The consultation, which was held by the College early in 2017, asked for the views of veterinary surgeons and nurses, animal owners, and stakeholders on the use of telemedicine in veterinary clinical practice.
The consultation was designed to help identify potential risks associated with telemedicine, identify areas where it may help address the needs of both clinicians and the public, and support the potential development of new professional standards and guidance.
The online survey of veterinary professionals received 1,230 responses, while the public consultation received 229 responses and the survey of organisations/stakeholders received eight responses.
The headline question asked of veterinary professionals was whether RCVS 'supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct' should be amended to allow remote examination to take the place of physical examination in certain circumstances. 41% said 'Yes', 40% said 'No' and 18% were unsure.
Veterinary professionals and organisations were then asked a series of questions in order to establish how they rated the risk associated with telemedicine according to activity type, practice type, clinical sign or syndrome, mode of technology, and familiarity with client, animal or environment.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority felt that providing just general advice presented a low risk. At the other end of the scale, most felt that the use of telemedicine to diagnose disease or injury would be either 'high risk', or 'not appropriate at all'.
Likewise, the majority said the risks would be low or medium where the client and environment were known and the animal seen before, for the same problem. By contrast, the majority said telemedicine would be either 'high risk' or 'not appropriate at all' when the client, animal and environment were all unknown.
When asked whether the current definition of 'under care' should be extended to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines where there has been no physical examination of the animal, 69% said 'No', 16% said 'Yes' and 15% were unsure.
However, when asked whether certain types of veterinary medicines should be able to be prescribed without a physical examination of the animal, the majority of respondents to the professional survey (52%) were in favour.
The results of the consultation were first considered at a special meeting of the Standards Committee in August 2017, where it was noted how the consultation had revealed significant confusion around current supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and that, at a minimum, clarification as to what was currently permissible was needed.
The Committee determined a key issue going forward was whether to change the Supporting Guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct regarding 'under care' to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V medicines based on telemedicine alone.
Given the complex nature of the issues and the wide-ranging implications, the Standards Committee presented a range of options for amending RCVS Guidance to RCVS Council at its meeting in November 2017. After discussion, Council asked the Standards Committee to continue their review and to present more detailed proposals to Council regarding the future of telemedicine in clinical veterinary practice.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership and Innovation, said: "We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation – although Council has not yet made any firm decisions, we felt it would be useful to share our research so far.
"The use of telemedicine is growing rapidly in human healthcare and it is only right the RCVS assesses the opportunities it could bring to improve access to veterinary services. It is critical, however, that we understand the issues it presents 'at the coal face' and consider all the available evidence before making any changes to our Guidance. The RCVS should ensure its regulatory framework fosters innovation and maximises the opportunities to improve the quality, efficacy and accessibility of veterinary services, whilst at the same time protecting animal health and welfare."
The Standards Committee will meet again in April 2018 to take further evidence and develop proposals to take the issue forward.
Meanwhile, the full summary is available on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/telemeds-summary/.
At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.
There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.
The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.
Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:
Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.
The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.
Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.
"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.
"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.
"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.
"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”
“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”
In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.
The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.
Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.
"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.
"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.
"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.
“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.
"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The survey has been sent to 984 veterinary surgeons who graduated from one of the UK’s eight vet schools in 2020 to measure how the pandemic may have affected graduates’ employment prospects, clinical & non-clinical skills, and resilience in the workplace.
The survey has a deadline date of Wednesday 16 December 2020 and all responses to it will remain anonymous while helping to inform future policy on graduate support.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We know that the coronavirus pandemic has had a disruptive impact on the final stages of education for the 2020 cohort, in terms of clinical placements for extra-mural studies as well as teaching. This survey aims to gauge whether this has, in turn, had a deleterious impact on their confidence with both clinical and non-clinical skills as well as their resilience, for example, in asking for help and support from colleagues, managing their time effectively, and managing complex and stressful situations.
“Employment is another area of concern and in any typical year almost all graduate vets would find work or go on to further study after their veterinary degree had finished. Some anecdotal reports have suggested a perceived or real change to employment prospects this year and so we are hoping to gather some further data to see if there has been a discernible impact on this cohort.
