Captains Nicola Housby-Skeggs and Claire Budge, the first two members of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) to achieve the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP), have been presented with their certificates at Belgravia House.
The two Captains were visiting the RCVS as part of a 'Meet the RCVS Day' organised for a group of Officers from the RAVC. The Captains were presented with their Certificates by Vice-President Peter Jinman.
Capt Nicola Housby-Skeggs had completed a mixture of small animal and equine modules in order to achieve her Certificate, and was positive about the modular approach. She said: "It's reassuring to know you can have a break if you need to. The compulsory module on professional key skills was also more useful than I had anticipated, as it focused on aspects that you don't really have time for at vet school, such as management, and health and safety."
Meanwhile, Captain Claire Budge appreciated the fact that many of her modules could be completed via distance learning. She said: "It was great that I could continue with my studies even when serving in Afghanistan. My only regret is that when I started the Certificate back in 2008, there wasn't the range of modules available that there is now. For example, I would like to have done one of the new Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law modules. However, there is no reason why I can't just take this as continuing professional development - that's the benefit of the modular approach."
More information about the CertAVP can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts.
'Meet the RCVS Days' give members of the veterinary team the opportunity to visit the College and find out what goes on behind the scenes. If you would like to join a future event, please let Fiona Harcourt know, on f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk. Reasonable travel expenses are paid.
The RCVS issued a reminder today that there is just over a month left before the 1 April deadline for all veterinary practice premises from which medicines are to be supplied to be registered with the College.
Just over 4,500 premises have applied for registration since November 2008. This includes about 750 premises not previously listed with the College, demonstrating the usefulness of the process, which will enable the government to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines.
From 1 April it will be an offence for a veterinary surgeon to supply a veterinary medicinal product from any practice premises not registered with the RCVS. On conviction, those committing the offence may be liable to prosecution, which may include a fine or prison sentence. Veterinary surgeons convicted of criminal offences are also considered by the College's Preliminary Investigation Committee to decide whether the conviction would affect the individual's fitness to practise and should be referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
In addition to ensuring their practice premises are registered, veterinary surgeons also need to keep a record of other places where medicines are stored, so these can be considered during an inspection - such as vets' homes or cars, or perhaps a charity premises from which veterinary work is carried out and where medicines are stored. Such records will not be published, although some of those premises may need to be registered in their own right.
Practices accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme will be inspected by the RCVS; non-compliance with medicines standards will be dealt with under the rules of the Scheme. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) will carry out inspections of other registered premises to ensure compliance with the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Where non-compliance is noted, the VMD will take a proportionate enforcement approach ranging from issuing advice to, where appropriate, serving an improvement notice or seizing medicines.
The Privy Council has dismissed the appeal of a Lincolnshire veterinary surgeon against the RCVS Disciplinary Committee's decision to strike him off the Register in January 2011 for serious professional misconduct.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing in January, Joseph Lennox Holmes of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby, 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. These findings related to two separate complaints and a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Appeal was heard by Baroness Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Kerr on 1 November 2011, and their judgment was delivered on Tuesday by Lord Wilson.
There were two principal parts to Mr Holmes's appeal: firstly, that RCVS procedures for investigating and determining complaints were biased against him and infringed his human right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; and, secondly, a number of complaints about the DC's findings and conclusions.
According to the RCVS, their Lordships recognised that the College's regulatory framework was constrained by the existing Veterinary Surgeons Act and "support[ed] statutory reform so as to enable members of the disciplinary committees to be chosen from outside the council"; but, they were satisfied that the College had made "strenuous attempts" to ensure its disciplinary procedures were fair and in accordance with human rights legislation.
They also remarked that the College had made "elaborate efforts" to separate the membership and work of the three RCVS Committees that produce guidance, investigate complaints and adjudicate on complaints, respectively. Their Lordships considered that "a fair-minded and informed observer [having considered all the facts] would not conclude there was a real possibility that the DC was biased against Mr Holmes".
Their Lordships also dismissed all of the 'deficiencies' that Mr Holmes had sought to identify in the DC's findings and conclusions. They generally preferred the College's evidence, witness accounts and expert witness testimony, and felt the DC had correctly considered the multiple charges before it.
They also found that the expertise of the DC in assessing the standards of the profession was "entitled to substantial respect" and agreed that the only sanction appropriate to Mr Holmes' "catalogue of egregious misconduct" was the removal of his name from the Register.
"[This sanction] 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," they concluded.
