The advice in the new help section has been designed to highlight the shared responsibilities of animal owners and their vet teams, and to support practices by giving this advice for pet owners in a clear and easy-to-read way.
It explains what pet owners can expect from their vet team - and what is expected of them - throughout the different stages of pet ownership.
The information is split into ten sections:
The content in the new resource was informed by the views of the RCVS’s Public Advisory Group (PAG), whose members comprise owners/keepers of companion animals, equine and production animals, as well as other users of veterinary services.
Veterinary surgeon and Chair of the RCVS PAG, Louise Allum MRCVS (pictured), said: "The PAG has performed an essential role in helping to inform the content creation for our animal owner help and advice resource, highlighting the need for greater transparency and support, particularly around veterinary fees, treatment options, and what to expect from vet practices.
"Veterinary professionals work tirelessly to provide the most appropriate care for their patients, and we want to support this by ensuring pet owners have access to clear, accessible information about their rights, responsibilities, and the role of veterinary teams to ensure that expectations are managed.
“We are calling upon veterinary professionals to share this resource with clients far and wide, to help owners understand more about veterinary practice and how they can build a successful partnership with their vet team, ultimately leading to better outcomes for pets, their owners and veterinary professionals alike."
The RCVS will be expanding its help and advice section to include further information for equine and livestock owners in due course.
www.rcvs.org.uk/owner-advice.
The meeting follows growing concerns expressed both within the profession and in the national media about the shortage of veterinary surgeons in the UK.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO (pictured right), said: “Workforce shortages within the veterinary sector has been a concern for some time, however, in the past few months there has been a ‘perfect storm’ of circumstances, which have come together to exacerbate the problem. The issues include the ongoing impact of the pandemic, burnout and fatigue within the profession; the UK’s exit from the European Union, which has seen a significant reduction in the number of EU vets joining the Register as well as an associated increase in the need for veterinary certification; and an increase in pet ownership, and therefore demand for veterinary services, over the course of the pandemic."
In advance of the meeting, which is due to be help in November, the College will be conducting research to better gauge the extent of the problem both nationally and regionally.
The meeting will then consider how recruitment, retention and return to work might address the problem.
Lizzie added: “While there has already been a lot of focus and discussions around recruitment and retention, something less spoken about is return, and the summit will consider the reasons why members of the profession may move away from clinical practice, and if there’s more scope for different ways of working that could bring people back into clinical practice.
“Ahead of the summit we will be reviewing all the latest data that we and other organisations have shared to better understand the gap between capacity and demand, the push and pull factors on decisions to either join or leave clinical practice and build a more evidence-based picture of veterinary workforce trends.”
The summit itself, the date of which is yet to be confirmed, will involve key veterinary stakeholders including the veterinary schools, veterinary employers and representative bodies, coming together to ensure that there will be a joined-up approach in finding solutions to the issues confronting the profession.
Lizzie said: “It may not necessarily be easy to identify all the solutions in one day, and they won’t all come from the RCVS, but opening up the conversation and getting the professions focused on taking appropriate action is an important first step.”
Meanwhile, RCVS President Kate Richards this week wrote to all vets and nurses to reassure them them that the RCVS was aware of the problem and the additional pressures they are under as a result.
In the letter she wrote: “In the face of current shortages, I would like to stress that we support practice teams in prioritising cases strictly according to the health and welfare needs of their patients, and in informing their clients of the need to do so.
“We would also urge veterinary surgeons to share their caseload as much as possible, delegating permitted procedures to their veterinary nurse colleagues wherever appropriate to do so.
"And, we would like to remind veterinary surgeons that their current 24/7 emergency cover obligations, as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, are limited only to taking steps to provide 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation."
She also added that, while members of the profession may be anxious about a potential increase in the number of concerns being raised by clients because they are not able to offer the level of service they would ideally like to, the RCVS would always take into account the entire circumstances surrounding a complaint as part of its investigation process.
She also said that the College would also continue to raise awareness amongst animal owners of the acute challenges currently facing veterinary teams around the country, and to request their ongoing patience and understanding.
To assist the profession, a series of FAQs have been produced to help with different situations that vets may encounter at the moment, particularly around the provision of 24/7 emergency cover, and to provide further guidance on delegating procedures to veterinary nurses. These can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/
Mr Beveridge had been removed from the Register following a disciplinary hearing in May 2013 in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the Committee finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the College and that animals in his care were placed at risk. He subsequently appealed to the Privy Council but this was later withdrawn, resulting in him being formally removed from the Register in March 2014.
