Addressing attendees, Gudrun said: "We are a relatively small profession, but we are a diverse profession with far-reaching influence and impact in so many areas of political and public life.
"Last week, we were delighted to hear the Defra Secretary of State, speaking to the Today programme, rightly acknowledged the importance of EU vets to the UK economy; from food hygiene and safety, to monitoring disease outbreaks and facilitating trade. This is why BVA is calling on the Government to guarantee the working rights for non-UK EU vets and vet nurses currently working and studying in the UK at the existing level and with no time limit.
"As we progress with the Repeal Bill we are also calling on the Government to ensure we maintain animal health and welfare current standards – and prioritise them in all trade negotiations, so that high standards of animal health, welfare and food hygiene are a unique selling point for the UK. We can only make a success of Brexit if we harness our veterinary resource."
In his speech, RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May highlighted the three RCVS Brexit Principles as well as the findings from the College’s recent survey of non-UK EU vets working in the UK. Professor May also made a call for greater certainty from the Government on the status of EU citizens living and working as veterinary surgeons in the UK and for a substantial transition period to prevent potential veterinary workforce shortages, particularly in areas such as public health and food safety.
Professor May said: "Negotiations with our European partners will no doubt be lengthy and complex on all manner of issues that affect the veterinary sector. For everyone concerned, we join other voices in calling for a substantial transition period to any new order created. This will provide us with time to take stock, to understand the implications and to navigate a pathway that safeguards the interests of our sector and the RCVS is determined to work with all its stakeholders, in particular Government and yourselves [parliamentarians], to ensure that vital veterinary work gets done.
"Key to this will be meeting the need for high-quality, capable veterinary surgeons in all sectors. This can only be achieved in the short-term by emphasising the continued welcome and appreciation of all veterinary non-UK nationals working hard for this country, to encourage them to stay, and continued access to graduates of accredited schools from around the world, alongside increased training of UK nationals to meet our ever expanding veterinary needs."
The event was hosted by BVA Honorary Member and RCVS Past-President, Lord Trees MRCVS, who has sat on a number of House of Lords committees and subcommittees that consider and seek to influence the Government’s plans and policy-making during the UK’s exit from the EU.
Lord Trees closed the BVA and RCVS Brexit briefing by encouraging fellow Peers and MPs to capitalise on the evidence-based, science-led perspective that the veterinary profession is able to provide, particularly as Brexit discussions continue to develop.
Lord Gardiner has since publicly recognised the vital role of the veterinary profession, responding to a question in the House of Lords regarding the retention of skilled workers post-Brexit. In his role as Defra Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Gardiner said:
"I am most grateful to the noble Lord [Teverson] because I was at the BVA and RCVS reception yesterday, where I know a number of noble Lords were also in attendance. This is an important issue and an element of the negotiations that we want to deal with as promptly as possible. Yes, we do rely on and warmly welcome the support we have from EU national vets, who are hugely important to us."
Following two postponed hearings and a stayed Judicial Review, the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week accepted a wide-ranging 18-month programme of undertakings from a veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct, to address his "serious deficiencies" and "practice failings".
In October 2006, Mr Joseph Holmes MRCVS, of the Waltham Veterinary Clinic near Grimsby, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct for performing inappropriate and out-of-date veterinary treatment. Judgment was postponed for a period of two years subject to conditions that were put in writing and agreed by Mr Holmes.
The hearing resumed early, in February 2008, as Mr Holmes had deliberately ceased to comply with these conditions in the hope of forcing an appeal against the Committee's original finding of serious professional misconduct.
At the resumed hearing, Mr Holmes was told there was no legal framework for such an appeal (only against a sanction of suspension or removal from the Register) and that he would be subject to an 18-month period of compliance with the conditions set out at the original hearing; he was also invited to propose a programme of continuing professional development (CPD) and other undertakings for that period.
As Mr Holmes then applied for a Judicial Review of the Committee's decisions, this programme was never proposed. However, at the Royal Courts of Justice in October 2008, Mr Holmes' application for Judicial Review was stayed, by mutual consent, allowing for the DC hearing to be resumed and for him to offer undertakings for the Committee's consideration.
At last week's hearing, the Committee reminded itself of the original four findings of serious professional misconduct against Mr Holmes, which, in each case, it had stated would "be viewed by reasonable and competent members of the veterinary profession to be deplorable...and far below the standards that members of the public were entitled to expect."
In relation to these findings, the Committee was particularly concerned about his deficiencies in the fields of orthopaedics, oncology, radiology and therapeutics and considered that his future CPD should specifically address these areas.