Their Lordships' decision is now subject to approval by the Crown, following which, Mr Holmes would be removed from the Register and no longer entitled to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week ordered a month's suspension for a veterinary surgeon from Dolgellau for dishonest certification of bovine tuberculin testing in the Gwynedd area in early 2007.
At a hearing that concluded last Friday, Iwan Parry, a partner of The Veterinary Surgery, Bala Road, Dolgellau, and an Official Veterinarian, was charged with serious professional misconduct for certifying on eight separate occasions that he had tested and inspected cattle for clinical signs of bovine tuberculosis (TB), when he had not done so. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Parry denied the charges.
The Committee heard that Animal Health (a DEFRA Executive Agency) had discovered irregularities in TB testing paperwork from Mr Parry's practice. These included two locum veterinary surgeons, who were not Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs), having carried out TB pre-movement testing, but the relevant paperwork being signed and certified by Mr Parry. It therefore suspended him from LVI duties and lodged a complaint with the RCVS.
The Committee heard that, at the time, Mr Parry's practice was in difficulty as all eight of his assistant veterinary surgeons had recently left and he was struggling to maintain services. It was also reported that the incidence of bovine TB in Mr Parry's area was very low.
Under questioning, Mr Parry admitted that he had not done the testing, but had allowed non-LVI veterinary surgeons to do so and then signed the certificates himself. Denying the charge of dishonesty, he maintained that he had thought his actions were legitimate, providing he questioned the veterinary surgeons afterwards and checked their results. However, he told the Committee he now deeply regretted this "honest mistake", made at a time of great personal pressure, and that it would not be repeated.
The Committee also heard evidence from a number of character witnesses, including Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP, testifying to Mr Parry's good character, integrity and good standing in the local community and agricultural sector.
Nevertheless, in view of Mr Parry's long experience as an LVI, his understanding of the importance of routine herd testing and accurate veterinary certification and his reputation for keeping up to date with legislative and professional developments, the Committee decided that his actions were not just inappropriate, but were the result of conscious impropriety on his part. It found that he was not only guilty of dishonesty, but of allowing non-LVIs to perform TB testing, both of which amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In passing judgment, the Committee emphasised that the integrity of veterinary certification was of the utmost importance, especially when carried out on behalf of the Government, in order to safeguard animal health and facilitate international trade. It also felt that Mr Parry could not have failed to have been fully aware of what he was signing and that he should not have done so.
It was, however, prepared to take account of some exceptional mitigating factors in this case, including the low risk of TB spread following Mr Parry's actions; that no financial gain had been sought or received by him; his unblemished career and uprightness of conduct to date; the esteem in which he was held in the farming community and the potential (financial) impact on that community if he were to be removed from the Register (therefore unable to practise) for a significant period of time.
Nigel Swayne MRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, concluded: "We are reminded that the primary purpose of any sanction is not punishment, but the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and to uphold professional standards of conduct.
"Whilst only a reprimand is not an appropriate sanction where dishonesty and false certification have been found proved, and such findings would normally attract at least a long period of suspension, given the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case and the strength of the mitigating factors, we direct that Mr Parry should be suspended for one month."
Ms Benson faced six charges.
The first was that between January 2018 and November 2019 she took a number of bags of dog food and two horse wormer syringes from the practice without paying for them.
Charge 2 alleged that between November 2018 and November 2019 she took a number of items of animal food and one or more boxes of horse wormer and paid less than the correct amount for them.
Charge 3 was that between October 2018 and November 2019 she arranged for or allowed a friend to receive a discount on items from the practice, without consent from the practice.
Charge 4 alleged that in December 2019 she asked a veterinary surgeon colleague to input details of treatment and/or medicine for her cat into the clinical records of another of her animals that was also registered to the practice.
Charge 5 was that in relation to charges 1, 2 and 3, her conduct was dishonest.
Charge 6 alleged that in relation to charge 4, her conduct was dishonest, potentially compromised the integrity of a professional colleague and was potentially detrimental to animal welfare.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Benson admitted to charges 1,2,3,4 and 6 of the allegations and the Committee accepted these admissions. The Committee considered evidence from Ms Benson’s colleagues including witness statements, written testimonial and clinical records for her animals.
When asked about taking items from the practice, Ms Benson explained that she did not intend to take items without paying for them and that she had not realised how much she had taken. She also explained that she had paid back in full what she owed to the practice. The Committee considered that Ms Benson’s conduct had involved a degree of premeditation as she had repeatedly taken items over an extended period. They also considered that there had been a potential risk of injury to animals resulting from Ms Benson’s request to incorrectly write up her animal’s veterinary records.