He first applied to be restored to the Register in 2015 but his application was refused by the Disciplinary Committee at a hearing in November 2015. At the time the Committee found him unfit for restoration to the Register because, following his removal, his veterinary medicines account had been used on an unauthorised basis to order prescription-only veterinary medicines, which reflected a "cavalier attitude to practice". Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not fully accepted the Committee’s original findings, had made inadequate effort in regards to engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) and also considered the seriousness of the original findings.
At the opening of his second hearing Mr Beveridge, who represented himself, sought to address the concerns that the Disciplinary Committee had outlined upon refusing his first application for restoration. Regarding his acceptance of the original findings, the Committee heard that he now apologised "unreservedly for his failings that led to erasure of his name from the Register" and the Committee considered that he had demonstrated a significant change in attitude from the previous restoration hearing where he had not fully accepted the reasons for being removed.
In considering issues of public protection the Committee also accepted that Mr Beveridge, until his original Disciplinary Committee hearing, had an unblemished professional record and had run a successful small animal practice for over 30 years. It considered numerous client testimonials as well as a petition signed by 600 clients from 2013.
The Committee also considered that there was no risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of Mr Beveridge being restored to the Register, noting the testimonials and references to satisfactory care and treatment given by Mr Beveridge to his patients.
Regarding CPD, Mr Beveridge produced evidence before the Committee that he had attended courses run by the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). The Committee accepted that he had made "considerable progress" in terms of CPD.
In concluding the hearing Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It is the judgement of the Committee that the conduct which resulted in the applicant’s name being removed from the Register is unlikely to be repeated. The applicant has satisfied the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register."
Voting for this year’s election will take place from 15th March until 5pm on Friday 23 April 2021 and the 14 candidates are:
This year, four candidates will be elected to serve a four-year term.
For the first time, the RCVS Council election will be carried out completely online.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: “Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the issues that it has caused regarding disruption to the postal service, the RCVS has gained permission from the Privy Council to temporarily amend our Election Scheme, a document that governs how we run our elections, to allow voting to take place entirely online this year. This means that physical ballot papers will not be distributed to veterinary surgeons eligible to vote this year.
“The small number of veterinary surgeons for whom we do not hold an email address will receive a letter with instructions on how to vote online, in addition to their security code to allow them access to their unique voting website. If they need further help there will also be the opportunity for them to call Civica Election Services, which runs the election on our behalf, who will assist them with casting their vote.”
Ahead of the start of the election, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to submit one question each for the candidates. The candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two of the questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
Questions can be submitted by emailing vetvote21@rcvs.org.uk or via the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote21.
The full candidate biographies and manifestoes have already been published on the RCVS website and are available to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote21
Members of the profession have until Wednesday 24 February 2021 to submit their question.
The RCVS has extended the deadline for nominations for the RCVS Queen's Medal to 31 January, to allow time for the nominations paperwork to be completed on return from the Christmas and New Year break.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace said: "We received more enquiries about the Queen's Medal over the Christmas period but appreciated that people might welcome a little extra time in the new year to complete and submit their nominations. We're certainly keen to allow anyone who wishes to make a nomination for this very special award the chance to do so."
The Queen's Medal, launched at the House of Lords last November, is a new Honour that will be awarded to a veterinary surgeon for a lifetime of outstanding contributions to the profession and who has dedicated their career to working above and beyond the call of duty in the fields of veterinary medicine or science, or related areas.
It is the most prestigious Honour that the RCVS can bestow, and will be awarded at RCVS Day in London in July.
Full details about the nominations process are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/Queensmedal). Nominations should be received by the RCVS no later than 5pm on Friday, 31 January 2014.
According to the RCVS, 86% of veterinary surgeons, and 92% of veterinary nurses have so far failed to vote in this year's council elections.
There's still time: voting for the RCVS Council and VN Council doesn't close till 2nd May and 28th April respectively.
Voting can be done online: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=205006, where you can also read each candidate's manifesto.
The College says that 1CPD has been designed to facilitate the new outcomes-focused CPD model which was introduced in 2020 and becomes mandatory from 2022.