“We are mindful that the pandemic is having a significant impact on all students and we are keen to understand how best we can support them moving forward. I would strongly encourage those graduates who have received the survey, which should only take around 10 minutes to complete, to take part, because the results will help the RCVS and the VSC inform future policies on how we can better support veterinary graduates in 2021 and subsequent years.”
Any graduates who have not received the survey or require further information can contact the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk.
The Practice Standards Scheme was launched in 2005 and then relaunched in 2015 to better recognise and reward how practices use their resources to create a positive outcome for patients and clients.
The modules and awards for all species groups (small animals, farm animal, and equine) have now been updated and a summary of the changes can be found at the end of each set of the respective modules.
Pam Mosedale, Lead Assessor, said: "These updates are part of our continuous efforts to ensure we have a flexible PSS, one that can respond to feedback and constantly reflect the realities of everyday practice.
"We would encourage all PSS-accredited practices to familiarise themselves with the updated modules, especially if they have an accreditation or awards assessment in the near future."
To view the updates, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/ and download the appropriate 'related document' (v1.2)
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
The Legislative Reform Consultation took place between November 2020 and April 2021 and asked members of the veterinary profession and the public to give their responses to a package of proposals for future veterinary legislation designed to enhance the role of veterinary nurses, modernise RCVS registration, lead to a modern fitness to practise regime, and ensure the regulation of veterinary practices.
The proposals represent the biggest legislative reform since the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.
In total the consultation received 1,330 responses, of which 714 (54%) were from veterinary surgeons, 335 (25%) from veterinary nurses, 93 (7%) from veterinary paraprofessionals, 73 (5%) from student veterinary nurses, 58 (4%) from members of the public, 40 (3%) from veterinary and industry organisations, including representative bodies, and the remainder from veterinary students and veterinary practice managers.
An analysis of the consultation responses covering each of the five core areas and their individual recommendations can be found in the final report, which is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
After considering this report, Council voted by a majority to accept the recommendations, meaning that they are now formally adopted as RCVS policy and will form the basis for discussions on the need for new legislation with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
Professor Stephen May has chaired the Legislation Working Party that developed the proposal since its inception in 2017 when he was RCVS President. He said: “We are very grateful to those individuals and organisations who took the time to complete this very important consultation on recommendations for the future legislative framework for the professions. We also appreciate the candour of those who were unsure about or opposed to the recommendations.
“When the Legislation Working Party met to consider the responses and the report, it decided that, while no substantive changes needed to be made to the principle-based recommendations, the points raised both against and in favour of individual recommendations gave us important material for additional consideration, and food for thought as to how any detailed proposals would be implemented once enabling legislation is in place.
“We look forward to submitting these recommendations to Defra formally, with a view to them becoming, in time, a bill put before Parliament to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In so doing, this would establish a modern, flexible and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make sure the regulatory structure for the veterinary professions is fit for purpose for decades to come.”
As well as the main report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, RCVS Council also considered a series of interim measures that would be in line with the overall aims of future legislative changes, but which could be implemented without primary legislation.
The proposed interim measures included:
Council members voted on each of these interim measures on an individual basis – with the mini-PICs and the Charter Case Protocol being accepted by majority vote.
However, Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof at this time, citing a number of concerns about the potential impact of it being implemented under the current concerns investigation and disciplinary procedures. Similar concerns had been put forward by many of those who responded to the consultation itself.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The approved procedural changes will, I believe, lead to a significant improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of our disciplinary processes. The Charter Case Protocol will mean that, in suitable cases where a finding of serious professional misconduct at a full disciplinary hearing would likely only lead to a reprimand or to no further action being taken, a more proportionate and less time-consuming and expensive means of resolving cases will be available. However, it will still reflect the seriousness of the matters and continue to protect the public interest, welfare and the reputation of the profession.
“Furthermore, by phasing out the Case Examiner Group stage and instead referring concerns to ‘mini’ PICs, which will decide if the threshold of serious professional misconduct has been met, it will make our concerns investigation processes clearer and more streamlined and therefore more efficient. We look forward to publishing further details on both of these changes in due course.