The defence attested that no actual harm had come to any animal because of Ms Benson’s actions and that she previously had an unblemished career in veterinary nursing. She had also admitted most of the charges against her and paid for the items she had taken in full.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that in the case of Ms Benson, there had been a potential risk to animals had her pet’s records been incorrectly completed, although no harm resulted. The request to alter the records had been a short, single event, but the taking of items had been repeated over a period.
"The Committee also considered that Ms Benson had abused the trust placed in her as a senior nurse with managerial responsibility. We took into account that there was some evidence of Ms Benson being overloaded by work, but there was no evidence of any health condition during the time of the misconduct which might explain her actions.”
The Committee therefore found Ms Benson guilty of serious professional misconduct and decided that a nine-month suspension from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.
Cerys Jones said: “The Committee accepted that Ms Benson had developing insight in making her admissions and we give her credit for her long unblemished career. She admitted to a large part of the allegation, expressed remorse for her actions and has repaid the practice. We have also heard a number of positive testimonials which spoke positively of Ms Benson’s recent conduct.
“However, dishonesty is a serious matter in relation to professional practice and taking no action in response to the serious nature of Ms Benson’s disgraceful conduct would not be proportionate or serve to protect animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.
“Having carefully considered matters, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction, was to suspend Ms Benson’s registration for nine months.”
Ms Benson has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
As part of the programme, the College aims to form a network of UK-wide rural Mental Health First Aiders in the vet profession starting with rural geographies.
The network will bolster the understanding of common mental health conditions, help individuals identify signs of mental ill-health both in themselves and others, promote self-care and provide the tools for how to effectively support people experiencing poor mental health.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative (MMI), said: “Veterinary surgeons working in rural and ambulatory services are often integral members of their local communities with a deep connection with farmers, animal owners and the wider rural community.
"However, as MMI-funded research conducted by Scotland’s Rural College with vets has demonstrated, veterinary work in such areas can often be very challenging which is compounded by working alone or having relatively limited contact with professional colleagues.
“Effective early intervention in cases of mental ill-health and distress can have significant impacts, and so this course will arm participants with the relevant knowledge of how to identify mental health issues and will allow them to signpost people to the most effective and relevant sources of help.”
The free training, fully funded by MMI, will be delivered online in four sessions which are each two-and-a-half hours long.
The dates of the training sessions are Monday 11th, Tuesday 12th, Wednesday 20th and Thursday 21st July.
To register for the course, visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/training/
The closing date for registrations is 5pm Friday 10th June.
For those who are unsure about joining the course, MHFA England has organised an online question and answers session ahead of the application date at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June.
To attend the Q & A contact Lacey Pitcher, Mind Matters Outreach and Engagement Senior Officer on l.pitcher@rcvs.org.uk.
Peter Keniry has convictions dating back to 1986 in his native South Africa for fraud and impersonating a veterinary surgeon. The College says that in the UK, he has been known to steal the identities of legitimately registered members in order to support fraudulent applications for employment or practise fraudulently.
The College says that in the past, Mr Keniry has been able to gain employment in large and small animal practice and greyhound racing. He is known to have ties in Norfolk, Swindon, Somerset and possibly Cornwall.
Michael Hepper, Chief Investigator at the RCVS, has worked with several police forces in order to bring Mr Keniry to justice. He said: "Peter Keniry’s modus operandi is to steal the identity of properly registered members to obtain work as a veterinary surgeon. As he impersonates members of the College whose names are legitimately on the Register, this can make it extremely difficult, even for practices that do check prospective employees’ credentials, to identify him.
"He is well known to the College and to the police having been convicted in 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2011 and has served custodial sentences for practising as a veterinary surgeon and fraud.
"Peter Keniry is a repeat offender and we suspect that he will continue to re-offend. We hope that by publishing his photograph it will help practices recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department should he apply for employment as a veterinary surgeon."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
At the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee considered whether she had accepted the findings of the Committee at the original inquiry hearing, the seriousness of those findings, whether she had demonstrated insight into her past conduct, and the protection of the public and the public interest.
In her restoration application, Dr Burrows included continuing professional development (CPD) certificates for the courses she had completed since her removal from the Register, letters/informal witness statements from the veterinary surgeons and nurses she had worked who had expressed a willingness to employ her again, together with character references and reflection statements.