Consequently, Mr Holmes agreed to an extensive range of undertakings over an 18-month period, including: participation in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (including two inspections); keeping abreast of changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct; 105 hours of standard and additional CPD; proofs of purchase of up-to-date text books and journal subscriptions; and six-monthly progress reports to the Chairman of the Committee.
Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Committee, said: "The Committee considers that the undertakings in the form that you have offered to it, if fulfilled by you, will serve to ensure that there will be no repetition of the conduct which resulted in our original findings and serve to ensure that animals and the public will not be put at risk.
"We trust that you will enter into these courses with the right mind-set and find that at their conclusion, these tasks have been of advantage to your practice."
The VetCompass database now holds millions of anonymised veterinary clinical records collected from primary practices and referral centres across the UK.
The records allow researchers to investigate a range and frequency of companion animal health problems and identify important risk factors for the most common disorders.
This research can then be used by veterinary professionals in clinical practice to help improve education and outcomes related to animal welfare.
Dan’s nomination included recognition for VetCompass operating under non-profit and open-access principles and embedding mandatory welfare pathways into all studies.
VetCompass was also recognised for having supported more than 140 research papers supporting broad welfare initiatives spanning breed-related health, extreme conformations, welfare scoring, specific disorders, oncology, disease surveillance, prescribing practices, and more.
Dan said: “I am truly humbled to receive this recognition from the RCVS.
"When I moved from clinical practice to the RVC 15 years ago to develop VetCompass as my PhD project, I could only dream of the untapped potential for practising veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to contribute to cutting edge science and welfare.
"And now the amazing VetCompass team at the RVC have made that aspiration to redefine the clinical evidence base on companion animal welfare a reality.
"I now need to reset even higher animal welfare dreams for the next 15 years.”
https://www.rvc.ac.uk/vetcompass/about/overview
The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.
After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.
In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.
Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.
On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.
Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.
Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.
After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.
She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.
She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.
In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour.
Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.
The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.
However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.
In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.
However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.
The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”
Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”
The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.
"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.
"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.
"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.
"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.
"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.
“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.
"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.
"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."
Although developed by the RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group ostensibly for use by Universities, EMS placement host practices and other educational establishments, it is recommended that all veterinary practices review the guidance.
The Guidance on Religious Clothing and Beliefs covers issues such as: balancing accommodations for religious dress with clinical considerations, and making accommodations for religious observance in academic timetabling and exams.
Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager said: “This document is about recognising that personal religious beliefs should be respected and accommodated as far as possible, while also not compromising professional responsibilities such as infection control, effective communication and the health and safety of individuals and their colleagues.
"Most importantly, it is about creating a welcoming and inclusive environment and ensuring that all students are able to express their religious identity whilst participating in educational and workplace settings.
“Although the guidance is not exhaustive, we would highly recommend that, where relevant, educators, practices and other veterinary workplaces review, adopt and adapt this guidance for their own settings to ensure that all members of the professions are welcomed and included.”
The Guidance on Religious Clothing is available to download from: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/guidance-on-religious-clothing-and-beliefs/
In next year's election, there are three places on Council for elected veterinary surgeons, with successful candidates serving four-year terms.
The nomination period runs until 5pm on Friday 31 January 2020. In order to stand, candidates need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs to have two nominators who need to be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer said: "As always, we would encourage those who are interested in having their say in some of the key debates in the regulatory sphere, such as our under care review, our policies around the impact of Brexit and our vision for new veterinary legislation, to become a candidate.
"RCVS Council is at its best when it encompasses a broad range of perspectives, experiences and knowledge, and so we encourage people from all areas of veterinary life and all levels of experience to put themselves forward and share their expertise and insight."
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil20.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council are welcome to contact the Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson (e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk) and the RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett (l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk) for more information about the role of the College and/or RCVS Council.
RCVS Council will also be holding its next public meeting on Thursday 23 January 2020, prior to the closure date for Council candidate nominations. Prospective candidates are welcome to attend the Council meeting as an observer. Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you wish to attend.
Nominations are now being sought for candidates to stand in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and Veterinary Nurse Council (VN Council) elections. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive said: "Last year, a record number of veterinary surgeons showed by seeking a seat on RCVS Council that they were willing to help regulate their profession. The RCVS needs the efforts of willing vets and VNs to ensure that their professions continue to be well regulated. If you've thought about standing 'someday' - why not make someday now?"
There are six seats due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
Each candidate needs to find two proposers; any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse (who is not presently on either Council) may propose one candidate for RCVS or VN Council respectively.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
For the first time this year the RCVS will organise a webinar-style hustings event for RCVS Council candidates during the election period. This will offer candidates the opportunity to outline his or her manifesto verbally in a live event, with an audio-only recording. It will not be compulsory for candidates to take part, although it is hoped that the event will enable candidates to make their points in a way that will engage a broader range of voters than the paper manifestos alone.
