Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."
This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:
RCVS Council
VN Council
*denotes existing Council member
For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.
Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).
To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.
There are 13 candidates standing in this year’s election for RCVS Council, the voting period for which will open on the week commencing Monday 14 March and close at 5pm on Friday 22 April 2022.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and manifesto statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote22.
To submit a question to the candidates, email: vetvote22@rcvs.org.uk or post it on the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote22.
Candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
You have until Monday 21 February 2022 to submit your question.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
Three members (one vet, one new grad and one nurse) are being sought to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for veterinary surgeons and nurses, supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.
The group will also oversee and update CPD and VetGDP guidance documents, as well as overseeing updates to the VetGDP Adviser and VetGDP Peer Reviewer training and guidance.
RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.
She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.
“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.
“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”
Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.
The RCVS is looking for two Advanced Practitioners working in practice who have completed a designated CertAVP qualification to join the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) Subcommittee to help actively advance the standards and policies of the RCVS CertAVP.
Applicants who are interested also have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members.
Applicants are invited to send an email to certavp@rcvs.org.uk with a summary of their experience and what skills and knowledge you feel that you can bring to this committee.
Finally, the College is also looking to recruit examiners for the Statutory Membership Examination, from 2025 onwards.
Examiners need to have been Members of the RCVS for a minimum of three years and be familiar with the day one competences for new registrants and the standards expected of final year students and new graduates. Experience as an assessor or examiner is preferred, although not essential as training will be provided. The College is looking for examiners with knowledge across a range of species domains including equine, veterinary public health, farm and small animal.
Contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Postgraduate Lead, on j.soreskog-turp@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS has launched a research project into the extent to which veterinary surgeons are able to meet its requirement that steps are taken to provide 24-hour emergency cover.
The College's 24-hour Emergency Cover Working Party (24-7 WP) has been considering the ongoing practicality of the current requirement in the Guide to Professional Conduct, and whether it should remain, be removed, or be amended in some way. The research aims to build a sound evidence base on which a decision can be made.
"Changes in practice profiles and owner demands, health and safety issues, the desire for an improved work-life balance, veterinary and animal density... all these factors affect the ability of veterinary practitioners to meet our 24-7 requirement. The Working Time Regulations - which prescribe maximum working hours and minimum rest periods - have also affected practices' ability to run out-of-hours services," according to RCVS President Jill Nute.
"However, we are frequently reminded by members that the profession is proud to offer a 24-hour emergency service to animals and their owners. There seems to be no single majority view in the profession, so we need to understand exactly how people are meeting the requirement before any changes are made," she says.
To ensure that the research is independent and representative, the RCVS has contracted a specialist market research agency, Cognition Market Intelligence.
The first step is to build a robust and unbiased questionnaire that takes account of all of the issues. To this end, in-depth interviews will be carried out over summer with a small number of veterinary surgeons from a range of different practice types, and across different gender/age/role categories.
The 24-7 WP will then meet in September to hear the findings and agree the questionnaire, which Cognition Marketing Intelligence will then use during autumn as part of a quantitative phone interview exercise with 440 veterinary surgeons, again covering a spread of individuals, practice types and geographies. The phone interview approach will ensure that the views of a range of different practitioners are heard, which is not always the case with a paper survey.
Should changes to the Guide to Professional Conduct be recommended by the Working Party on the basis of the findings, a consultation exercise may be undertaken.
The RCVS President has sent a letter to all home-practising members to explain the activities. She has urged veterinary surgeons to assist the research team, saying "your contribution will make a difference".
ViVet (derived from the Latin word ‘vivet’ meaning ‘it will thrive’) will, says the College, provide a variety of resources and support to help the professions keep pace with change and remain at the forefront of animal healthcare provision.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Senior Vice-President, helped develop the scope of the ViVet programme during his presidential year. He said: "This is an ambitious project for the College to embark upon but also very important for the future relevance and survival of the professions. Technology in the animal health sector is developing rapidly, such as the growth of telemedicine, wearable and implantable devices to gather health-related data from our animals, and low-cost genomic sequencing.
