David, who is Head of Clinical Intelligence at Vets Now, came in eighth place with 1,756 votes in this year’s RCVS Council elections.
The place was originally offered to Dr Tom Witte, who came in seventh place. However, due to a change in personal circumstances, he decided not to accept.
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "The loss of such a young, talented and respected Council member as Sarah has been difficult to come to terms with and she is greatly missed by her fellow Council members and others amongst the profession.
"It is also important to recognise that the New Year will bring us fresh challenges and opportunities and we will face them best with a full complement of Council members. Therefore, I am delighted that David will be joining Council from January and is able to attend his first Council meeting, which will be held in committee, with us on Thursday 18 January.
"The circumstances under which David will be joining us have been extremely sad, but I am sure he will be an excellent addition to our team and I look forward to working with him."
More information about David Leicester, including his candidate biography and manifesto, can be found in the Council election booklet sent out earlier this year and available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. A video of David talking about what he would bring to RCVS Council can also be found on the College’s YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
Seven veterinary surgeons who took their final assessments at the University of Liverpool on 6 September have become the first to receive the postgraduate RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice with equine designations.
Dr Mark Holmes, a member of the RCVS sub-committee for the CertAVP who observed the assessments at Liverpool said: "I was very impressed by the quality of all the candidates and the diligence of the examination process.
"It is clear that candidates putting themselves forward for 'named' certificates have demonstrated particular interest in their chosen fields and place considerable value on passing their synoptic examination."
The modular certificates were introduced in 2007 to be a more flexible replacement for the old-style postgraduate certificates. Vets can now choose from 79 subject modules, with RCVS-accredited assessments offered by a range of universities. These institutions may also offer associated courses which vets can take to support their studies, although candidates are free to choose where and how they wish to study.
To build their credits into the full CertAVP qualification candidates must first enrol with the RCVS, which keeps a record of modules achieved. Candidates need to take two compulsory modules, and several of a range of optional modules, within ten years in order to receive the award. Candidates aiming for a designated award must choose specific modules from amongst the options, and additionally pass an overarching 'synoptic' assessment.
For more information about the individual modules and the qualification as a whole, prospective candidates can visit www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.
The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:
The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.
At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.
Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.
In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.
Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.
In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.
During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.
In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.
In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.
The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.
The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.
The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.
In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.
Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."
The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.
Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."
The organisations made a joint submission to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) as part of its review into the Shortage Occupation List which began in autumn 2018 and will report back in spring 2019.
The BVA and the RCVS had previously made calls for the profession to be added to the list in 2017 when the MAC held a call for evidence on the impact of the UK's exit from the EU on various professions. The latest submission is a development on this previous submission, focused on the need for the post-Brexit immigration system to recognise the issues affecting the veterinary workforce, which is already under-capacity, and reiterating its importance in areas such as public health, food safety, disease surveillance and control, education, research, clinical practice and animal welfare.
The submission details how the demand for veterinary services does not currently match supply and that the UK is therefore reliant on overseas registrants, particularly from the rest of the EU, who currently make up around 50% of new registrants in a given year.
The RCVS and BVA add that, in the post-Brexit immigration system, this reliance on overseas vets needs to be recognised by adding veterinary surgeons to the Shortage Occupation List, thus reducing the immigration requirements needed for overseas veterinary surgeons to live and work in the UK and streamlining the application process for employers.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "We wanted to use this submission as an opportunity to reiterate the circumstances currently facing the profession, particularly in light of the uncertainties around the UK’s exit from the EU and the impact this could have on the supply of veterinary workforce from the rest of the EU, which is crucially important in a number of areas. We need, therefore, for veterinary surgeons to be immediately added back to the list so that we can ensure that this flow of workforce continues and that animal health and welfare is protected.
"In the meantime we are continuing to work with BVA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to look at how we can develop ‘home-grown’ veterinary capacity in the UK through expanding the UK veterinary education sector, increasing retention rates within the profession, and looking at how the veterinary team could be reformed to allow allied professionals, such as veterinary nurses, to take on extra tasks and free up veterinary time. However, these are all long-term projects and not quick fixes to the issues facing the profession."
As well as calling for a future immigration system to prioritise the veterinary profession, RCVS and BVA also recommend that veterinary employers be exempt from the Immigration Skills Charge to avoid additional barriers or burdens to the employment of overseas vets and recommend that there is no minimum earning cap for veterinary surgeons applying for work visas, on the basis that veterinary surgeons are "skilled professionals who may choose to work in the UK for reasons other than remuneration".
Simon Doherty, BVA President, said: "It is in MAC’s gift to reinstate vets on the Shortage Occupation List and this evidence makes a strong case for it to happen as quickly as possible.
"Vets deliver multiple benefits to animal health and welfare, public health and food safety, and they have a crucial role to play in future trade deals and keeping standards and confidence in UK exports high. The profession is also indebted to a high proportion of skilled EU vets who have chosen to make the UK their home and place of work.
"With this in mind, the future immigration system must be geared around preserving veterinary capacity rather than introducing new layers of bureaucracy or restrictions on flexible movement between roles. We have raised concerns that extending the Immigration Skills Charge to EU workers would hit some areas of the workforce disproportionately hard, particularly the abattoir industry where 95 per cent of Official Veterinarians hail from overseas.
"With uncertain times ahead and demand for some veterinary services predicted to spiral after Brexit, it has never been more pressing to take decisive action to safeguard against shortfalls in capacity and give a vital vote of confidence in the veterinary workforce."
To read the full submission, visit https://www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/joint-rcvs-and-bva-submission-to-migration-advisory-committee/
Mr Georgescu faced three sets of charges:
The first was that in April 2024 at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to driving a car when the proportion of the controlled substance Benzoylecgonine (the main metabolite of cocaine) exceeded the specified limit contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act.
He was disqualified from driving for 20 months, fined £634, ordered to pay £254 victim surcharge and £150 costs.
The second and third charges were that he was misleading and/or dishonest with the RCVS when he was asked to provide information about the circumstances leading to his conviction.
In correspondence with the College, he claimed that the incident happened on his day off, when he was in fact due to work that day.
He also submitted – or allowed to be submitted – a false staff rota for the day of his arrest.
The Disciplinary Committee found the charges against Mr Georgescu proven on the basis of the certificate of conviction and his admission, prior to the hearing, that he had given false information.
The Committee then considered whether the three charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered the fact that Mr Georgescu was driving, and intending to work, while he was seven times over the prescribed proportion of Benzoylecgonine allowed to be in in his bloodstream.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “With regard to the impact this conduct would have on right thinking members of the public, Dr Georgescu himself said, when cross examined, that were he standing in the shoes of an owner of an animal he was going to treat that day with the knowledge that he had in his blood more than 7 times the prescribed limit of a prohibited drug he “would not be comfortable for sure” and would cause such persons to “lose trust”.
“Having regard to the above facts and matters the Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the facts relevant to his commission of the offence in Charge 1 were so serious and presented such prospective risks to other road users that it renders the respondent unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.”
Charges 2 and 3 were considered together, with the Committee again finding serious professional misconduct on the basis that Mr Georgescu had set out to lie to the RCVS and had continued and repeated the lie for a period of six months.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating features in his conduct including the fact it was premeditated, entailed sustained and repeated dishonesty, involved wilful disregard for the role of the RCVS as the veterinary regulator and that admissions were only made when he realised he couldn’t sustain his falsehoods any longer.
Finally, having found that all charges were proven and amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee decided that suspending Mr Georgescu from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons would be adequate to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
Paul Morris added: “The misconduct of the respondent is serious but his misconduct falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register.
"He does have insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and there is, in the judgement of the Committee, no significant risk of repeat misleading behaviour.
"The Committee also considers that the respondent will be fit to return to practice after the period of suspension in question.
“The Committee did consider striking the respondent from the Register but determined that this sanction would be unduly punitive and deprive the public and the profession of an otherwise competent veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee has reflected carefully on the question of how long the period of suspension should be and has determined that it should be a period which is not so long that it will result in the loss of the respondent to the profession which he professes to love and in which his referees assert he is a capable and caring veterinary surgeon.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS has published a video in which the new President Neil Smith outlines his objectives for the year ahead.
In the video, Neil says the presidential task he most looks forward to is admitting new veterinary surgeons and nurses to the Register. There have been 740 registrations made as part of graduation ceremonies across the UK's seven veterinary schools this summer.
Neil said: "It's a great privilege to welcome these new graduates to the College. Graduation represents a culmination of such a long period of hard work - supported by family, friends and vet school staff. It's also the start of what I hope will be satisfying lifelong careers in a profession that is proud to keep animal health and welfare at its heart.
"I hope that this latest generation of veterinary surgeons will benefit from the broad range of career opportunities available, just as the animal-owning public will benefit from their skills and knowledge."
On graduation, all new veterinary surgeons received a memory stick from the College, which included a Guide for New Members, the Code of Professional Conduct, CPD Record Card, information about the Professional Development Phase, which is mandatory for all new graduates working in clinical practice, and other College publications. If any new graduate did not receive their memory stick, they should contact membership@rcvs.org.uk.
RCVS Council agreed, in principle, to the sale of Belgravia House and for the College and its London-based staff to move to different premises at its November meeting.
The sale of the building and the move will be overseen by the College’s Estate Strategy Project Board headed by former RCVS President Barry Johnson and including current and former RCVS Council members and RCVS staff.
The RCVS has been based at its current premises in 62-64 Horseferry Road for 25 years, but says it now needs more up-to-date and modern facilities to accommodate a projected increase in the number of staff.
The College says it has considered a number of alternatives, including expanding the current premises by adding or expanding floors. However, due to the fact that the building is in a conservation area, it has become clear that any such expansions would be unlikely to get planning permission from Westminster Council.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "For a number of years it has become apparent that it is fast approaching the time at which our current premises will no longer be fit for purpose due to an increase in the number of RCVS staff – something that is projected to continue in the future – the ongoing need to use the building for Disciplinary Hearings, which take over the lion’s share of available meeting space, and the need for better and more modern facilities.
"Even putting our need for increased space on one side, Belgravia House requires major refurbishment in key areas such as air-conditioning and lifts, which would require staff to vacate the premises for up to 18 months, which would be costly and disruptive.
"We are therefore pleased that Council has recognised the need for the College to move somewhere that better reflects our needs and, over the coming months, we will be exploring a number of different options for new premises.
"In parallel to this we have put out an invitation to tender for agents to manage the sale of the building. The plan is for the arrangement to include lease-back so that we have time to find a suitable premises and enabling us to act quickly when we do."
Any organisations that are interested in putting forward a tender to manage the sale of the building should contact Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, on 020 7202 0724. Responses to tender are required by 30 November 2018.
Photo: Copyright Google 2018
They include the launch of the RCVS Academy, reforms to the RCVS concerns investigation process, the publication of the Workforce Action Plan and guidance for universities on supporting Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic veterinary students, ongoing work on new under care guidance, the development of new sustainability standards for the Practice Standards Scheme, and the purchase of the future headquarters for the RCVS.
The report also contains an update from the College’s charity partner RCVS Knowledge, details of RCVS financial management policies, and an independent auditor’s report on the College.
The Annual Report and Financial Statements will be formally adopted by RCVS Council at its Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July at One Great George Street.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses are able to submit questions about the Annual Report.
The College says that subject to time, submitted questions will be answered by the College on the day, or followed up in writing after the event.
Questions should be emailed to Deborah Rowlanes, RCVS Events Manager, on d.rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk no later than 5pm on Tuesday 4th July.
If you want to attend, register at: www.rcvs.org.uk/events.
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
Dr Butterworth’s practice was a member of TBAS, a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded (Defra) project administered by Farmcare Solutions Ltd which provides advice to eligible farmers via its veterinary partners.
The farm to which the charges relate to was owned by Dr Bexon’s partner. It had no cattle on-site (though was still eligible for the TBAS).
Dr Butterworth was charged with signing a TBAS visit report, in which he was named as the TBAS advisor, relating to a visit to the farm in February 2023 which had, in fact, not taken place and then subsequently signed a report about a follow-up visit in July 2023 which also hadn’t taken place.
Dr Bexon was charged with signing the same two false reports as a representative of the farm in question.
Both faced a secondary charge that their actions were dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures relating to public health and animal welfare.
Dr Butterworth and Dr Bexon admitted all the charges against them and that these charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that their actions amounted to serious professional misconduct in that they had breached three of the five key principles in the Code of Professional Conduct relating to: honesty and integrity; client confidentiality and trust; and professional accountability.
The Committee also found that the actions of both veterinary surgeons had breached the ’10 principles of certification’ outlined in the supporting guidance to the Code.
Considering Mr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee found that there were a number of aggravating factors including: the premeditated nature of the conduct as he was the driving force behind the deceit, the fact there was financial gain as his practice would have been paid for the non-existent visits, breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and abuse of professional position as a TBAS advisor.
For Dr Bexon the aggravating factors were breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and the fact that, as a TBAS advisor, she should have known that physical visits to farms within the scheme were mandatory.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered both respondents’ conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in the profession and the TBAS process.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would be deeply troubled that registered veterinary surgeons had behaved in this way.”
At the hearing the Committee received a large number of positive testimonials for Dr Butterworth, including three given directly to the Committee – one from a veterinary surgeon colleague and two from farmer clients.
The Committee also considered his lack of previous disciplinary history and otherwise unblemished career, open and frank admissions at an early stage, insight into his misconduct, genuine remorse and positive reflection, efforts to avoid a repetition of behaviours and evidence of a more mature approach to management, lapse of time since the incident.
Taking everything into account the Committee decided reprimanding Dr Butterworth and warning him with regard to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate response.
Paul added: “The Committee did give serious consideration to suspending Dr Butterworth’s registration with the College.
"Such a sanction would have sent out a clear message that this sort of behaviour is absolutely not to be tolerated.
"However, in light of the extensive mitigation, his honesty and significant insight throughout these proceedings and the unlikeliness of behaviour of this type ever being repeated, the Committee considered the public would not be best served by suspending an otherwise exemplary veterinary surgeon and that such a sanction would be disproportionate and punitive.”
"In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals and would satisfy the public interest.
"The Committee was persuaded that Dr Butterworth would be most unlikely to make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if he were allowed to continue to practise.”
The Committee also received a significant number of positive testimonials for Dr Bexon, with three veterinary surgeon colleagues giving oral evidence to the Committee.
The Committee also considered her lack of disciplinary history and hitherto unblemished career, her open and frank admissions, her insight, remorse and positive reflections, her efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviours and the lapse of time since the event.
Taking everything into account, the Committee decided to reprimand Dr Bexon.
Paul said: “This was not a case where she had been motivated by any financial gain.
"Indeed, everything the Committee had read and heard about her indicated the opposite and furthermore, it was apparent that she had nothing to gain by her actions beyond satisfying Dr Butterworth.
"As already stated, the Committee acknowledged that the role played by Dr Bexon was less than that played by Dr Butterworth.
"Moreover, there was a power imbalance at play and Dr Butterworth was able to take advantage of, albeit unknowingly, Dr Bexon’s lack of self-confidence.”
"The Committee has already indicated that it believed the likelihood of her repeating such behaviour to be non-existent.
"Her significant insight, together with the reflection and remedial work she has undertaken are as much as any person could do.
"She had truly learnt her lesson in the harshest of ways.
"In the Committee’s view she did not represent any risk to animals or the public, indeed quite the contrary as she is a very able vet, in high demand by her clients.”
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 Disciplinary Committee heard that Miss Oakes had signed a Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Veterinary Surgeons Residential Kennel Inspection Form which indicated that there were 55 greyhounds in the kennel, when there were in fact more; that she had stated that the kennels were in an acceptable condition, when they were in fact not; and that she knew the form was inaccurate and/or was dishonest in relation to what she had indicated on the form.
The kennels in question, Rough Cottage, were owned by Louise Eccles and her husband, Rod Eccles. Mrs Eccles was licensed by GBGB as a trainer, allowing her to train and race greyhounds and making the kennels accountable to inspections by veterinary surgeons.
At the time of the form in question, Miss Oakes had been attending Rough Cottage for about a year-and-a-half on a monthly basis, up through August 2016. At that point, on or around 1 August 2016, Mrs Eccles had left Rough Cottage for personal reasons.
Miss Oakes subsequently visited the premises on 14 August 2016 along with Amanda Gething of Northern Greyhound Rescue, when she learned that rather than there being 55 dogs, there were more than 80.
On 16 August, she and Amanda Gething returned to Rough Cottage with Lucille Cavadino, from Lancky Dogs, a greyhound rescue organisation. They became aware of the existence of kennels on the premises that were not of acceptable standard, but Miss Oakes found that the dogs housed in these kennels were fit and healthy.
Miss Oakes also spoke to Mr Eccles around this time, and although he had plans to rehouse some of the dogs she was concerned that he might change his mind. Miss Oakes took the decision to complete and sign the kennel inspection form that Mr Eccles had handed to her, knowing that the details contained therein were incorrect. She stated that the reason that she did this was to appease Mr Eccles so that he would not hinder the plans to remove and rehouse the dogs. She admitted to the area GBGB Stipendiary Steward that she had signed the form and that it contained incorrect information.
At the beginning of the hearing Miss Oakes admitted all the charges except for the final one, namely that she had been dishonest about what she had indicated on the form. When she gave evidence during the hearing, however, she admitted that she had been dishonest and so all charges were found proved.
The Committee then turned to deciding whether these charges, having been found proven, would result in a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect against Miss Oakes. The Committee considered her motives in signing the form were to try and safeguard animal welfare, but considered that she was misguided in how she chose to achieve that aim. The Committee, therefore, found that signing a form that is known to be misleading or inaccurate is in definite breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, and concluded that her conduct constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When considering a suitable sanction, the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors, including some 62 testimonials that were submitted in favour of Miss Oakes, and the fact that she believed she was acting in the best interests of the animals’ welfare.
Chitra Karve, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "So far as mitigating factors are concerned, the Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s motivation for what she did was governed by her overwhelming wish to promote the health or welfare of the greyhounds at Rough Cottage.
"The Committee is satisfied that no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal occurred in this case. There was no financial gain to the Respondent and the Committee has been told that she charged no fee for her extensive efforts in organising or assisting with the removal and rehousing of the greyhounds from Rough Cottage.
"The Committee considers that this was a single and isolated incident and that the risks of similar behaviour being repeated in the future are low."
Chitra added: "The Committee has decided that it will be sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, for the Respondent to be given a formal warning as to her future conduct."
The Veterinary Nurses Council of the RCVS is seeking nominations from veterinary surgeons and VNs for its Golden Jubilee award by 8 May 2012.
The award recognises an exceptional contribution made to the veterinary nursing profession and/or a positive contribution to animal welfare. The Golden Jubilee award was inaugurated to mark the 50th anniversary of veterinary nurse training, in 2011, and the first award was presented to Jean Turner in 2011 for her lifetime contribution to veterinary nursing.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the VN Council said: "This is a prestigious award and a great opportunity to recognise someone who has made a positive impact on our profession.
"VN Council feels strongly that the award should be accessible to a wide spectrum of individuals, so nominees could come from veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons involved in clinical practice, research, teaching or politics - in fact, any aspect of veterinary nursing."
Both veterinary surgeons and VNs are eligible to make nominations, or to be nominated for the Golden Jubilee award; nominations should be received by 8 May 2012. More information, together with the nomination form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jubileeaward.
The award will be presented at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.
Dr Crawford sent the email to his client, Mrs X, on 15 July 2014, the day on which Mrs X’s horse was due for insemination using horse semen supplied from a horse in Germany. However, the semen had arrived without the Intra Trade Certificate, a requirement for intra-EU inseminations, and so Dr Crawford proceeded to contact the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for alternative authorisation.
Just after 4:30pm on that day, Mrs X received a text from Dr Crawford advising her that he had received authorisation from the AHVLA, and would forward to Mrs X the AHVLA authorisation email. It later transpired that that the email had in fact been fabricated by Dr Crawford using an email that he had previously received from the AHVLA regarding another matter.
Dr Crawford faced the following charges:
Fabricating an e-mail purporting to be from the veterinary officer at the AVHLA, authorising use of semen from a horse for insemination, when in fact he had not received such authorisation.
Dishonesty in relation to the e-mail described above.
His conduct gave rise to spread of infectious disease which had the potential to affect equine animal health and welfare in the region.
Dr Crawford admitted the first two charges, but denied that his actions had given rise to the risk of disease.
The Committee found the first two charges proved, and moved on to determine the facts of the third charge. They took into account that Dr Crawford had received verbal confirmation that the semen was safe, and that the health papers had been stamped accordingly. He had not, however, seen a copy of this certificate and so there was no guarantee that the semen was safe to use at the time he sent the fabricated email. On consideration of the facts, the Committee found this charge proved, as Mrs X’s mare could have been infected and subsequently could have adversely affected equine animal health and welfare in the region.
They also found that his entire course of action had fallen far short of what is expected of a veterinary surgeon, and that it amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When determining sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely the risk of injury to animals, an element of pre-meditation, a disregard for the role of the AHVLA, impersonating a fellow veterinary surgeon, and intending to deceive a veterinary surgeon as well as a member of the public.
It did also, however, take into account the mitigating factors – that there was no injury to the animal, and that it was a single isolated incident from which Dr Crawford did not stand to make any financial gain.
The Committee therefore decided to order the Registrar to suspend Dr Crawford’s registration for 12 months.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Crawford from the Register. However, in light of the significant mitigation in this case, the fact that this was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career, together with his acceptance from the outset that he had been dishonest and his assurance that he would never behave in this way again, the Committee decided that in all the circumstances to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate."
Dr Crawford can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council within 28 days of being notified of the Disciplinary Committee's decision.