She also made a detailed opening statement in support of her application, in which she said that the period since her name was removed from the Register was extremely difficult and also that she now unconditionally accepted all the Committee’s original findings in May 2021, some of which she had previously denied and had failed to acknowledge.
Dr Burrows went on to state that she only had herself to blame for her actions and that she now understood and accepted that the original sanction of removal from the register had needed to be severe given the serious breach of trust to the public, to the veterinary profession and the insurance industry that was a direct consequence of her dishonest actions.
Since removal from the Register, Dr Burrows had taken on the role of receptionist in a Vets4Pets practice in Cardiff, which required her to deal directly with the public and their insurance requests and entitlements.
She stated that as a result of her involvement over the past 18 months in processing insurance claims, she acknowledges the “delicate” relationship between veterinary surgeons, clients and insurers.
Additionally, working as a receptionist, had allowed her to recognise the need for contemporaneous and clear clinical notes.
She also highlighted her CPD, which was relevant to insurance, as well as the fact she’d undertaken a professional ethics course to assist her rehabilitation, reflection, and insight.
In support of Dr Burrows’ restoration to the Register, the Committee took into account three witness accounts from people who work at the Vets4Pets branch where Dr Burrows works as a receptionist.
All witnesses gave positive reflections on Dr Burrows’ character and assured the Committee that they would provide the correct level of support to allow her to return to work safely and that they would have all the necessary safeguarding measures in place to ensure that the public’s and the profession’s interest is always at the forefront.
Judith Way, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was impressed by the fact that busy professionals chose to give up their time to provide witness statements and give evidence in support of Dr Burrows’ application.
"All witnesses were clearly supportive of Dr Burrows’ request for restoration to the Register.
“The Committee found Dr Burrows to show remorse and she does now accept the findings of dishonesty that were made against her in the original enquiry hearing and stated that her conduct was dishonest.
"In the Committee’s view, the evidence given by Dr Burrows on affirmation was very believable and she now accepts her dishonesty together with the gravity of her dishonesty.
“The Committee also formed the view that the steps she has taken to address her dishonesty serve to confirm that she is passionate about the prospect that she be allowed to return to practise.
"The Committee was impressed by Dr Burrows and the evidence given and is now satisfied that she will ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in the future.
“Having taken all evidence into account, the Committee is satisfied that the future welfare of animals under Dr Burrows’ responsibility will be properly protected, and that her future dealings with insurers will be honest in all respects and that the interests of the public will be met.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The guidance has been in place since March to help practices continue to provide the public with veterinary services whilst safeguarding the health of their teams and clients.
The RCVS Council Covid-19 Taskforce reviewed the situation on 30th July and decided to extend the guidance after taking into account the pandemic’s progress, the latest government guidance, the headline results from a survey of practice experience of remote consulting, and 'other data from a number of veterinary practices'.
The Taskforce says it also considered the need to continue to provide practices with flexibility in the face of possible local or national lockdowns, the need for inclusivity of those practice teams members and clients who may still be shielding, the likelihood of quarantine of members of the team due to travel and/or Test and Trace and the fact that no major safety issues had been identified as part of the RCVS-commissioned survey into the immediate impact of the temporary guidance.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “Whilst lockdown measures have been eased and matters have improved, we are far from being back to business as usual and the threat of returning to more severe lockdown measures, whether locally or nationally, is still very much alive."
The updated flowchart, along with all the College’s coronavirus guidance for the professions, is available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of three months for practising veterinary surgery while not registered with the College.
At a hearing which concluded on 9 September, Silke Birgitt Lindridge, of the Consett Veterinary Centre, Medomsley Road, Consett, County Durham, was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect for practising when she ought to have known that her name had been removed from the RCVS Register for non-payment of fees.
The Committee heard that Mrs Lindridge, who qualified as a veterinary surgeon at the University of Berlin in 1997, had returned to Germany whilst on maternity leave in September 2006 but had continued to be the sole principal of two practices, the Consett Veterinary Centre, and the Winlaton Veterinary Centre in Tyne and Wear. She had continued to run the practices whilst in Germany, and had returned to the UK on several occasions during 2007, when she practised veterinary surgery on small animals and horses. She had not been registered with the College for the period between 5 June 2006 and 2 April 2008.
To practise veterinary surgery when unregistered is a criminal offence. However, after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, a decision was taken that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Mrs Lindridge and that the matter should be left with the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.