"These technologies could have a disruptive effect on the veterinary sector, so it’s important to encourage and support veterinary input at an early stage to enable the professions to shape their development and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
"ViVet will help veterinary professionals to engage proactively with innovation in animal health, so that they can embrace and drive change and are not side-lined by it."
The Vivet website (www.vivet.org.uk), which was launched simultaneously at the College's inaugural Innovation Symposium in London today, contains a number of resources to showcase new technologies and innovative business models.
Anthony Roberts, Director of Leadership and Innovation at the College, said: "The aim of these resources is to help veterinary professionals harness the immense opportunities that innovation can bring to animal health and welfare by providing practical advice on areas such as launching new products and services and, in turn, encourage innovators to think about how the expertise and knowledge of the veterinary professions could input into new technologies.
"Furthermore, the programme will also help the College gain insights into the animal health market and how it is evolving. This will allow us to develop a regulatory framework that is relevant and adaptable to 21st century technology, while continuing to foster and support responsible innovation."
ViVet will also continue to organise events like today’s live-streamed symposium, which brought together thought-leaders from across the animal health, technology and business sectors, and provided a forum to discuss the opportunities and threats presented by innovation in the veterinary sphere, the impact it may have on the professions and how they are regulated.
Further details about the RCVS Innovation Symposium, including the full programme and speaker profiles, are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/innovation. Videos of speakers and a written report of the proceedings will be available from www.vivet.org.uk in due course.
A project which aims to standardise the assessment of veterinary nurse practical training across Europe will have life beyond its pilot phase, thanks to European VN training network, Vetnnet.
The announcement was made in September at an Oslo-based conference to mark the conclusion of the pilot phase of the Pan-European Practical Assessment System project (PEPAS).
During its two-year pilot, the Leonardo da Vinci-funded project developed 111 new stations for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), including mark-sheets and examiner notes, and trained over 50 veterinary nursing examiners from eight countries across Europe. The new OSCE stations have been trialled across 250 students by seven European veterinary nurse schools.
Vetnnet has now committed to continuing the project, enabling its members to access the OSCEs and associated training.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was a main project partner in the pilot, with specific responsibility for training and quality assurance of the system. Victoria Hedges, RCVS VN Examination and Higher Education Quality Manager said: "It's great that the hard work put into the project by so many countries will continue to bear fruit.
"Feedback in Oslo was excellent and it was heartening to see that when examiners' marks were compared across countries, standardisation was very good. The feedback also helped us to see where students were not achieving the desire results, indicating where more training is needed."
See www.vetnnet.com for more information.
The interviews give an insight into the career advice the interviewees got from their school, what steps they took to secure their place to study for their qualification, what hurdles they had to overcome and what can be done to address issues around the under-representation of some groups within the profession.
The College says the aim is to help inspire school age children to consider a veterinary career through frank conversations with role models who have chosen a vet or vet nursing career.
The first film is an interview with Rheanna Ellis, a 2021 Nottingham Vet School graduate who is now working as a veterinary surgeon at a West Midlands practice. In her interview she talks about her passion to become a vet from a young age, how she went about researching and preparing for her job, and the importance of perseverance.
To help promote the videos and the College’s ongoing work on diversity and inclusion, the RCVS has partnered with the official Black History Month campaign and website which will also be hosting the videos.
Many of the interviews have been carried out by Mandisa Greene, RCVS Senior Vice-President, who helped lead the RCVS Black History Month activities last year as the College’s first ever black President.
Mandisa said: “It’s important that we demonstrate commitment to diversity and inclusion and have a role in acknowledging and accentuating diverse voices within the professions. Throughout these video interviews I’ve had the opportunity to speak to some inspiring newly qualified and student veterinary professionals who are all clearly very passionate about supporting animal health and welfare.
“I hope that school children from all backgrounds who watch these videos will get the chance to see how rewarding and enjoyable a veterinary career can be and that they’ll be inspired to consider becoming a vet or vet nurse in the future.”