An important part of this new model is reflection, so 1CPD encourages vets to reflect on the quality, relevance and impact of their CPD activities.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education said: "Although the outcomes-focused element of these changes won’t become mandatory until January 2022, we recommend that you incorporate reflection in your cycle of planning, doing and recording CPD as soon as possible, and our new 1CPD app makes this much easier to do than before.
"Research has found that reflection enhances the quality, impact and relevance of CPD as professionals consider what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice. To support this CPD model, which research has shown has a positive impact on both professionalism and patient outcomes, the 1CPD platform facilitates reflection by allowing you to record your reflective notes on your recorded CPD activities, through a variety of means including text, audio or uploading a document."
The old PDR was taken offline last Friday and all of the data saved in the PDR has been transferred to 1CPD.
The 1CPD app is now available for both Apple and Android devices, available on and off line, and through a new dedicated website, all of which is now accessible using the same credentials used to access My Account.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "1CPD provides a range of enhancements to RCVS’ previous offerings in this space and represents an important step forward in the College’s digital approach. Built on the latest best-practice technologies, it improves on every aspect of our previous approach to CPD support, delivering the first stage of a new, integrated, career-long CPD support capability for members.”
The launch of 1CPD also coincides with a change to the way that the College assesses CPD compliance, moving to an annual CPD requirement of 35 hours a year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours a year for veterinary nurses.
More information on the CPD changes, along with accompanying resources, can be found on the RCVS website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
So that practices can make sure everyone in their team is aware of the changes, the RCVS has also produced a poster which can be downloaded at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/cpd-poster/.
For more information, contact the Education team on 0203 795 5595. For technical advice about 1CPD, email the RCVS at onecpd@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog that had ingested broken glass.
The sanction was decided following a 12-month postponement of a decision ordered at a hearing on 19 November 2010.
At last week's hearing, the Committee was asked to decide what sanction would be appropriate in the case of Peter Ardle MacMahon for his treatment of a Cocker Spaniel called Wilfred, while working as a locum in Portsmouth. In 2010, the Committee found that Mr MacMahon had not removed the ingested glass from Wilfred's stomach or adequately checked that he had done so; had inadequately prevented abdominal contamination; and, had failed to communicate this contamination problem to Wilfred's usual veterinary surgeon. Considering these charges cumulatively, the Committee found that the treatment Mr MacMahon provided to Wilfred had fallen far short of the standard to be expected in the profession and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Shortly prior to treating Wilfred, Mr MacMahon had returned to practice after a ten-year absence and, at last year's hearing, agreed to comply with undertakings regarding his professional development. These included performing at least 70 hours of medical and surgical continuing professional development (CPD); providing the Disciplinary Committee Chairman with quarterly CPD reports and two employer reports regarding his competence; observing 24 days of current practice by shadowing another veterinary surgeon; and, providing reports from this veterinary surgeon as to his competence and a case diary.
The Committee considered the factual findings from the November 2010 hearing and the concerns then expressed about Mr MacMahon's conduct and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon, as well as his compliance with the agreed undertakings. As advised by the Legal Assessor, the Committee's considerations of sanction began at the lowest level that would ensure that the welfare of animals was properly protected; that proper standards would be maintained among practitioners in the profession; and, that would be in the interests of the public.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is satisfied that the respondent had complied fully with the spirit of the requirements of the undertakings he had entered into on 18 November 2010. Indeed, the view is that the respondent has done well to achieve the level of compliance that he has, given that he had suffered a period of significant ill-health during the period since he entered into those undertakings.
"The ultimate decision is that the respondent's conduct [...] warrants the imposition of at least a reprimand," he continued. "However, it is also the Committee's firm view that the respondent must be warned about his future conduct so that he will know the Committee considers he needs to maintain the level of continuous professional development that he has achieved [over the last] 12 months, and to have constantly in mind the paramount obligation of all veterinary surgeons to ensure the welfare of animals under their care.
"Such a warning as to future conduct should, and the Committee believes that it will, serve as a constant reminder to the respondent that he must undertake only those procedures, and only proffer professional advice, in the areas where he has the requisite up-to-date skills, knowledge and experience."
The Committee reprimanded Mr MacMahon and warned him as to his future conduct.
The RCVS is now accepting applications from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to serve as members of the RCVS Ethics Review Panel (ERP).