Mrs Lindridge claimed not to be aware that she was unregistered, stating that a fee notice and reminder, as well as a telephone call and correspondence from the College about her registration status, had not been brought to her attention by her practice administrators. The Committee accepted that she had not known, but decided that, as registration was a professional obligation, Mrs Lindridge should have known that her name had been removed from the Register, a charge that Mrs Lindridge accepted. The Committee felt that: "The failure of Mrs Lindridge to put in place proper systems for the administration of her practice, including the payment of her annual retention fee... was lamentable." The way in which the practice had paid its bills during her absence demonstrated an "utterly careless attitude to the administration of the practice".
Taking account of the fact that Mrs Lindridge had not knowingly practised while unregistered, and the positive support of her clients, the Committee decided that a three-month period of suspension from the Register was appropriate.
Beverley Cottrell, chairing the Committee, commented: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the personal responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that the annual retention fee is paid and that their names are on the Register. It is in the public interest that clients should be assured that the practitioner is a regulated person, who is capable of providing valid certificates."
She continued: "The record of Mrs Lindridge's practice during 2007 discloses that she was providing certificates for horses and small animals whilst she was unregistered. Those certificates are invalid. She was also prescribing prescription-only drugs when she was not entitled to do so. The Committee considers that a short period of suspension is proportionate to the nature and the extent of the charge, the public interest and the interests of Mrs Lindridge."
The RCVS is seeking applications for a paid, part-time parliamentary internship from veterinary surgeons and students who have completed the third year of a veterinary degree.
Applicants are also required to demonstrate a commitment to the advancement of the veterinary profession in the UK.
The internship is to support the activities of Professor the Lord Trees, with the successful applicant expected to work three days a week whilst Parliament is sitting (around 150 days a year). The role is for one year, starting in October, and is London-based, with a salary of £15,000 (not pro-rata). A housing allowance may also be available.
Applicants should send a CV and covering letter to Lesley Evans, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF or email l.evans@rcvs.org.uk. The deadline for applications is 22 April 2013, with interviews taking place in late May/early June.
Further details about the role are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/work-for-us.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.
Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.
Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.
Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."
In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future.
Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."
Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here
Defra has launched a public consultation on proposals that would enable the RCVS to reconstitute its disciplinary committees independently of the RCVS Council, to ensure that the same group of people are not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and hearing cases. The Royal College is urging the profession to support the proposals.
The proposed changes will be made by a Legislative Reform Order that will amend a specific part of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, to require the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees to be made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed at arm's-length.
RCVS President, Dr. Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Defra is consulting on these long-anticipated proposals, which would allow the RCVS to deliver better, fairer and more effective regulation. I would urge members of the profession and the public to respond to this important consultation and to support the changes."
Under the proposals, following a transitional period, the Committees would cease to include Council members. The bodies which consider allegations of misconduct on the part of veterinary surgeons would thus be independently constituted and detached from policy discussions. The proposals would also improve the independence of the disciplinary processes by formally bringing lay people into the relevant Committees.
In addition, the College says that changes would increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, thus allowing the case-load to be handled more efficiently, and ensuring that complaints are heard swiftly.
The full details of the proposals can be found in Defra's consultation documents, which can be accessed at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/01/16/veterinary-surgeons-1201/
In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.
Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years.
At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.
The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.
The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."
The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.
She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.
However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.
In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.
In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.
Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.
"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession".
The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by Dr Janos Nemeth, who had previously been found to have fraudulently registered with the RCVS and struck off.
At the original hearing, in February 2009, Dr Nemeth - the holder of a veterinary science degree from the Szent István University in Budapest, who had practised in the Wokingham area of Berkshire - was found to have dishonestly entered his name in the RCVS Register using a forged document (a Certificate of Membership and Good Professional Behaviour from the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber). The Disciplinary Committee at that time found the evidence that the document was a forgery to be "overwhelming" and concluded that Dr Nemeth had been lying to them about his knowledge of the forgery. It directed that his name should be removed from the Register.
Dr Nemeth lodged an appeal against this decision with the Privy Council, but then took no further steps. Accordingly, the Privy Council dismissed Dr Nemeth's appeal and he was struck off in October 2009.
On lodging his application for restoration, Dr Nemeth had asserted he was not guilty of the original charge. The Committee was disappointed with this aspect of Dr Nemeth's application saying that he would be "well-advised to demonstrate some insight into the seriousness of the original findings."