The RCVS will be publishing more video interviews on its YouTube channel through October and beyond.
The RCVS reports that its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial is now nearing completion with over two-thirds of its target number of cases either resolved or in process.
The year-long trial, which began in November 2014, aims to gather the evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme which would provide a way of adjudicating on concerns raised about a veterinary surgeon that do not meet the RCVS threshold of serious professional misconduct.
The aim of the trial, which is administered by the independent, not-for-profit Ombudsman Services, is to make determinations on around 100 cases in order to gather information about types of concern, time taken to resolve disputes, recommendations and how likely each party is to accept recommendations. As of this week some 72 cases have been referred to the trial scheme, with final decisions made in relation to 54 of these cases.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace was responsible for pushing forward the trial believing that “what is good for the consumer is good for the profession”. The College also says it brings it into line with a European Union Directive on alternative dispute resolution which, while not legally binding, specifies that regulators and other ‘competent authorities’ should have consumer redress systems in place.
Nick said: “The majority of cases are either being determined in the veterinary surgeon’s favour or finding that they need take no further action in order to resolve the dispute. Where recommendations have been made in favour of the client, the suggested remedies have generally been for a small goodwill payment to be made.
“However, the trial has not been without some frustrations so far. The fact that participation in the trial is entirely voluntary has meant that, in many cases, members of the profession have chosen not to take part.
“With this in mind, it is very important to stress the benefits of the trial to the profession – chiefly that many of the vets who chose to take part have had their actions exonerated by Ombudsman Services in a way that a concern being closed by our Professional Conduct Department does not. For clients, where a vet does have a case to answer, it gives them the chance to seek recompense without having to resort to legal action.
“Regardless of which way the decision goes in any of these cases, participating in the trial can bring these often long-standing and burdensome disputes to a close.”
The trial will continue to run until the end of October and a full report and recommendations will be presented to RCVS Council at its meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. Full details of the trial and its parameters can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.
The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.
Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.
Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.
"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.
"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."
David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."
Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."
The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses.
On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."
RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."
The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/
The RCVS has announced that this year, for the first time, it will accept debit card payments from veterinary surgeons who are renewing their registration.
The annual renewal fee should be paid by 31 March. Those who have not paid by 30 April will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May will be removed from the Register.
Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, said: "Following feedback from the profession, this year, thanks to a change in our registration regulations, we are able to accept debit card payments which we hope will make the renewal process much easier and more convenient for our members. Furthermore, members will also no longer be charged if they choose to pay their fee by credit card."
Veterinary surgeons will also need to confirm their registration details (including their correspondence and registration addresses), confirm that they have met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Another change is that vets will now have the choice of either home or work as their registered address (in the past, only work addresses were allowed).
The annual renewal can be completed by returning the form that has been sent by post or by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the security details that have been sent to all MsRCVS.
Any members who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the 'My Account' area should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk as soon as possible.
Those with queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team on 020 7202 0733 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
The panel, chaired by veterinary ethicist Professor David Morton CBE, was established last year on a trial basis as a means of offering an ethical review process for practice-based research projects that may not have the same access to resources as clinical studies in academia or industry.
Since its establishment at the end of July last year it has received 23 applications, mostly concerning small animal clinical studies. However, due to demand from the profession, it will shortly be considering applications for equine or farm animal-based research and will be recruiting new panel members to cover these areas.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Although the number of cases considered so far have been relatively small, the service has been very well received as a means of providing ethical review to those who might not otherwise be able to do so and so, therefore, might struggle to get papers published.
"Considering the importance of practice-based research we expect there to be an increase in the number of applications as word gets out about the service and so are happy to extend the trial for another year and for it to consider a wider range of applications."
Further details about the Panel, as well as guidelines for making applications and the application forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
For an initial discussion about submitting an application to the Ethics Review Panel, contact Beth Jinks, Standards and Advisory Officer, on 020 7202 0764 or ethics@rcvs.org.uk
Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.
Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.
The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.
It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.
“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.
"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.
"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.
“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”
He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The College says it has become increasingly recognisant of how a blame culture can lead to a fear of making mistakes, something which can have a negative impact on both the mental health and wellbeing of members of the profession and, ultimately, animal health and welfare.
The anonymous online survey, which is being conducted by the Open Minds Alliance, is described by the College as a major step towards moving to a learning culture which has a greater focus on openness, reflective practice, learning and personal development.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: "Moving towards a learning culture is one of the key aims of our Strategic Plan 2017-19 and we have already started to make some progress in this area with our Mind Matters Initiative, for example. This survey will help establish a baseline against which we can measure any improvements over the course of the next three years.
"As a regulator this is part of our attempt to be much clearer about the kind of culture we would like to see in the professions; one that encourages members of the veterinary team to learn from each other, and from their mistakes, and to be more open about when things do go wrong in order to better manage public and professional expectations.
"By moving towards a learning culture we can also hopefully reduce levels of stress and mental ill-health within the profession, as practitioners will feel they can be more open about their mistakes and take steps to improve their practice – rather than feeling like they cannot talk about what goes wrong, which can lead to fear and anxiety.
"This is no easy task – particularly when public expectations of what veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can and should do is increasing – but we hope that by being brave and open about this new ambition we can galvanise veterinary associations, educators, practices and individual veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and make a real difference."
The survey will also be asking to what extent members of the profession feel that the College, as the regulator, contributes to any blame culture and where improvements could be made to the concerns investigation and disciplinary process to help combat it.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, added: "It is a common misconception that if you make a mistake then this will be investigated by the College and you will end up in front of a Disciplinary Committee.
"However, we recognise that mistakes can and will happen and that expecting 100% perfection is unrealistic. The real professional conduct issues arise when members of the profession try to cover up their mistakes, whether that is to professional colleagues or clients, which often does far more damage than if the person was open and honest about what had gone wrong.
"We do also accept that there is always room for improvement in our own processes and if there are positive steps we can take to make the investigation and disciplinary process less onerous for members of the professions then we would like to hear your suggestions."
Click here to take part in the survey.
Stephen has been an elected member of RCVS Council since 2012, having previously been an appointed member of Council representing the Royal Veterinary College between 2001 and 2009.
In 2016 he was re-elected to Council to serve a further four-year term and currently chairs the Legislation Working Party.
Stephen graduated from Cambridge in 1980 and subsequently spent time as a large animal practitioner. After undertaking further training in equine surgery and diagnostic imaging at the University of Liverpool, he studied for a PhD at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) before returning to Liverpool as a Lecturer in Equine Orthopaedics.
He went back to the RVC in 1993 to concentrate on equine clinical services and, in 1997, became Head of the Farm Animal and Equine Clinical Department. He was appointed the RVC’s Vice-Principal for Teaching from 2000 to 2013, Deputy Principal from 2013 to 2017 and currently holds the post of Senior Vice-Principal.
Addressing the need for a learning culture in his speech Stephen said: "Veterinary graduates have never had greater knowledge and technical skills than those graduating this year. But this can make their job so much harder when the certainty of scientific knowledge is confronted with the uncertainties of the sick animal, and the increasing number of possibilities for treatment have to be weighted alongside ethical and economic considerations.
"Of his age, but also prophetic of our age, the philosopher Bertrand Russell commented that 'habits of thought cannot change as quickly as techniques with the result that as skill increases, wisdom fails'.
"So it is important that our young professionals are well-prepared in terms of professional, non-technical skills to cope with the sheer variety of challenges that they encounter, and we, as a profession, within our professional model, provide a nurturing learning culture rather than the blame and cover-up culture that the current emphasis on external regulation fosters, so pervasively and distressingly."
Stephen added that his other priorities would be working with the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders to uphold the College’s first Brexit principle that 'vital veterinary work continues to get done', a project on graduate outcomes, which flows from the Vet Futures project, and the Legislation Working Party.