The ERP has been established by the RCVS in order to facilitate access to ethical review for those wishing to undertake practice-based research outside of a university or industry context. The ERP will begin considering research proposals from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses from 1 August 2016 and the trial will run for a period of one year. The process will be limited to considering research projects involving cats and/or dogs during the trial period, with the possibility of expanding to other species if the trial is extended or made permanent.
The trial came about following a joint working party established by the RCVS and British Veterinary Association which reported on ethical review and found that an increasing amount of clinical research was being conducted by vets based in private practice. One of the key recommendations of the report was that the RCVS should consider establishing a committee for ethical review of practice-based research.
Ahead of the launch of the ERP, the RCVS is currently looking to recruit four veterinary surgeon members and a veterinary nurse member to the Panel to join a lay member and ethicist Chair.
More details about the roles, the function of the ERP and how to apply can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus and www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics. Those who are interested in applying can also email ethics@rcvs.org.uk for an informal discussion. The closing date for applications is 15 April 2016.
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
Voting in this year's RCVS and VN Councils elections has now opened, with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses able to cast their votes online, by post or by text message.
All candidate details and ballot papers have been posted earlier this week so should be landing on doormats imminently.
As in previous years, there is an opportunity for voters to quiz the candidates on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk. Questions submitted before 24th March will be entered into a draw to win one of three 6-bottle mixed cases of wine. Thereafter, there will be an open forum on both sites.
As in previous years, the College will make an optional 20p charitable donation to the Veterinary Benevolent Fund on behalf of each person who votes.
Lydia Brown, President of the VBF, said: "The Veterinary Benevolent Fund is very grateful for funds raised through the elections. We appreciate that life in practice can be stressful, and offer support in a variety of ways to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses."
RCVS Council comprises 40 members: four are appointed by the Privy Council, 12 by the veterinary schools and 24 by direct election.
Each member is appointed for a four-year term of office. Every year, six members of Council retire at the Annual General Meeting, though may seek re-election.
In 2011, ten candidates are standing for the six seats available, including six incumbent Council members. The candidates are:
RCVS VN Council comprises 17 members: eight elected veterinary nurses, six veterinary surgeon members (including three from RCVS Council), one Lantra representative and two lay members.
Two seats are usually available each year, with each member serving a four-year term.
This year an extra seat for a one-year term is available, due to a member retiring mid-term; this will be filled by the third-placed candidate.
There are four candidates for the three seats:
All votes must be received before 5pm on 27 April 2011 - a slightly earlier deadline than usual, which takes account of the extra public holiday for the Royal Wedding.
Any veterinary surgeon who has not received their ballot paper should contact Ian Holloway (020 7202 0727 i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk) for an official duplicate; veterinary nurses missing their ballot papers should contact Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.
In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.
In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:
Chapter 8 (para 8.9)
There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.
In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found.
Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)
Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.
The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.
The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines.
BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that their renewal fees to remain on the Register for 2014/15 are now due.
Registration renewal forms have been sent to all vets reminding them that payment to remain on the Register is due by 31 March 2014. If the College does not receive payment before 1 April, £35 will be added to the renewal fee and any vets who have still not paid before 1 June will be removed from the Register.
This year the RCVS has updated its online 'My Account' area (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) to allow vets to manage their details and pay their renewal fees more quickly and easily. Login details have been sent to all vets and the system is now operational. The changes to the area are the first phase of a project to make it more accessible and user-friendly and to allow vets to better manage their details online.
As part of the renewal process, vets are asked to confirm that their details on the Register are correct, including membership category and correspondence details. Those who are in the 'UK Practising' or 'Practising outside the UK' membership categories should also confirm - via the registration renewal form or the online 'My Account' area - that they are compliant with the requirements for continuing professional development (CPD) of 105 hours over three years. Vets with any cautions, convictions or adverse findings against them dating from 1 January 2006 onwards, should also declare them. For further details on these declarations vets should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.
Fees can be paid by credit card through the 'My Account' area or by cheque, bank draft or credit card via the registration renewal form sent in the post. Details of how to pay by bank transfer are also on the form.
Vets who have any concerns or questions about renewing their registration, logging in to 'My Account' or who need to request a registration renewal form, can contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or email membership@rcvs.org.uk.
Veterinary surgeons who can keep it short and sweet have a chance of receiving an all (reasonable) expenses paid trip to BVA Congress this September.