“Although Council members accepted that a change of the standard of proof would be an integral part of introducing a modern fitness to practise (FTP) regime as part of any future legislation, they had significant concerns about the ‘interim’ recommendation to introduce it under the current arrangements, in advance of implementing a full FTP model, and so a majority felt that they could not vote for it.”
To read the full report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, including analysis of the responses, please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene at his professional premises and failing to properly maintain a Controlled Drugs Register or patient records.
In June 1994, the Committee found that Mr Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton, at that time the only veterinary surgeon practising at premises at 9 Orchard Grove, Orpington, Kent, was guilty of disgraceful professional conduct and should have his name removed from the Register. The state and condition of the premises were found to be such as to risk the health and welfare of animals taken to the premises, and bring the profession into disrepute. An application made by Mr Seymour-Hamilton for restoration made in 1995 was refused.
At a restoration hearing on 18 June 2010, Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he sought restoration to the Register because he wished to further his research work into plants with potential medicinal properties. Restoration, he said, would improve his professional status by giving him more credibility, particularly in terms of recognition by the medical and veterinary professions.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he had no intention of returning to clinical practice immediately, and neither the Committee nor the College had heard of any adverse conduct by the applicant since his removal.
However, Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, noted that if Mr Seymour-Hamilton were to be restored, the Committee would have no power to prevent him from returning to general practice.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's response to questioning by the Committee raised a number of concerns with respect to the future welfare of animals should restoration be granted. He told the Committee that he had not undertaken any relevant Continuing Professional Development in the past 15 years, and said he lacked knowledge of current relevant legislation, for example, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and basic 'Cascade' prescribing requirements. He also said that he had not read the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in the past 15 years and that it would not be satisfactory for him immediately to return to general practice.
Ms Freedman said: "If the Committee were to reinstate the Applicant to the Register, it would have to be satisfied that he is competent and safe to practise immediately. The Committee has an obligation to protect the public and animal welfare and cannot simply accept his assurances that he would take steps to rectify his self-confessed shortcomings at some point in the future."
Having taken all the evidence presented into account, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Seymour-Hamilton was fit to be restored to the Register and dismissed his application.
The Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of approved educational institutions (AEIs), delivery sites and the training practices (TPs) responsible for providing the training and support for student veterinary nurses.
The College reviews the standards framework every five years to ensure that AEIs, delivery sites and TPs have the structures to best provide contemporary and innovative approaches to education for student veterinary nurses, while being accountable for the local delivery and management of accredited programmes.
The new draft framework includes updates relating to sustainability and academic integrity.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “We are looking for veterinary nurses in all walks of life – as well as student nurses and veterinary surgeons – to provide constructive and specific feedback on our proposals.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for our students, prepare them for life in clinical practice, and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
“In fact, animal health and welfare and public safety is central to our standards.
Students will be in contact with patients and their owners throughout their education and it is important that they learn in a safe and effective way.”
The consultation runs until 5pm on Wednesday 3 April 2024 and all members of the veterinary team – including RVNs, student veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons – can take part in order to provide detailed feedback on each of the six core standards and each of individual requirements within these standards.
A PDF version of the new draft Standards Framework is available to download from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations.
If you have any questions about the document or how to respond to the survey, contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Team on vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk
Kit, who has served on Council as an elected member since 2013, is currently the Chair of the RCVS Finances & Resources Committee and has been RCVS Treasurer for the past three years.
He is also a member of a range of committees and project groups across the RCVS including: the Audit and Risk Committee; the PIC/ DC Liaison Committee; the Certification Subcommittee; the Estate Strategy Project Board; the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees; and the Advanced Practitioners Panel.
Since 2003 Kit has been working as an internist (he is an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Small Animal Medicine) in private referral practice. In 2006 he became a founding partner in a multidisciplinary referral centre that he saw grow from five to 65 members of staff within five years.
His interests include workforce issues, communicating the diverse clinical and non-clinical skills of veterinary surgeons to the general public and government, and facilitating life-long learning through achievable further professional qualifications and effective CPD.