The results, in order of number of votes, are:
Elected: Susan Paterson – 3,976 votes
Elected: Mandisa Greene – 3,819 votes
Elected: Neil Smith – 3,544 votes
John Innes – 3,502 votes
David Catlow – 3,310 votes
Matthew Plumtree – 2,677 votes
Iain Richards – 2,635 votes
Karlien Heyrman – 2,487 votes
John Davies – 580 votes
Thomas Lonsdale – 542 votes
Due to the fact that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that amends the College’s governance has completed its passage through the House of Commons and House of Lords and is expected to be signed off by the relevant Minister to bring it into law, only the first three candidates are expected to take up their posts on Council at RCVS Day on 13 July 2018.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "I would like to thank all the candidates who stood for Council this year and would like to, in particular, congratulate Susan, Mandisa and Neil for being re-elected to RCVS Council.
"The LRO that is likely to be signed off in due course will reconstitute the makeup of Council – with greater lay and veterinary nursing input – and will also reduce the overall size of Council, including the number of elected members. Because of this only the first three – as opposed to the first six under previous rules – candidates are likely to be taking up a four-year term at RCVS Day 2018. Our commiserations go out to all the unsuccessful candidates, especially in this unusual transitional year, and we thank them for their participation in this year’s election."
The results of the election will be formally declared at this year’s RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 13 July 2018.
Electoral Reform Services (ERS), the independent body that carries out the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Council election, has offered reassurance that the election was fair, in spite of a number of voters being sent duplicate ballot papers.
According to the College, ERS designs and prints the ballot papers, and receives back votes via the post, internet and text message, but it does not distribute the ballot papers: this was carried out by a separate mailing house contracted directly by the RCVS. Although the exact number of voters who received duplicate papers is not known, it may have been up to 289, as that was the shortfall of voting papers at the mailing house.
ERS carried out a review of voting patterns, including issues such as multiple votes coming from a single IP address, and concluded that it was not possible to say there had been instances of dual voting. Even in the small number of cases where there was a suggestion of dual voting, if those particular votes had been discounted it would not have affected the outcome of the election.
In a letter to the College, Adrian Wilkins, ERS Senior Consultant said: "Our view is... that although a number of members were sent two ballot papers, there is no firm evidence of fraud, and that the result is an accurate reflection of the views of the members of the Royal College. Our recommendation is consequently that the result should be declared as per our election report of 30th April 2012."
As a consequence, the RCVS returning officer, Gordon Hockey, Acting Registrar, declared the election results on 30 April.
Mr Wood pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children at Portsmouth Magistrate’s Court in December 2017. Following his conviction, Mr Wood was given a community sentence, fined and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for five years.
Mr Wood’s application for restoration was based on the argument that he was professionally competent to be restored to the Register, that he had strong mitigation for his original conviction (for which he had demonstrated remorse), that he had a low chance of reoffending, had engaged proactively with the Probation Service and rehabilitative courses, and that had completed his community service.
In considering Mr Wood’s application, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors including Mr Wood’s acceptance of the Committee’s original findings, the seriousness of the original findings, protection of the public, the future welfare of animals in his care should he be restored, the length of time off the Register, his conduct since removal from the Register, efforts by Mr Wood to keep up-to-date with his continuing professional development (CPD), the impact of removal from the Register on Mr Wood and public support for his restoration.
However, on balance, the Committee decided that Mr Wood was not currently fit to be restored to the Register.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In essence, the Committee decided that the facts of the charge justifying removal from the Register and the underlying criminal behaviour were too serious for Mr Wood to be restored at this time. It concluded that because Mr Wood continued to be subject to a sexual harm prevention order, notification requirements for sexual offenders and because he remained on the Barring List by the Disclosure and Barring service until January 2023, he was not fit to be restored to the Register at this time.