The RCVS Trust is offering to pay the registration fee, plus travel, food and accommodation costs for two nights for two vets to attend the whole conference.
The catch? Would-be delegates must have graduated within the past eight years and be able to explain - in fifty words or less - how this support would benefit them educationally.
Cherry Bushell, RCVS Trust Director said: "It is a bit of a light-hearted approach, however, the idea is to make relatively new vets think in a focused way about what they would get out of going to BVA Congress. They need to tell us how they will benefit educationally from the opportunity we're offering - it's not simply about financial need."
Applicants should send an email to info@rcvstrust.org.uk before 24 August, with their name and contact details and convince the Trust, in fifty words or less, that they would get the most out of attending BVA Congress. Only the first 100 emails received by the Trust will be considered. Registration fees will be paid directly to the BVA and all costs claimed must be reasonable.
The BVA 2009 Annual Congress will be held at the Mecure Holland House Hotel, Cardiff, from 24-26 September. For more details visit http://www.bva.co.uk/events/BVA_Congress.aspx.
The VetGDP, which replaced the Professional Development Phase (PDP), provides a period of structured support to aid the transition of newly-registered veterinary surgeons from veterinary studies to life in the workplace.
VetGDP is being rolled out during 2021 and this year’s veterinary graduates will need to enrol on it.
One of the main features of VetGDP is the requirement for a trained VetGDP Adviser to be available in the practice to provide their new graduate with one-to-one, meaningful support and guidance, to help develop their confidence and capabilities.
In order for veterinary surgeons to become VetGDP Advisers they must complete an online training package being developed by the RCVS and formally commit to supporting new graduates.
Practices that have trained VetGDP Advisers and make this commitment will receive the status of an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice.
The original plan was that practices who wish to employ this year’s cohort of graduates should have obtained RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status by June 2021.
This has now been amended in recognition of the additional pressures that veterinary practice teams are under as a result of the pandemic.
Practices who employ graduates this year will now have until December 2021 to achieve this status, provided they have started to work towards RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status and commit to supporting their new graduate while they do so.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The ongoing pandemic restrictions, specifically changes made by the government to veterinary professionals’ key worker status on 13 January, means that there are now significant additional pressures on practice teams, particularly in terms of staffing, as many members of the profession will be balancing their work with caring responsibilities. We recognise this and, as such, we have updated the timeframe for the completion of our training for VetGDP Advisers.
“I would also like to personally thank the 850 vets who have already registered their interest in becoming VetGDP Advisers. It is very reassuring to see so many members of the profession committed to supporting new members of the profession, and wanting to engage with the training and with VetGDP to help nurture and develop our future vets through their first few years in practice.”
The College will be holding three VetGDP workshops in February. Each workshop will feature the same content, so there’s no need to attend more than one.
They take place on:
The workshops are open to anyone in the veterinary team including veterinary surgeons who may be considering becoming a VetGDP Adviser, practice managers and others involved in graduate recruitment and anyone else who would like to find out more about VetGDP.
The sessions will be interactive and there will be a significant portion of time given over to Q&As. The RCVS Chair of Education Committee, Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, and Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, will be available to answer any questions which can be submitted live during the event. You can also submit questions as you register for the workshop at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdpworkshops.
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdp
The trial is the result of a six-week consultation held by the College in June 2016, asking for the profession’s views on a proposed new system of CPD - one that concentrates less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
The College says that while an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
The RCVS Education Committee and VN Council therefore agreed that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 before making a recommendation to RCVS Council. The RCVS Council approved this proposal at its meeting on 10 November 2016, after which 117 volunteers were recruited, 60 of whom were able to attend the training days.
A veterinary surgeon who signed up for the pilot and works in veterinary industry, Gina Dungworth, said: "I really appreciate the acknowledgement of non-clinical CPD practices, and while I was originally sceptical of the proposed system the pilot day has so far been clear and helpful."
A veterinary nurse volunteer, Lindsey Raven Emrich, said: "CPD is such a varied part of a veterinary professional’s career, and it very much depends on the person how easy it is to do. I find myself doing a lot of reflection as a natural part of reading articles, and I’m hoping this new system will expand that way of thinking into other areas of CPD."
The volunteers will now pilot the new proposed system and report to Education Committee, VN Council and RCVS Council.
Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows:
Despite being served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors.