Kit said: "It was a great honour to be elected as the next Junior Vice President by my fellow council members. I feel that I can make a positive contribution to the work that the RCVS is already undertaking in ensuring the veterinary team remains healthy and respected. In particular I am keen to look at how the RCVS can help find solutions to our workforce issues - improving retention as well as encouraging and facilitating vets and nurses back into the profession."
In addition to Kit being elected as JVP, the current holder of that office, Dr Mandisa Greene, was confirmed as President for 2020-21 and current President, Dr Niall Connell, was confirmed as Senior Vice-President for this period.
Professor Susan Dawson was voted in as RCVS Treasurer, and she will be formally invested in this role at Royal College Day on Friday, 10 July.
Professor David Argyle has been elected as Chair of Advancement of the Professions Committee for a second year, Dr Susan Paterson has been elected as Chair of Education Committee for her second year, and Dr Melissa Donald has been elected Chair of Standards Committee for her second year.
Kit and Melissa's positions are subject to their successful re-election in the 2020 RCVS Council Elections
More information on the RCVS Council and its members can be found on the RCVS website: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council.
Niall, who stepped up from Vice Chair to acting interim Chair of the Fellowship Board after the resignation of the previous Chair, has been formally elected as Chair of the Board.
In his role as Chair, Niall will continue to lead the Board, which is responsible for setting the criteria for joining the Fellowship across all three of its routes to entry, as well as the process by which applications are assessed.
An election for the position of Vice Chair of the Fellowship Board will take place in the autumn.
Niall said: “I am honoured beyond words to be elected Chair of the RCVS Fellowship and I'm very grateful for the support received to achieve this.
“I know I have very big shoes to fill, thanks to the great efforts that have gone on before and I will put all my available energy into continuing to work with our Fellows and the College to progress the goals of RCVS Fellowship as a resource of independent knowledge for our professions, to upskill and always innovate, while looking to enrich public awareness and discussion.”
Nicky Paull MRCVS, who has held the position of Chair of the Credentials Panel for the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway for the past three years, was successfully re-elected.
Nicky will continue to be responsible for making assessments of applicants aiming to gain Fellowship through the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway.
She will co-ordinate and oversee a review of the applications by her fellow panel members, as well as chairing any required appropriate panel meetings.
On her appointment, Nicky said: “I look forward to the challenge of continuing to grow the diversity of the Fellowship and celebrate those who, by their contribution to the advancement of the profession by clinical or educational scholarship and leadership, have had a significant impact on clinical practice within the veterinary profession.”
Niall and Nicky will be formally instated into their roles at Fellowship Day, which is due to take place on Thursday 28 November at One Great George Street, London.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/
There are eight veterinary surgeons standing in this year’s RCVS Council election, including three existing Council members eligible for re-election and five candidates not currently on Council. They are:
John DaviesDr Melissa DonaldDr Tom LonsdaleProfessor Stephen MayDr Kate RichardsPeter RobinsonDr Richard StephensonDr Kit Sturgess
Ballot papers and candidates’ details for both elections have been posted to all veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote. Voters have also been emailed unique links the secure voting websites.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020.
All candidates were invited to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted to the RCVS by members of the electorate. The videos received so far have been published on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote20 and on the College's YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos). The candidate statements and biogs, and the questions submitted by members of the profession have also been published on the vetvote20 page.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer, said: “With all that is happening currently, we are glad to say that we have been able to continue with business as usual as far as the RCVS and VN Councils elections are concerned, albeit with some minor delays on publishing the candidate videos.
Those who are eligible to vote in the RCVS Council election but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Media Manager, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk
Under the protocol trial, the RCVS can launch private prosecutions against unqualified people practising veterinary surgery or using the title 'veterinary surgeon'.
The College says that where breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act cross over to other criminal offences, for example, fraud by false representation, they will be more properly dealt with by the relevant police force.
Local authority trading standards agencies will also deal with issues around, for example, misleading courses that purport to lead to registration with the RCVS but do not; concerns about dog grooming businesses and concerns about dog breeding establishments (other than where there is illegal practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons).