"The Committee accepted that Mr Wood had made significant efforts to rehabilitate himself but it was not persuaded that he was fit to be restored to the Register because ancillary orders relating to the underlying criminal offences remained in force. The Committee noted that at the time those orders were made Mr Wood was described as having an addiction and although the Committee accepted that there was a low risk of future reoffending, it decided that because the orders were still in place for public protection reasons, Mr Wood was not fit to be restored to the Register."
The full report of Mr Wood’s restoration hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The two sets of guidance cover:
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Green said: “I would like to reassure my colleagues once again that we understand the extreme challenges and difficult decisions they are facing.
"The College has no interest in taking anyone to task for considered professional judgement, providing they act reasonably in the circumstances, can justify their actions and take reasonable notes.
"Sadly, we’re seeing the pandemic situation deteriorating again in the UK, but to varying degrees across the country. This presents a significant challenge in ensuring our guidance is clear and straightforward, while remaining relevant to as many people as possible.
"We sincerely hope this new guidance achieves that aim and supports veterinary professionals working to uphold animal health and welfare, while maintaining the safety of their teams and clients."
For more information, visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is stressing the need for employers to check the registration status of the veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses they recruit.
This comes following several incidences where veterinary surgeons have been found to be either not registered or registered in the wrong category. For example, foreign nationals wishing to work in the UK must be registered as home-practising members, not overseas-practising members. The latter category is for those practising overseas who wish to retain their MRCVS status.
Furthermore, there have been some cases of veterinary surgeons registering as ‘non-practising' and going on to carry out veterinary nursing roles, in the absence of relevant qualifications or being listed/registered as a veterinary nurse. This may be happening in cases where overseas veterinary surgeons are struggling to find work in the UK, possibly due to language difficulties.
RCVS President Jill Nute said: "Vets and veterinary nurses have complementary roles within the practice team. If someone wishes to undertake a veterinary nursing role, they should be qualified and registered as such. Many skills are taught in the veterinary nursing training that are not included in the veterinary degree. Although some veterinary nursing tasks can be carried out by veterinary surgeons, they certainly must not be undertaken by those who are not on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons".
She added: "Ours is a self-regulated profession and it is important that employers play their part by ensuring that practice employees are appropriately qualified and registered".
The registration status of vets and veterinary nurses can be checked on RCVSonline at: www.rcvs.org.uk/checkregister or www.rcvs.org.uk/vnlist respectively.
Part of the VN Futures project, the lunchtime webinars will be delivered between February and June 2020 via the Webinar Vet, and the College is encouraging all veterinary surgeons, nurses, practice managers and owners to attend, as it says the webinars will benefit the whole practice team.
All three webinars take place at 12.30pm and last one hour. They are as follows:
Tuesday 4 February 2020 – ‘Maximising the potential of the veterinary nurse’ presented by Louise Northway RVN, BVNA Council member and recipient of the RCVS Inspiration Award. The webinar will give an overview of the role of veterinary nurses under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, how VNs can develop their role in practice and take on extra responsibilities and how VNs can approach these conversations in practice through the creation of learning and development plans. This webinar will illustrate how fully utilising the nursing team not only hugely boosts the morale of the work force, but also enhances patient care and increases the efficiency of the business.
Tuesday 10 March 2020 – ‘Veterinary nurses’ time is valuable: How and why to charge for it’ presented by Stephanie Writer-Davies MRCVS, Career Progression Working Group member, and Jane Davidson RVN, VN Council member and regular blogger on veterinary nursing issues. This webinar will provide examples and case studies of how veterinary nurses contribute to practice finances, how practice pricing structures can be developed so that the financial value of veterinary nurses’ time and effort can be better highlighted, and how veterinary nurses can demonstrate their value to clients.
Tuesday 23 June 2020 – ‘Lead or Head RVN: What’s in a name?’ presented by Gillian Page RVN, President of the Veterinary Management Group. This webinar will look at the role of the traditional Head RVN and how development of ‘Lead RVNs’ in different areas of practice can help to allow for growth of other talented team members and provide increased and shared responsibility and progression. This webinar will explore how this enhances practice efficiency alongside development of team members, thus increasing job satisfaction and, ultimately, retention.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and the VN Futures Board, said: "We hope that veterinary nurses will engage with these webinars in order to gain some inspiration about how they can truly show their value to their team, their clients and the wider public.