The Committee emphasised that a finding of dishonesty against a member of the College is "one of great seriousness and never made lightly" and accepted that it may be considered "fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon."
Questioning Dr Nemeth, the Committee was further disappointed to learn that he had not made himself more familiar with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, or made a greater effort to keep up to date with veterinary practice in the UK, or provided documentary evidence of attendance at continuing professional development (CPD) meetings.
After considering all the facts presented to it, including the severe personal and financial impact on Dr Nemeth of his removal from the Register, the Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored and did not consider it in the public interest to grant his application.
Acknowledging she could not bind a future Committee as to any further application for restoration by Dr Nemeth, Committee Chairman Mrs Caroline Freedman advised: "Dr Nemeth should provide supporting evidence where possible, including records of CPD, testimonials from other veterinary surgeons or employers, or a more incisive knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. We would remind Dr Nemeth that the onus is on him to establish his fitness to be restored to the Register."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of 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.
At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince.
The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.
Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care.
Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.
When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.
The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession.
Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."
The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards. "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is calling for members to nominate veterinary surgeons and non-veterinary surgeons who merit the award of Honorary Associateship or Honorary Fellowship.
Honorary Associateships are awarded annually to people, not necessarily veterinary surgeons, by reason of their special eminence in, or special service to, the veterinary profession. Council has agreed that these should only be people ineligible for election as Honorary Fellows.
Honorary Fellowships can be awarded to up to three veterinary surgeons in any one year for their service to, or special eminence in, the cause of veterinary science.
Nominees for Honorary Fellowships must be members of the RCVS and have been a member, or held a registrable qualification, for at least 20 years.
All nominations need to include the particular reasons why the honour/award should be conferred, along with supporting statements from two referees, at least one of whom must not be a working colleague of the person nominated.
Nominations must be received by the President, Dr Jerry Davies, by Friday, 2 September 2011.
Members may download the nomination form, or request it from the RCVS Executive Office (0207 202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk).
Last year a cohort of 1,010 veterinary surgeons responded to the CPD audit, which took place in September 2019 and included a random sample of 658 vets sourced from across all UK postcode areas.
The audit found that 820 (or 81%) of respondents met the annual requirement – a 13% increase from the 2018 audit. This followed a decline in compliance rates from 82% in 2014 to just 68% in 2018.
Amongst veterinary nurses, 79% of respondents were compliant, a 7% increase on last year’s compliance rate and the highest compliance rate ever from a veterinary nursing CPD audit.
Dr. Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), said: "It is fantastic to see that this year’s results demonstrate a significant increase in CPD compliance rates after a number of years in decline for vets and a largely static rate for veterinary nurses and I hope that it is part of a long-term trend towards the professions recognising the value of keeping their clinical and non-clinical skills up-to-date.
"This year we have made a number of changes that should make CPD compliance even easier now, including a clearer and simpler annual CPD requirement of 35 hours for vets and 15 hours for vet nurses, and the 1CPD platform and app which can be signed into through the My Account area and provides the professions with the ability to record, plan and reflect on their CPD."
Further information about the changes to the College’s CPD policy and the 1CPD platform can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
The 1CPD app can be downloaded through the Apple App Store, Google Play and via the RCVS website at https://onecpd.rcvs.org.uk/accounts/login/
The symposium, which will be held on Tuesday 24 September 2019, at Church House in London, will bring together researchers interested in all aspects of veterinary professionals’ wellbeing and mental health. It will feature plenary speakers from mental health research, including:
Professor Neil Greenberg: Sustaining resilience at work – what does the evidence tell us works?, Professor of Defence Mental Health, Consultant Academic Psychiatrist at King’s College London, Chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ (RCP) Special Interest Group in Occupational Psychiatry.
Professor Alexandra Pitman: The impact of veterinarian suicide on colleagues, Associate Professor in Psychiatry in the UCL Division of Psychiatry and an Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust.
Professor Stuart Reid: The Mind Matters Initiative – what we’ve achieved so far, Principal, Royal Veterinary College, Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative.
Presentations should be in the format of a 15-minute oral presentation or an A1 poster.
Those wishing to apply should submit an abstract clearly marked ‘poster’ or ‘oral presentation’. The title should be 15 words or fewer. The abstract should include author(s) first name(s), followed by surname(s), institution of affiliation and country. The body of the text should be no longer than 250 words and include: background; clear and explicit aims and objectives, hypotheses or research questions; methods; results; discussion; and conclusion.