The RCVS Inspiration Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout his or her career.
The award is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals or groups or who have worked at a profession-wide level. It will recognise those who have gone 'above and beyond' what may normally be expected from a professional colleague or tutor.
The RCVS Impact Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has made a considerable impact that has affected the profession, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.
Chris Tufnell, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS, said: "I am very excited to be introducing these two new awards for those veterinary surgeons and nurses who go above-and-beyond the call of duty for the benefit of their profession, animals and society as a whole.
"I am keen to emphasise that these two new awards are relevant for veterinary professionals from all walks of life and any stage of their career – these are not life-time achievement awards but are for those making a tangible difference whether that’s in their practice, their region or across the country as a whole.
"If you know someone like this then I would strongly encourage you to find out more on our website and fill out a nomination form."
These two awards join four others made by the College:
Nominations for all six honours are now open. Nomination forms and guidance notes can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and any questions can be directed to Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
The deadline for making nominations is Friday 22 September 2017.
The Action Plan presents what the College is doing to tackle the issue and explains how collaboration, culture change, career development and leadership, among other things, could help with workforce shortages by improving retention of current members of the professions, encouraging more people to join, and making it easier for those who have left the professions to return.
The report lists seven main areas to be addressed:
The full list of actions, with context about what has fed into ambitions, can be found in the Action Plan which is downloadable at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, Junior Vice-President and Chair of the RCVS Advancement of the Professions Committee, said: “This is a very complex, broad and multi-faceted area of concern so the Action Plan has been a long time in the making to ensure that we adequately capture what needs doing and how, in order to enable us to work collaboratively with all veterinary organisations going forward.
"This is not a finished list, but gives all within the veterinary sector the ability to look at the key areas of work that need to be done and prioritise the ones that most suit their organisational needs."
The course explains what to expect if you’re a veterinary surgeon who has had a concern raised about them.
Clare Stringfellow, Case Manager in the RCVS Professional Conduct Team, said: "We appreciate that concerns can be very worrying, and we hope that, through this course, we can give vets and nurses a better understanding of the process and how to obtain additional support.
“The course will allow participants to understand the different stages involved and the key activities that happen at each point, as well as detailing some of the common concerns we receive and how these are dealt with.”
The CPD course, which includes film and audio content, takes about 30 minutes to complete.
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
The roles were confirmed by Buckingham Palace this month as part of a recent review of royal patronages.
RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS said: “We are delighted that His Majesty the King is our new Royal Patron, continuing his mother’s support for the veterinary professions.
“We know that His Majesty is a keen advocate for animal health and welfare, the environment and biodiversity, and so his interests align very much with ours in areas such as sustainability, tackling antimicrobial resistance, and in supporting veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to best meet their professional standards.
British Veterinary Association President Dr. Anna Judson said: “We’re honoured to welcome His Majesty King Charles as our Patron.
"This ongoing royal commitment recognises the vital contribution vets make to animal welfare and their critical role in society, from taking care of the nation’s pets through to ensuring animal welfare in food production, public health and international trade.
"On behalf of our members, we’d like to thank His Majesty for his commitment to BVA, our profession and the work we do.”
The nomination period runs up until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2017. In order to stand, candidates need to submit a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs two nominators who are veterinary surgeons on the College’s Register but who are not current RCVS Council members.
Dr Chris Tufnell, RCVS President, said: "As someone who has been a member of Council since 2009 I can honestly say that the discussions you have and the decisions you make through both Council and its various committees do have a tangible impact on the future of the profession.
"For example, in my relatively short time as a Council member I have been involved in the review of specialisation in the profession and the setting up of Advanced Practitioner status, the championing of primary care as a valuable discipline in its own right and overseen the delivery of an ambitious Strategic Plan through my position on the Operational Board.
"These are all areas that I never imagined I’d be able to influence from my position as a practising vet in general practice. So, if you are interested in having a say in issues as varied as CPD policy and how we respond to the challenges and opportunities of Brexit, then please put yourself forward for Council."
Prospective candidates are invited to attend a ‘Meet the RCVS Day’ at the College’s offices in Belgravia House, London, on Wednesday 23 November 2016 where they will have the opportunity to talk to RCVS President Chris Tufnell and find out more about the role of the College, its Councils and its committees.
Those interested in attending should contact Emma Lockley, RCVS Events Officer, on e.lockley@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773. Reasonable expenses for travel will be reimbursed.
The election period starts around mid-March and will run until 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017. Ballot papers will be sent to veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote in the week commencing Monday 13 March 2017.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil17.
The redesign includes an overhaul of the layout, structure and navigation of all the College’s websites: Professionals, Animal Owners, Find a Vet and RCVS Knowledge.