"The VN Futures research clearly demonstrated that there was a desire from the veterinary nursing profession to find ways in which VNs could gain greater recognition for the work they do and progress in their careers. These webinars, and our talented presenters, will provide many practical examples and case studies on how this can be done, help build confidence and highlight opportunities for further learning and development."
To sign up to the free webinars, visit: https://www.thewebinarvet.com/sponsors/VN%20Futures.
The RCVS and VN Councils Elections are now open for nominations from candidates who wish to stand in 2011.
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "We are always pleased when veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses are prepared to contribute personally to the activities of the College and the governance of their own professions.
"Serving as a Council Member requires a fair amount of an individual's time and effort however, so we are announcing the nomination period in good time to allow people the chance to consider their options and make plans accordingly."
Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2011 elections. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms, and will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees (a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, manifesto and photograph for inclusion in the RCVS News Extra election specials. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make nominations.
Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2011. Full details and guidance notes for both elections are available on the RCVS Council Election page and VN Council Election page.
Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may be requested from Mrs Gabi Braun (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
The first charge was that in April 2016, having examined a horse named Alfie on behalf of his owner, Mr Villar gave an opinion to the potential buyers but failed to make it clear that he had not undertaken a pre-purchase examination; failed to declare to the buyer that he had a conflict of interest with regard to the owner; and, failed to explain the pre-purchase examination process to the buyers.
The second charge was that, in July 2016, during a telephone conversation with the buyer, Mr Villar was dishonest and failed to provide clear and accurate information because he told the buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie to check he was sound when he had, in fact, carried out a more substantial examination.
The third charge was that Mr Villar had offered to either the owner or the buyer, or both, that he would prepare a veterinary insurance certificate in relation to Alfie when he knew he did not have sufficient records (eg the microchip or passport number) to do so.
The fourth charge was that Mr Villar failed to respond adequately to communications from the buyers about Alfie.
The Committee found that Mr Villar had not in fact carried out a pre purchase examination (“PPE”) and referred to guidance from the British Equine Veterinary Association which identified that pre-purchase examinations are carried out on behalf of buyers. It noted that in this case, Mr Villar had undertaken an examination on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, it did not find that Mr Villar had failed to explain the PPE process to the potential buyers.
However, the Committee did find that Mr Villar had failed to declare that he had a conflict of interest in regards to Alfie’s owner. The Committee said that Mr Villar should have told the buyer that he had been acting on behalf of the owner and was not a neutral party in the potential sale.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge not proven, on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Mr Villar had told the potential buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie and check that he was sound.
The Committee found all aspects of the third charge proven on the basis that, in an email sent to the College in March 2016, Mr Villar admitted that he did not have the sufficient records to prepare a veterinary insurance certificate.
The Committee found the fourth charge not proven on the basis that the buyers were not his clients. The Committee therefore concluded that he had no obligation to respond to them, and indeed could not do so in certain respects in order to preserve the confidentiality of his client.
The Committee then determined that the charges found proven, when taken individually or in combination, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The following mitigating factors were present in this case: the circumstances of the incident, the fact that there was no premeditation, the fact that he was requested by his client to advance an opinion to [the buyers] concerning Alfie and that his ill judgement was on the spur of the moment and the fact that he had no financial gain. These are all important factors. Likewise, the fact that he did not know that the [buyers] regarded him as their pre-purchase examination vet is an important matter.
"The respondent’s conduct was clearly against the principles of behaviour articulated by Mr Morley [who acted as an expert witness for the College] in his expert report and in his evidence. Nevertheless, the Committee does not find that in the particular circumstances of this case, namely being asked to speak to a potential purchaser without warning and without being made aware of the contractual arrangements which had been made between the respondent and [the owner], the respondent should not properly be the subject of a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."