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “This protocol recognises that there are constraints on the time, resourcing, and budgets of both the police and public prosecutors which means that the pursuit of these breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, both of which carry minor criminal penalties, is not necessarily a priority.
“While we are always willing to work with the police and other agencies to pursue such breaches, the protocol details how we can act independently where appropriate and ensure we are fulfilling our stated ambition to safeguard the interests of the public and animals, as well as the reputation of the professions, by ensuring that only those registered with us can carry out acts of veterinary surgery.
“We would like to manage expectations around this trial period as we will only be launching private prosecutions where they meet the criminal evidential standards of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it is judged to be in the public interest to do so.
"We will also be relying on members of the professions and the public to report breaches and provide sufficient evidence to us, as we have no statutory investigatory powers.”
The trial period will last for one year and the College has set aside £50,000 to pursue private prosecutions.
The trial will be overseen by the Disciplinary Committee/ Preliminary Investigation Committee Liaison Committee while decisions on whether to pursue private prosecutions will lie with the Registrar/ Director of Legal Services.
Suspected breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act can be reported to the RCVS Professional Conduct Department on breachvsa@rcvs.org.uk.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and the BVA to help the profession prepare for and shape its own future, has revealed the results of a survey which found that 59% of veterinary surgeons are optimistic about the future of the profession. 600 vets took part in the survey, which explored vets' attitudes towards their profession, and asked them to prioritise the key issues and rank some of the major threats and opportunities for the profession.Reducing stress was the single most important goal for the future, with 19% of respondents choosing it from a long list of options.The BVA and the RCVS say that priority goals for veterinary surgeons varied according to different areas of work and seniority in the profession. However, an overriding and uniting theme from the findings was the pursuit of recognition for the role vets play across the board. Vets' perception of the veterinary contribution to non-clinical roles, such as research, food supply and security, and public health, is high, but they don't believe the general public values these roles.Four of the respondents' top five goals for 2030 related to recognition:
Looking at how vets are respected and valued by society, Vet Futures points to its national ICM opinion poll of more than 2,000 members of the public which found that 94% of the general public trusts the veterinary profession generally or completely.
In terms of their own careers, 59% of vets said they felt that they had met or exceeded their expectations, leaving 41% saying their careers had only met some expectations (38%) or not met any (3%). Amongst this large minority of dissatisfied vets the reasons for their responses included: few opportunities for progression, pay, and working hours.The survey also asked vets to rank threats and opportunities for the profession and found that respondents considered the three greatest opportunities to be:
BVA President John Blackwell said: "It's heartening to see that, at the moment, the veterinary glass is half full for many. But we know that younger vets are disproportionately represented amongst those who are feeling less positive about their own careers, which is a real concern for future generations. There is clearly work to be done, through Vet Futures, for the profession to think innovatively in order to tackle some of their concerns around career progression, pay and working hours, as well as stress."The good news is that, through the Vet Futures UK-wide roadshow and our online engagement, we have been hearing new and interesting ideas for the future. We want to hear from as many vets, vet nurses and others who have a stake in the future of the profession and I would encourage people to get involved through our 'Veterinary Vision' essay competition or via the Vet Futures website."RCVS President Stuart Reid added: "There is a lot for the veterinary profession to be proud of but the Vet Futures survey shows that vets are concerned the general public doesn't understand or value the variety of roles we undertake outside clinical practice."We have also heard through our guest blog that vets working outside of practice sometimes feel that they are treated as second-class vets. "Through the Vet Futures project RCVS and BVA aim to address the lack of public awareness about the variety of roles undertaken by members of the profession, as well as increase understanding and access to these varied career opportunities amongst the profession. "We want to enable all veterinary surgeons to not only feel optimistic, but confident in their future."
Nominations can be made for three RCVS Honours: the Queen’s Medal, the Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship.
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon. The 2016 winner of the award was Professor Randolph Richards who was honoured for his contribution to the development of aquaculture in Scotland.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. The 2016 winner of the award was Louise O’Dwyer who was recognised for her pioneering role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have made a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists. This year an Honorary Associateship was awarded to Professor David Lane for his support in launching the College’s Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours.
The deadline for nominations is Friday 16 September 2016 and all awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
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 RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.
At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.
He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.
Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.
The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.
The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.
However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.
Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.
This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed.
The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".
The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.
In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.
It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.
In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking. In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.
It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act.
"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.
It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short."
After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the Register for nine months for convictions regarding docking puppies' tails and driving offences, and for failing to obtain a client's consent to treatment or explore other treatment options.
At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Leicester, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute.
They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained. Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent. Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008.
Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery. It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass."
On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over £3,000. During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children. He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues. He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008. He also drew to the Committee's attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.
The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife's death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.
It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog's tails unless for "truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons." In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.
Mrs Freedman said: "The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
She added: "Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension. However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College's Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust's Adopt-A-Book campaign has raised almost £17k in sponsorship to pay for the restoration of books in the historical collection.
The latest book to be restored under the scheme is a nineteenth century edition of Every man his own farrier, by F. Clater, which has been restored thanks to veterinary surgeon Fiona Dalzell.
Fiona said: "I have always loved books, and especially old books, but I got inspired by the Adopt-a-Book scheme when I came to the RCVS for a meeting of the Veterinary History Society".
These editions, she says, are "works of art in their own right," and it has given her a "huge amount of pleasure to know that you can do so much just from a small donation."
RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell explained the idea behind a campaign: "When you think of 'adoption', you may more readily recall the rescue animals treated in veterinary practices than old books. However, these old books also need your help - and are an important part of the veterinary heritage that the Trust seeks to preserve."
Restoring a book can cost between £25 and £250, and adopted books carry a book-plate naming their benefactor. They can also be dedicated 'in memoriam'.
Since its inception six years ago, the Adopt-a-Book campaign has raised £16, 851, and funded the restoration of 139 volumes:
Those interested in supporting this work by adopting a book can view available titles at www.rcvs.org.uk/adoptabook or contact Clare Boulton, RCVS Trust Librarian (c.boulton@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0752).
David Chalkley MRCVS faces four alleged charges:
At the start of the hearing Mr Chalkley made no admissions as to the charges but he had made an application for an adjournment based on undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In addressing the Committee on behalf of Mr Chalkley, his counsel said that Mr Chalkley denied all charges of dishonesty, that there was no evidence of harm to animals as a result of the alleged conduct, that there had been no complaint from the client and that he had repaid all the sums he had received for tuberculin testing on the farm in question.
His counsel also submitted that a full hearing would be expensive and time-consuming, and that it would serve no useful purpose as animal welfare and the protection of the public would be served by Mr Chalkley’s proposed undertakings.
Counsel on behalf of the RCVS confirmed that the College did not oppose the application and confirmed that the Animal Plant and Health Agency did not object.
However, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that because the case concerned issues of alleged dishonesty in veterinary certification over a prolonged period of time and the importance of public trust in the accuracy and reliability of that process, there was a need to hold a full, public hearing into Mr Chalkley’s alleged conduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee expressed no view as to whether the allegations could be substantiated or not and it recognised that the process of determining the allegations would be burdensome for many, particularly the respondent.
"It was satisfied, however, that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would be disturbed to learn that allegations of this kind had not been the subject of a formal determination by the Disciplinary Committee. The respondent’s own interests had to take second place to this important public interest.
“The Committee therefore declined to accept the application to adjourn this inquiry [until an unspecified date] and directed that arrangements should now be considered for the listing of a hearing in this case.”
It is expected that the full hearing will take place in spring 2021.
The RCVS has launched a survey to discover what the profession thinks it does well and what it could improve upon.
The confidential online survey asks about your recent interactions with the College, what you think the organisation does well and what can be improved upon.
The survey is one of several activities that the College is undertaking as part of its First-Rate Regulator initiative. Others include a survey amongst those who have made complaints; research amongst RCVS staff and Council / VN Council members; in-depth phone interviews with veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers; and, questionnaires aimed at stakeholder organisations that work regularly with the College.
Desk-based research is also being carried out, to see how the RCVS shapes up when compared to other similar regulators, both in the UK and overseas.
Following this evidence-gathering stage, an assessment will be made about where gaps exist between how the College performs and what it ought to be achieving, together with recommendations for change.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "Becoming a first-rate regulator is the aim, building on the good things we do, and challenging ourselves to be better where we fall short."
"Although the RCVS has a long and proud history, we also need to have a sustainable future. Careful scrutiny of what we do, and how we can improve, will ensure this. I would urge all members of the veterinary team to take this unique opportunity to help improve the regulation of their professions."
The survey closes on 4 January 2013. All veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for whom the RCVS holds unique email addresses will be sent a link to the survey. Others are invited to visit www.rcvs.org.uk/firstratesurvey to take part. Practice managers, and student vets and VNs are also encouraged to complete the survey. Individuals who are not veterinary surgeons, nurses, students or practice managers, and who have views about how the College could improve, are invited to contact Nick Stace on nick@rcvs.org.uk.
Last year saw the highest ever increase in the number of people enrolling as veterinary nursing (VN) students on vocational courses, according to figures released by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
In 2011, some 1,041 students registered with the RCVS to pursue vocational VN qualifications, compared with 809 in 2010 - a 29% increase.
The total number of people enrolling as student veterinary nurses on either vocational or degree courses in 2011 was 1,439, compared with 1,083 the preceding year - an overall increase of a third.
Libby Earle, head of the RCVS VN Department said: "The overall increase could partially be explained by degree students seeking to avoid increased university tuition fees. However, although there is a noticeable increase in enrolments linked to higher educational courses, this does not explain the increase in further education students.
"A more significant factor is likely to be the inception of the Level 3 Diploma, as this can be undertaken as a full-time programme," Libby continued. "As Colleges running such programmes arrange the practical training placements for their students, this opens up opportunities for the considerable number of people who want to become VNs but who are not employed by a training practice. When we introduced the qualification in 2010 we hoped that this would help to increase the number of VN students - so it's great to see this is happening already and with such a marked increase."
Student VN enrolment figures for 2010 and 2011:
2010
2011
RCVS Level 3 Diploma
647
1,041
RCVS NVQ/VRQ (now superseded)
162
-
Higher education students
274
398
Total student VN enrolments
1,083
1,439
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: "Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders."
"The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession."
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: "We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
"It takes real courage to reach out for help when you're struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call."
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible viawww.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct veterinary surgeons are expected to demonstrate that they are keeping their skills and knowledge up-to-date by engaging in at least 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period.
As part of the auditing process the 1,071 vets will be asked to share their CPD records for 2014 to 2016, either by allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the College a copy of their CPD record card.
The audit will focus on six groups:
The College says that if any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The deadline for sharing records is Tuesday 31 October 2017.
As part of the auditing process the College is reminding veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
Don't forget that reading content and participating in forum discussions on VetSurgeon.org can count towards your annual requirement, using the 'Claim CPD' feature at the top of each page.
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Education Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk.
Of particular note is the guidance that prescriptions should no longer be written in mg/kg, as it may lead to errors when the dose is calculated.
The Standards and Advice update also answers questions about:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/prescribing-pom-vs-joint-guidance-from-the-rcvs-and-vmd/
Belfast-based Des Thompson MRCVS was presented with the first ever RCVS Queen's Medal by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace this afternoon.
Des, pictured right showing off the new medal with his wife Rosalie, received two separate nominations for the medal, both citing his decades of active involvement in veterinary politics which includes being president of the RCVS, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) and the Northern Ireland Veterinary Association, among other organisations.
Also cited was his willingness to help other members of the profession, particularly young vets at the beginning of their careers, through his involvement with organisations such as the Young Vet Network in Northern Ireland and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The Queen's Medal was launched in 2013, with the approval of Her Majesty as Patron of the RCVS, and is now the highest award that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of a particularly outstanding contribution to the profession. In receiving the medal, Des was joined by Professor Stuart Reid, current RCVS President, Colonel Neil Smith, immediate past President, and Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Des said: "It was a complete honour and a wonderful experience to be received by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace today, and I'm thrilled to have been awarded the RCVS Queen's Medal. Her Majesty was interested to hear about Northern Ireland, and the fact that I've been practising there since I qualified."