The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it.
The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner.
Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee.
It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to five of the sub-charges which the Committee therefore found proven.
She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.
After hearing a wide range of evidence, both written and oral, from Ms Bowler, the College, from clients and from an expert witness, the Committee found all charges proved except for four sub-charges.
On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account.
In mitigation:
In all, the Committee decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.
When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this.
It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.
It then went onto consider whether a sanction of ‘suspension’ was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.
The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.
Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.
“The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.
“Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.
“The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.
“These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest.
"It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The webinar will discuss the importance of self-compassion and provide an overview of Katherine and Sarah’s research into the effectiveness of an online compassion focused therapy (CFT) intervention in improving the mental wellbeing of veterinary professionals.
Katherine and Sarah will also go into more detail about how to get the most out of a CFT course they have created, which will be made freely available for veterinary professionals on the Mind Matters website and on the RCVS YouTube channel .
Katherine said: “Our recent randomised control trial has shown the course to significantly improve resilience and self-compassion and reduce rumination and self-criticism amongst veterinarians.
"Therefore, Sarah and I are delighted to now be disseminating the CFT course freely to the veterinary professions, so that as many people are able to benefit from the evidence-based resource as possible.
“Even though our research was conducted on veterinary surgeons, we hope that the course will be useful to all those working in the veterinary team as the content can be applied in a number of contexts.
“Our webinar will explain more about our research, as well as some of the science behind the effectiveness of the course in a veterinary context.
"So, if you are interested in learning more about how CFT may be able to help you and your team, both in a personal and professional capacity, please do come along.”
Katherine and Sarah’s compassion focused therapy course will be made available on the Mind Matters website in due course. In order to access the online compassion course, individuals are invited to complete a short questionnaire before and after watching one 10-15 minute video each day for 14 days, with the aim of the video intervention being to develop self-compassion skills and reduce self-criticism.
https://vetmindmatters.org/events/
Underlying the plan are three 'Brexit Principles', devised by the College and formally adopted by RCVS Council, which will guide the College’s relationship with the Government during the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.
The College says each Principle is supported by a number of specific policies that the College will lobby for in the coming months, all designed to positively engage with the post-referendum reality and with government policy.
The Principles are:
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "It is crucially important for the College and the profession as a whole to think boldly about the post-Brexit future; we cannot expect government to give us all of the answers, instead we must work to find solutions ourselves so as to shape the future of the profession from within."
The College has also asked the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake research into the attitudes and intentions of all EU-graduated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses currently working in the UK. They will all have receive a personalised email from IES with a link to this online survey, and their answers will help inform the College’s approach to Brexit. This research will help the College to understand better the impact that Brexit may already be having, how it can support EU veterinary professionals working in the UK, and build an evidence base regarding the potential impact that Brexit may have on the veterinary workforce.
For more information on the College’s Brexit activities, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.
However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.
Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use.
He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.
In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.
The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.
At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.
The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.
Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.
Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.
The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.
Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.
“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.
"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order and for a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on 20th May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s seventh application for restoration. Previous applications had been heard but refused in July 1995, June 2010, February 2015, March 2016, May 2017 and April 2018. However, as the Committee makes its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its current decision.
The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr Seymour-Hamilton and were shown clear bottles with liquid, a container with tablets and petri dishes with grown cultures as detailed documentary evidence. In respect of any concerns regarding keeping his veterinary practice up-to-date, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that “you never lose that skill” and explained that he kept up-to-date through extensive reading and conversations with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
However, the Committee had significant concerns as to his fitness to practise safely as a veterinary surgeon for a number of reasons, including that nearly 25 years had passed since he was last in practice and that there was little, if any, evidence of him keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills required to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The applicant worryingly did not accept that he was in any way deskilled by the passage of time. The evidence that the applicant has provided showed limited interaction with other veterinary surgeons and there is no documented evidence of the discussions or structure of the meetings he had with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
"There is no evidence of a prolonged and intense period of re-training by way of relevant study to demonstrate that a sufficient level of competence to return to practise has been achieved. In the absence of such evidence the Committee was of the view that there would be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if the applicant was restored to the Register.
"Further, it was a grave concern to this Committee that the applicant demonstrated worrying attitudinal issues towards individuals of a different religion and his attitude to employing a minor when he knew it to be against the law. Such attitudes are incompatible with professional standards the public would expect of a veterinary surgeon."
Finally, with no evidence of public support for the applicant, the Committee concluded that the application for restoration should be refused.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Co. Tyrone veterinary surgeon from the Register for ten months, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct relating to three convictions for contravening animal export regulations.
Whilst working as an Authorised Veterinary Inspector in Castlederg for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), William Manson had falsely certified that he had inspected three consignments of sheep presented for assembly at Plumbridge Export Assembly Centre on 16 and 23 August 2009. At this week's two-day hearing, Mr Manson admitted that the convictions he had received at the Strabane Magistrates Court on 26 November 2010 made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery, but said in mitigation that he had examined the sheep nearby at Landahussy, a site he considered more suitable for a large number of animals.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Manson believed the Landahussy site to be more suitable for large deliveries; the Committee also was satisfied that he did carry out a visual inspection of the sheep at the Landahussy site on 16 and 23 August 2009. However, the information Mr Manson provided on the three certificates was false and misleading. Mr Manson had also been reminded of the importance of complying with government regulations in a disciplinary case in 2004, following convictions for failing to notify DARD about changes in the number of sheep for which he was claiming a premium. The then Committee dismissed the case, deeming the convictions a result of his "genuine but regrettable oversight".
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman, Prof Peter Lees said: "Mr Manson's actions in certifying that he had examined the sheep at an approved assembly centre when he had not done so amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. If there had been a disease outbreak on either the Plumbridge or Landahussy site, such actions would have rendered contact tracings unreliable and inaccurate."
In mitigation, the Committee accepted medical evidence and Mr Manson's testimony that he was at that time under exceptional stress. He was working long hours in difficult circumstances without an assistant, and was under considerable personal pressure as a result of his wife's serious illness. It also took into account his age (66), exceptional testimonials produced on his behalf, and the impact on the community he served.
Prof Lees said: "The Committee has concluded that the removal of Mr Manson's name from the Register is neither proportionate nor necessary in the public interest nor to protect the welfare of animals. A proportionate sanction in this case is to suspend Mr Manson's name from the Register for a period of ten months."
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has approved an application for restoration to the Register from an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been struck off for false certification.
In November 2007, the Committee decided that Mr John Williams, of the Avonvale Veterinary Practice in Ratley, near Banbury, should have his name removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. Mr Williams had admitted signing export health certificates for three horses in October 2006 to state that they had received negative test results for the contagious equine metritis organism, before these results were actually available.
At the time, Mr Williams was working in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for DEFRA and he had previously been suspended from his official duties on three separate occasions, on the basis of export certification irregularities. It was accepted that Mr Williams had not been dishonest, but his approach to certification was described by the Disciplinary Committee as "either irresponsible or cavalier or both".
In December 2007, Mr Williams appealed against this decision to the Privy Council but this was dismissed at a Hearing the following June. He was then removed from the Register in July 2008.
When the Committee met on Monday to consider Mr Williams' application, they heard oral and written supporting evidence from veterinary surgeons and equine clients, and oral evidence from Mr Williams himself. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams accepted its previous findings and fully understood their seriousness. He described his removal from the Register as a "salutary experience" which had been highly significant for him and his family, both financially and emotionally.
The Committee stated: "Although the decision of the Committee to remove [Mr Williams] from the Register sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of certification, it should be emphasised that his removal was the consequence of his actions in signing certificates which he could not verify. This followed three previous occasions on which he had similarly signed certificates when he should not have done so."
However, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams would not in future sign certificates when he should not do so, even under severe client pressure. It was impressed with the continuing professional development he had undertaken whilst off the Register and noted that no questions had been raised over his conduct during this time.
It concluded that Mr Williams fully understood the importance of accurate certification and that restoring his name to the Register therefore posed no risk to animal welfare. Neither the public nor the profession would benefit from Mr Williams staying off the Register for a further period.
Alison Bruce, Disciplinary Committee Chairman, said: "We would like to make it clear that we always find it distressing to remove clinically competent veterinary surgeons from the Register because of an irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards certification. This would not be necessary if veterinary surgeons were to follow the Twelve Principles of Certification annexed to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct."
The Committee then approved Mr Williams' application and directed that his name should be restored to the Register.
The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who is acting as witness.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.
“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.
“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.
“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”
David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.
“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.
“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”