All abstracts should be submitted as Word documents to Rosie Allister on rosie.allister@gmail.com no later than 23:59 (GMT) on Friday 19 April 2019.
Applicants will be notified if they have been successful within 14 days of this date. Speakers whose applications are successful will receive complimentary registration for the symposium, not including travel and accommodations costs.
A small number of travel bursaries are available for students, people with lived experience of mental health problems, and people who are unwaged, who would not otherwise be able to attend. For further details, please contact Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk.
The deal includes an option for the College to lease the building for up to two years to give it time to consider its options for the future, and how they may have changed as a result of the pandemic.
The decision to sell the property was made back in November 2018, when Council decided that the building was rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and the College needed more up-to-date and modern facilities with more room for a growing workforce. The College’s Estates Strategy Project Board was tasked with managing the process, chaired by former RCVS President Barry Johnson.
RCVS Treasurer Susan Dawson said: “Council recognised that this deal realised maximum value for the building, especially considering the impact the pandemic has had on property prices in Central London.
“It also provides a very valuable opportunity to reflect on the changing needs of the organisation and the professions and public it serves, and to consider the requirements and different working patterns of the College staff going forwards.
“It is likely that many staff members will wish to continue to work at home more than they did pre-Covid, so the need for pure desk-space may not be as great as we had planned for the 10-15 years ahead. However, the importance of in-person meetings for collaboration, creativity and the maintenance of good corporate culture is not to be underestimated, so our new requirements are likely to be different to that anticipated back in 2018.”
The College says it expects to welcome limited numbers of staff back to the office in June, to work in a socially distanced way, including virtual or partly-virtual meetings.
Changes to working patterns over the coming months will also help inform decisions around future remote working policies and the type and size of building that will best suit the future needs of the College and its workforce.
The CertAVN was launched in May 2019 as a modular, advanced professional qualification allowing veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to develop their professional skills and knowledge.
The CertAVN framework sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of the higher education institutions responsible for providing the training and support for CertAVN students.
There are currently five accredited course providers in the UK:
The proposed standards for accreditation are set under three areas: curricula and assessment, educators and assessors, and learning culture.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “In order to make sure that the CertAVN remains up to date and fit for purpose, it is important that we consult on the accreditation standards at regular intervals.
"We welcome constructive and specific feedback from veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers – whether you have already undertaken the CertAVN or are perhaps considering doing so in the future – as well as the wider veterinary team, educators, and employers of current and potential CertAVN holders.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for CertAVN students."
The consultation runs until 5pm on Monday 3 March 2025.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/review-of-the-certavn-framework
Would-be candidates in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections are reminded that the nominations deadline is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Veterinary surgeons need two nominations from veterinary surgeons, and veterinary nurses two nominations from veterinary nurses, to stand in the respective elections.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses not presently on either Council can nominate one candidate each.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Six seats are due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is calling for comment on a draft Performance Protocol, which aims to manage proportionately any justified concerns about the professional performance of veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses.
The RCVS's Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees have been working together to develop a new protocol setting out the way in which the College will respond to ongoing performance-related concerns. There is an expectation that veterinary surgeons and RVNs are already regularly reviewing their clinical work in the workplace. This will be reinforced by the new principles-based Code of Professional Conduct, currently being finalised, which is likely to require clinical governance to be part of professional practice for veterinary surgeons and RVNs.
According to the College, the draft protocol is intended to formalise and build on the way it already manages ongoing serious performance-related concerns. It introduces new measures, including supervision and undertakings, to seek to ensure that veterinary surgeons and RVNs take reasonable steps to address any serious performance concerns. This will bring the RCVS into line with other professional regulators and enable a tailored and proportionate response to these cases to protect the welfare of animals and the public interest. The College's current system of offering advice to veterinary surgeons and RVNs will remain for complaints which are closed, because there is no indication of serious professional misconduct.
The College says that according to independent legal advice, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for it to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. The draft performance protocol follows similar legal advice that supported the implementation of the RCVS Health Protocol, and both protocols clarify the College's parallel jurisdiction relating to health and performance-related issues.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "When veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses are unable to deal with performance-related concerns, it is important that we are able to provide a supportive framework to oversee remedial steps that are designed to address those concerns and encourage professional development. This is best achieved outside a Disciplinary Committee hearing, if at all possible".