Some of the main changes are:
Ian Holloway, Head of Communications, said: "We’re delighted to be launching our new-look site today and hope all the improvements we’ve incorporated will make using the site a much better experience for veterinary professionals and animal owners alike.
"Working closely with our website provider, NetXtra, over the past nine months, we’ve been able to develop a new-look site with vastly improved design, structure and navigation, whilst avoiding the major expense of building a completely new website from scratch.
"We’re very grateful to them, and to all those vets, vet nurses and members of the public who have helped us with user-testing and content mapping to improve the site as much as possible for everyone who uses it."
Anyone with any comments or feedback about the new-look site is invited to send it to communications@rcvs.org.uk.
The six-floor building, which the College bought for £22.3m in 2022, was originally a warehouse.
Over the years it has been home to a range of businesses from leather manufacturers and papers makers to lithographic plate makers and shoe upping manufacturers, before becoming an office space.
The building remained tenanted until 2024, when £5.8m worth of renovation work to convert the building into a space suitable for a royal college began.
In addition to the working areas for RCVS and RCVS Knowledge staff, the building also has:
RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett, said: “After a few years in a rented co-working office space, we’re delighted to have moved into our new home, designed not only to meet the needs of College staff, but to support the broader ambitions of the RCVS as a whole.
“Our new strategic plan has collaboration at its heart – the idea of being stronger through working together – and our new building will help us to achieve that.
“Whether attending events, exploring RCVS Knowledge’s archives, using the members' area and meeting rooms, or benefitting from the outputs that the new space enables, the building has been developed with members and associates as a central focus.”
RCVS President, Linda Belton, added: "It’s great to see what’s been achieved through this project and my thanks go to the team who have managed the refurbishment and move.
“The new premises are equipped to ensure that the voice of the veterinary professions remains integral in assuring animal health, welfare, and public health in the UK, allowing for those all-important stakeholder conversations essential to setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.
“We look forward to welcoming members, associates, students and stakeholders alike in the coming months and years.”
Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.
The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.
At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.
However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application.
The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017.
"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."
Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing.
Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."
Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
The Fellowship was relaunched earlier this year with three new routes to entry and a greater focus on giving veterinary surgeons from all parts of the profession the opportunity to become an RCVS Fellow. In total over 50 people applied to become a Fellow through one of the three routes – Meritorious Contribution to Knowledge, Meritorious Contribution to Clinical Practice and Meritorious Contribution to the Profession – of whom 44 were successful.
Those who were successful were honoured at the College’s inaugural annual Fellowship Day on Wednesday 19 October were they received their certificates of Fellowship from RCVS President Chris Tufnell.
Nick Bacon chairs the Fellowship Board which, through its various Credential Panels, assesses each of the Fellowship applications. He said: "The recent Fellowship Day was a great success and celebrated the contributions of many colleagues who had a wide range of veterinary careers and expertise.
"I hope to see many similar days over the coming years and would encourage experienced veterinary surgeons who feel they have made a significant contribution to our profession to apply to become a Fellow – whether you are from teaching, research, industry or clinical practice."
Details of how to apply are on the College’s website at www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship. Those who are interested in applying can also contact Duncan Ash, Senior Education Officer, for further details on d.ash@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0703.
The RCVS has called for comments on a Concept Note which considers how the Practice Standards Scheme might develop in the future.
The Scheme is administered by the RCVS and the detailed Standards are decided in consultation with the Practice Standards Group (PSG), which includes representatives from all of the key veterinary organisations.
The PSG is considering the future direction of the Scheme as part of the second five-year review that has been undertaken - the first resulted in a new Manual and Standards in 2010.
The proposal this time is to move to a more modular approach, with greater flexibility and an increased focus on behaviours. The proposals also aim to address some of the perceived shortcomings of the Scheme, for example, that it is a 'box-ticking' exercise; that the Scheme puts too much emphasis on paperwork requirements; and, that it is inflexible, particularly at Hospital level, meaning that to qualify, practices would have to purchase expensive equipment that they would never use.
PSG Chairman, Peter Jinman said: "Although the fundamental aim of the Scheme remains to raise and maintain high standards, the PSG recognises that it's important to address criticisms that may be acting as barriers to new members joining.
"It is hoped that changes can also be made that will provide a pathway for existing members to attain higher, more meaningful standards, which are directly relevant to animal care."
The Concept Note is available on www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations, and feedback should be sent to Practice Standards Scheme Manager Eleanor Ferguson, at e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk, or to a Practice Standards Group member (as outlined in the Concept Note), by 20 December 2012.
This feedback will inform the development of more detailed proposals, which will be put out to full consultation in due course.