The approved draft protocol is now open for public consultation, and may be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/performance. All comments on the draft should be emailed to Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager at s.wiklund@rcvs.org.uk by 13 January 2012, with 'Performance Protocol' added to the subject heading.
The feedback received from the consultation will be considered by the Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees in January 2012, before being submitted to RCVS Council for approval in March.
The College says it hopes that a performance protocol will form part of the supporting guidance to the new RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct for both veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses.
Free veterinary careers materials are available from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for vets going back to school to give careers talks.
Freda Andrews, Head of Education said: "We know that, although veterinary surgeons are busy people, they often say yes when schools ask them to give careers talks. "Since September last year we've responded to around 500 requests for our 'Veterinary Science...for all Walks of Life' careers information. If you are giving a talk, these are well worth a look."
Comprising a printed booklet and a series of short videos available online, the careers materials were produced by the RCVS in collaboration with the vet schools and with government funding. They aim to show the variety both in veterinary work, and in vets themselves, to encourage teenagers from all backgrounds to consider aiming for a career in veterinary medicine. The videos can also be watched on the VetCareers channel on YouTube.
Each video features a vet working in a different field within veterinary medicine, and the brochure contains information about different types of veterinary careers, routes into the vet schools, and the entry requirements. Anyone who is in a position to advise aspiring vet students on the university entry requirements needs to be aware that there are now a variety of different routes into vet school, including options for students with vocational qualifications such as BTEC Diplomas, and pre-entry or foundation years aimed at increasing the diversity of the student population.
A new careers leaflet will also shortly be available from the RCVS to encourage would-be veterinary nurses, and will include the new RCVS Level 3 VN Diploma and the mixed-practice route to qualification newly introduced by the RCVS.
Freda said: "Veterinary surgeons can come from all walks of life - as our careers materials show. It's important that the profession reflects the population it serves and for teenagers to have good advice about veterinary careers and how to get into the profession. So, if you're going back to school to encourage the next generation, then get in touch!"
Free hard-copies of the brochure are available by contacting the RCVS Education Department (education@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0791). An interactive version of the booklet can be found at http://www.walksoflife.org.uk/, and individual videos viewed at http://www.youtube.com/vetcareers.
Mr Samuel had been removed from the Register in 2018 for causing unnecessary harm to numerous animals.
After being tried and convicted of several animal welfare offences alongside his former partner at Leeds Magistrates Court, Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12-months on the condition that he did 150 hours of unpaid work.
He was also ordered to pay a £100 fine and subjected to a disqualification order under the Animal Welfare Act for three years.
Mr Samuel’s application for restoration was based on the facts that he accepted the seriousness of his actions and that he did not challenge the DC’s 2018 decision.
The Committee also heard evidence that since his removal from the Register, Mr Samuel - who had run a first opinion veterinary practice for nine years prior to being struck off - has undertaken 340 hours of work experience with other veterinary surgeons and 20 hours of CPD.
Dr Samuel was represented by Counsel who outlined in his submissions to the Committee how Dr Samuel’s former partner had sole responsibility for the animals and that she was involved in rehoming dogs and cats and that their relationship was ‘stressful’, that this made Dr Samuel neglect his professional obligations, and that Dr Samuel was now in a different relationship and his life had been ‘transformed’ since his conviction.
The College opposed Dr Samuel being restored to the Register.
Ms Curtis, Counsel on behalf of the College, submitted to the Committee that Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to the welfare of animals and that to allow him to be restored to the Register would undermine public confidence in the profession.
She explained that even though his sentence and Animal Welfare Act Disqualification Order had come to an end, and he was now legally able to own animals, this should not be equated with him now being fit to return to the Register.
Dr Austin Kirwan MRCVS, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Where a veterinary surgeon has shown himself to be capable of such indifference to the welfare of multiple animals, there remained, in the Committee’s view, a real risk of that indifference manifesting itself again.
"A registered veterinary surgeon is entrusted with the care of animals, often when they are at their most vulnerable, and sometimes for prolonged periods of time.
"Given the nature of the animal welfare offences committed by Dr Samuel, the Committee considered there would be a real and significant risk to animals if the high level of responsibility and trust that comes with registration were returned to him.
“For a veterinary surgeon, conduct involving neglect of animals is at the highest end of the spectrum of serious professional misconduct.
"For the reasons outlined above, the Committee considered Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to animal welfare and thus allowing him to be restored to the Register would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession.
"For all these reasons the application to restore Dr Samuel to the Register is refused.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary