The RCVS has been recognised as one of the best places to work in the country by the Great Place To Work Institute, which carries out comprehensive annual surveys of staff engagement with a wide variety of small, medium and large businesses and organisations.
The College was ranked number 30th out of 50 in the medium (50 to 499 employees) category, after 91% of the staff gave a positive answer to the question: "Taking everything into account, I would say this is a great place to work", compared to 52% agreeing with this statement in 2013.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "The fact that we have been ranked as one of the best places to work in the country demonstrates the great strides made by the College over the past three years and recognises the resolve of staff and Council to improve our working practices, how we communicate with each other and overall well-being.
"It is also a testament to the importance of two-way communication - of giving staff the opportunity and freedom to come up with ideas and having a senior team that is willing to listen to and implement these where appropriate.
"I would also like to thank members of RCVS Council in particular as they have been very supportive of our efforts to improve staff engagement and recognise that a more motivated and happy workforce at the College will be reflected in the quality of service offered to members of the profession."
Following the award, an interview with Nick also appears in Great Workplaces, a magazine produced by Great Place to Work which is included as a supplement in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend.
Further details about steps taken by the College to improve staff engagement can be found on Nick's blog: nickstaceblogs.org
Miss Davies faced four charges:
Miss Davies made no admissions to any of the charges.
Miss Davies wrote to the College prior to the hearing stating that she would not be attending and she was not represented.
The Committee found all charges bar one proved.
Charge 1a, relating to the anaesthesia increase, was found not proved due to lack of evidence.
In deciding on whether the proven facts amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that all charges caused risk of injury to an animal or human.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee found that Miss Davies’ conduct indicated an unwillingness and inability to act according to the veterinary surgeons’ instructions/directions.
It noted that Miss Davies acted on at least seven occasions contrary to the instructions given or without seeking direction or authorisation, despite her position within the surgical team.
It also found that Miss Davies had breached multiple areas of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, including the Code obligations that veterinary nurses must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals and that veterinary nurses must communicate with veterinary surgeons and each other to ensure the health and welfare of the animal or group of animals.
It therefore found that, with the exception of administering intermittent positive-pressure ventilation without direction or authorisation, the remaining proved facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
In doing so, it took into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included that the conduct was sustained over a period of approximately eight months and took place during four separate surgical procedures, and that Miss Davies posed a risk to animals on each occasion.
The Committee considered that there were a number of mitigating factors including the fact that Miss Davies had been on the Register of Veterinary Nurses since 17 January 2006 with no previous disciplinary findings against her, positive testimonials from a colleague working with Miss Davies at the time of the incidents, and the fact that Miss Davies had expressed some remorse in a letter regarding her conduct in relation to charges 3 and 4.
Colin Childs, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that the charges represented a serious departure from the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses and also that there was evidence that Miss Davies had put her own interests before the health and welfare of animals either by not following the instructions of veterinary surgeons or by acting unilaterally, in relation to the administration of medicines or the placement of a catheter or feeding tube during four surgical procedures.
“Since the Committee could not assess Miss Davies’ future risk or her insight in her absence, it therefore decided that removal was the only proportionate sanction because any other sanction would not protect animals or the public in the future without those matters having been adequately assessed.
Such a sanction also met the wider public interest.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Davies from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.
The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.
In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.
On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.
He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.
When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.
Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.
In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.
The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration. However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.
The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.
The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.
In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.
The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.
“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.
“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.
“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.
The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.
Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.
The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.
The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.
Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.
Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).
Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."
Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.
Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.
Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.
Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
The Horse Trust provides a range of services to support working horses, while Medical Detection Dogs trains dogs to alert their owners to cancers and other medical conditions, providing pre-emptive non-invasive warning.
Stephen said: "These two charities' work in strengthening and supporting the human-animal bond is truly remarkable. Though The Horse Trust was originally founded in 1886 as a retirement home for working horses, and this remains a core focus of theirs to this day, it has now evolved to provide a whole range of services, from education to research to rescuing neglected equids.
"Medical Detection Dogs, though founded much more recently in 2008, has already done an incredible amount in its short history - 76 of its dogs are now partnered with people with critical medical conditions, ensuring essential emotional as well as medical support."
Jeanette Allen, CEO of The Horse Trust, said: "The Horse Trust is extremely grateful to the RCVS for this enormously generous donation. We care for 130 horses, ponies and donkeys that have either retired from public service or been rescued from appalling conditions. We also provide dedicated training programmes for first responders who have to deal with horses in crisis situations, as well as being the second largest funder of equine specific veterinary research in the UK. We survive as a charity on donations, and this one is most welcome and greatly appreciated."
Claire Guest, co-founder and chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said: "We are so grateful to the RCVS for their very generous donation. We receive no government funding for our work, so we rely entirely on the generosity of organisations like the RCVS. Thanks to this donation, we can continue our pioneering research into the detection of human disease using the extraordinary smelling power of dogs."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Riding for the Disabled Association, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and Vetlife.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton made previous unsuccessful applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in 1994 following an inspection of his veterinary practice premises in Orpington, Kent, that found that the condition of the practice, including the equipment and facilities, were of such a risk to animal health and welfare that it brought the profession into disrepute.
In considering his current application, the Committee had to take several factors into account, including: whether Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted the findings of his original hearing; whether he demonstrated insight into his past conduct; protection of the public and the public interest; the future welfare of animals committed to his care should he be restored; length of time off the Register; his conduct since removal; and evidence that he’d kept up-to-date in terms of the knowledge and skills required of a practising veterinary surgeon.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton accepted the facts of the original charges but did not accept the conclusions of the two veterinary surgeons who inspected his practice, who, he claimed, had falsely accused him.
As a result, the Committee concluded that Mr Seymour-Hamilton did not accept the seriousness of the original findings against him, nor had he demonstrated any insight into either the original charges, nor what was required of him to enable a successful application for restoration.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is driven to the conclusion that the applicant has displayed total disregard for rules and regulations. In his evidence he stated that he is professionally competent to spay a cat and he had done so in Calais. This was in recent years and whilst struck off by the RCVS, and after more than 25 years out of the profession. He was unable to see that he had done anything wrong in this.”
As to protection of the public and the future welfare of animals committed to his care, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton continued to display a lack of understanding of the role and purpose of regulation. He had shown no insight into previous decisions or of what was required of him to enable a successful restoration, despite being given advice in that regard. He presented no compelling evidence to indicate that he would be safe to practise veterinary surgery were he to be restored to the Register.
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s conduct since removal from the Register, the Committee found he did not demonstrate sufficient relevant conduct in relation to his fitness to practise. The Committee noted that, on previous occasions, he had indicated he had illegally practised veterinary surgery and admitted using his own animals to experimentally administer new and untested remedies.
The Committee found that, in relation to the 27 years since removal from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton had not undertaken the prolonged, intensive and formal retraining needed to ensure he was now fit to practise. It also found that, since the last restoration hearing in 2020, Mr Seymour-Hamilton had undertaken very little continuing professional development, maintaining that he was too busy with his work relating to herbal remedies to attend formal veterinary training.
Judith Webb added: “He claimed that he does not find it difficult to keep up-to-date, because he is able to perform online searches if he is in need of information. He thinks that he is competent to operate even after 27 years out of the profession, and maintains that he could operate now. In the view of the Committee, the applicant is totally unaware of current veterinary principles such as it being an evidence-based profession, use of clinical audit and reflective learning. He does not appear to have accepted the purpose of the regulator in protecting public interest, including maintaining public confidence in the profession, nor its role in upholding professional standards and promoting animal welfare.
The Committee considers that where some 27 years have passed since the applicant has practised, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if he is restored to the Register. In addition, the Committee is firmly of the opinion that it would not be in the public interest for the application for restoration to the RCVS Register to be granted in this case.”
The full documentation from the restoration hearing can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The sessions will allow members of the profession to find out about upcoming College projects and put questions to the RCVS Officer Team, RCVS Council members and senior staff, in a friendly, informal atmosphere.
The first event is taking place at the Hilton Glasgow on William Street at 6:30pm, where there'll be supper and drinks before the main event at 7:30pm, when RCVS President Melissa Donald, RCVS Treasurer Niall Connell, RCVS Senior Vice-President Kate Richards, Junior Vice-President Sue Paterson, VN Council Chair Matthew Rendle, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson and RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett will update everyone on College activities and take questions.
The College says that the topics for discussion will be up to the audience but are likely to include workforce issues, the review of RCVS guidance on under care, proposals for legislative reform, VetGDP and the future of extra-mural studies.
Melissa said: “In my opening speech as RCVS President I said that one of the key missions of my presidential year was to talk – and especially listen – to as many members of the professions as I possibly can.
“Relaunching our question time programme after a hiatus will give me the opportunity to do exactly this, as well as giving members of the professions that all-important opportunity to put their questions and concerns directly to us.
"We might not be able to address every problem, but these events give an excellent opportunity for vets and nurses to raise issues, forge connections with their peers and work together to find solutions.
“I hope that many of you will be able to come to our first in-person event in Glasgow but we will also be holding these question times virtually in the future for those people who may struggle to make it to these evening events.
"Rest assured – if you want to be heard, we will find a way to listen.”
The next in-person event is due to take place in Nottingham in January 2023 while the first virtual question time will take place in November 2022.
To register for the Glasgow event visit: tinyurl.com/22pem3d6
The College sold the premises in March this year, with an option to lease it back for up to two years, giving time for Council to consider the future building requirements of the organisation and how they might have changed following the coronavirus pandemic.
Following easing of government restrictions this summer, the RCVS says that Council members and staff have started using the building for some meetings and day-to-day working, but occupancy has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels.
RCVS Council therefore agreed at its meeting earlier this month that there is now a clear financial benefit to moving out at the first opportunity under the existing terms of lease.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “As we all gradually emerge from the restrictions of the past 18 months, one of the things we, as an organisation, have learned from the pandemic is that we can cope well with remote and hybrid working, whilst continuing to provide a high level of service to the professions and the animal-owning public.
“Retaining the use of our current offices over the last few months has certainly helped us to do this, but our Estates Strategy Group recommended to Council that there was now little to be gained and much to lose financially if we continued to lease Belgravia House for another year.”
“In the coming weeks, we will be drawing up detailed plans for the safe removal and storage of our effects, including the library, historical collection and archives, which are maintained by RCVS Knowledge.
"To support the team until we can move into a permanent building, we will hire serviced office space and meeting rooms around London and elsewhere in the UK as and when we need them.
“We also plan to take Council meetings ‘on the road’ over the next 12 months to enable Council members to engage with more veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses around the country.
“Meanwhile, we remain fully committed to the purchase of a new permanent London home for the RCVS and are seeking a building that not only meets the needs of the professions both now and well into the future, but also aims to be a sound financial investment for the College in the years ahead.”
The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.
The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.
The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.
As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.
Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.
"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."
The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.
The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.
The new guidance, which can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus, will gradually replace the current emergency guidance and aims to help veterinary practices begin a phased return to near-normal operations:
Alongside the College’s guidance, the BVA is also publishing guidance for practices on working safely as lockdown restrictions are eased. [www.bva.co.uk/coronavirus/]
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “None of us could have predicted quite what an extraordinary and extraordinarily challenging 12 months this has been for everyone.
"On behalf of the whole of RCVS Council, I would like to thank sincerely once again all our veterinary and veterinary nursing colleagues, and all those in practice teams around the UK, for their awe-inspiring commitment, adaptability, resilience and sheer hard work in continuing to provide essential veterinary services and look after the health and welfare of the nation’s animals, in what have been the most difficult of times.
“Whilst I sincerely hope that we are at last beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel, if there is one thing we have learnt, it is that things can deteriorate rapidly if we don’t all continue to play our part and follow all relevant guidelines.
“I therefore urge my colleagues to continue to use their professional judgement and think very carefully about their gradual return to more normal working patterns over the coming weeks and months, according to their individual circumstances and the best interests of their teams, clients, and the animals they care for.”
RCVS Council has also agreed that the policy and guidance changes made in response to the pandemic over the past 12 months will now be reviewed, and decisions made as to whether to retain, amend or reverse them.
The taskforce was established following the EU referendum result on 24 June, with the central purpose of putting the profession in charge of its future by maximising the opportunities and minimising the risks of Brexit.
Almost half of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified from veterinary schools elsewhere in the EU. While the Government issued a statement in mid-July clarifying that as yet there has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK or UK nationals in the EU, it is not clear whether this situation will continue once the UK has left the EU.
The Brexit Presidential Taskforce will consider, and proactively engage with, the many possible changes that could shape the future of the UK veterinary profession due to Brexit.
The members of the Taskforce are: the President of the College, Chris Tufnell; the CEO, Nick Stace; the Treasurer, Amanda Boag; Operations Director, Corrie McCann; Junior Vice-President, Stephen May; Acting Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson; Chair of Education, Susan Dawson; Head of Education, Chris Warman; Council member Stuart Reid; Chair of VN Council, Liz Cox; and Director of Strategic Communications, Lizzie Lockett.
The terms of reference include: considering how EU regulations currently impact the regulation of veterinary professionals in the UK, and making recommendations as to which should be maintained; looking at the issue of mutual recognition of veterinary graduates in Europe; considering workforce requirements and the implications of a new system of immigration; understanding the implications for the current RCVS agenda; considering whether a proactive RCVS agenda can influence any new UK legislation; reconsidering the College’s existing international strategy; and studying the financial impact on the College.
It was also agreed that the College should maintain communications with the British Veterinary Association and coordinate approaches where appropriate.
Dr Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Brexit has profound implications for our professions. The Presidential Taskforce is exploring all implications and will develop proposals that will seek to mitigate the risks and maximise the benefits that can flow to the veterinary professions and to animal welfare.
"We are working closely with representative bodies and others so that the veterinary professions have a coordinated and well executed plan in place. We are in discussions with all relevant Government departments, working collaboratively and constructively, ensuring that our voice is heard and our influence is felt."
The next meeting will be held on 15 September, with the third one scheduled for 9 November.
The proceedings will begin at 10am with the formal adoption by RCVS Council of the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2020, which will be published prior to the event.
The College will then answer any written questions that have been submitted about the Annual Report by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
If you have any questions about the Annual Report, you'll need to submit them to RCVS Events Manager Deborah Rowlanes on d.rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk no later than Friday 2 July 2021.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene will then formally welcome the newly-elected RCVS Council members – Louise Allum, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner and Colin Whiting – onto Council for their four-year terms, and newly-elected VN Council members Susan Howarth and Donna Lewis for their three-year terms, as well as saying farewell to retiring members of both Councils.
After a short break, the AGM will reconvene at 11am to approve Kate Richards (pictured right) as President for 2021-22, Melissa Donald as Junior Vice-President, Mandisa as Senior Vice-President, and Niall Connell as Treasurer.
There will then be addresses from Matthew Rendle as Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council, and from Mandisa as the outgoing RCVS President for 2020-21, followed by the formal investiture of the new RCVS Officer Team.
There will then be closing remarks from Kate Richards as the newly invested RCVS President.
If you'd like to attend the AGM, you'll need to register here: www.rcvs.org.uk/agm21-registration.
Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition.
They went to steal the animals from their owners' property after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.
Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.
The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.
Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.
It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.
In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.
The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.
However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.
"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.
“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.
"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”
When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:
The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.
However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.
Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.
"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.
“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.
"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.
"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.
"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”
The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.
It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.
The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.
The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The RCVS Honours and Awards programme recognises veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and laypeople, both in the UK and overseas, who are carrying out exemplary work across the breadth of veterinary endeavour.
This year, there's a new Collaboration Award to recognise best practice in collaboration – whether that’s bringing together veterinary professionals working in different organisations or disparate fields, or veterinary professionals working with human medics, scientists, lawyers, or law enforcement to improve the health of people, animals and the environment.
In addition to the Collaboration Award, the RCVS awards for which nominations can be made this year are:
The deadline for submitting a nomination for the 2026 RCVS awards is Wednesday 7 January 2026.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/rcvs-honours-awards
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/forms/honours-and-awards-2026
The original survey was sent last year to more than 5,000 UK-registered veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who gained their qualification from a non-UK EU institution, with a response rate of around 55%.
This year the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), on behalf of the RCVS, contacted over 6,000 veterinary surgeons and almost 50 veterinary nurses – including those previously surveyed as well as EU registrants who have joined since the last survey – who trained in non-UK EU countries to seek their views on the implications of Brexit for European veterinary professionals.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Senior Vice-President and Chair of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, said: "The aim of this survey is to gain a greater understanding of the views and expectations of our EU colleagues now that certain elements of the UK’s withdrawal process from the European Union, as well as the timing, have become clearer. The survey will also be looking for the views of colleagues on how the College has addressed the challenges of Brexit so far.
"It is particularly important that those who responded to last year’s survey do so this year because the aim is to get a sense of how their views and plans are shifting as the Brexit process moves forward."
As with last year’s survey, the views collated through the consultation will help the College understand the immediate and longer-term impact of the UK’s exit from the EU, gather evidence that could be used to make a case for special treatment of veterinary professionals with regard to future immigration policies and allow the College to provide informed advice to European veterinary professionals as they make decisions about their future careers.
Dr Tufnell added: "I would strongly encourage EU veterinary professionals to respond to this survey, even if they didn’t do so last year, as their views really do matter to us and really do have an impact on our Brexit policies and the views we put forward to the government in these critical times."
The deadline for sending responses to the IES is Wednesday 18 July 2018 and all data will be managed and analysed by IES, an independent not-for-profit research institute, on a confidential basis with no individual responses being seen by the RCVS.
The College says it intends to conduct a third survey when the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and the impact of this on non-UK EU nationals, are better defined.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard two charges against Dr Nemes, the first being that he had posted comments on social media about another veterinary surgeon, his employer, Dr Toth, which were offensive and/or derogatory and/or inappropriate.
The second charge was that Dr Nemes had posted his comments without having sufficient regard to maintaining their confidentiality and/or privacy.
Dr Nemes admitted the charges, though he did inform the Committee that his admission with respect to the second charge was caveated by the proposition that the comments were posted in private messages on Facebook with a limited membership, namely employees of Healers Veterinary Centre (Dr Toth’s practice).
The Committee noted the Respondent’s admissions as to the charges raised against him and pronounced the facts found proved.
In relation to the first charge, the Committee found that the comments on social media were, without a doubt, highly unprofessional. They included offensive language, were gratuitously personal against Dr Toth, and were made within an online chat which included junior lay staff, all employed by Dr Toth.
This behaviour was seen to directly contravene a numbers of parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, in particular Paragraph 5.3 that states: "Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Nurses should not speak or write disparagingly about another Veterinary Surgeon or Veterinary Nurse."
In relation to the second charge, the Committee found that Dr Nemes had paid no regard to maintaining the confidentiality and/or privacy of his malicious and damaging entries to the chat.
At the outset of his evidence, Dr Nemes admitted that the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee noted however that the question of whether he was guilty of serious professional misconduct or not was in fact a matter for it to decide, notwithstanding his admission.
The Committee considered the fact that the period of time that Dr Nemes was involved in making postings was effectively about two weeks, that his involvement followed his wife’s dismissal from employment (representing a breach of Dr Nemes’ resignation conditions), and that he was very stressed at the time.
It also considered Dr Nemes’ point that he had never anticipated that Dr Toth would see the Facebook Messenger conversation, and that the relevant RCVS supporting guidance to the Code concerning good practice when using social media and online networking forums was only published in late November 2014 when Dr Nemes’ involvement in the conversation was virtually at an end.
In summing up, Ian Green, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the Facebook Messenger entries which the Respondent posted from 13 November 2014. It noted that at the time he had handed in his resignation, morale at the practice was very low. The Facebook Messenger chat site had been started amongst the receptionist/animal carers. A perusal of the entries before the Respondent joined on 13 November 2014 demonstrates that morale was low among that group.
"…Notwithstanding the nature of the remarks posted on the Facebook Messenger, which the Committee deplores, it has reached the conclusion that, whilst the Respondent’s behaviour amounts to misconduct and falls short of the standards expected of a member of the veterinary profession, it does not amount to serious misconduct and does not fall far short.
"In the circumstances it has reached the unusual conclusion that, notwithstanding the Respondent’s admission, the appropriate finding is that he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The programme, which was developed in collaboration with the NHS Leadership Academy, is designed to teach a number of skills that underpin good leadership, including decision-making, resilience, implementing an inclusive culture and encouraging reflective learning approaches. It comprises two free-to-access courses and an optional paid for assessment.
The College says that one of the programme's most popular aspects is its audio drama, which follows the lives of veterinary professionals living in the fictional county of Glenvern. The stories that depict the characters’ working lives seek to reveal the diverse leadership challenges that veterinary professionals face on a day-to-day basis. This in turn prompts the listener to reflect, consider how they would respond, and learn from their own experiences as well as those of other people.
The first course was piloted this summer, with over 550 veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, students and practice managers helping the College to develop and refine the material, whilst a group of learners are currently piloting the second course in the series.
Simon Patchett MRCVS, who works at Vets Now 24/7 Emergency and Specialty Hospital, Glasgow, said: "This course really highlighted leadership qualities that are often taken for granted. The course demonstrates that you do not need a status position in order to demonstrate effective leadership even though status positions are often where we look for leadership. I would recommend this course to both vets and nurses in clinical practice - it's a real eye opener, and as a result of doing the course perhaps we can see less age-restricted approach to leadership within the veterinary profession?"
Given the overwhelmingly positive feedback received on the first course the RCVS has now opened the programme to all veterinary professionals.
The programme is now accepting registrations for a new cohort of learners to begin the first of three courses on 26th November. A ‘sign-up’ email will be sent out to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses ahead of the course starting.
Director of Leadership and Innovation at the RCVS, Anthony Roberts, said: "I am very pleased to be able to announce the launch of this programme. I would urge anyone with an interest in developing their leadership skills, as well as those looking to refine their longstanding leadership skills, to take part. The feedback we have received on the first course in this programme [please see Notes to Editors] has shown us that this MOOC has a far-reaching application, and is both educational and enjoyable. Whether you are a vet, veterinary nurse, practice manager or student, this programme will be relevant and useful in your professional career."
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/leadershipmooc or email: leadership@rcvs.org.uk
Mr Makepeace faced five charges.
The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.
He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.
The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.
The fourth charge was that was a repetition of the second.
The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.
Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.
In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.
This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.
The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.
With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.
The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.
All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.
Aggravating factors taken into account were:
Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.
Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.
"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.
“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.
"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS has announced that it will start to accept the first applications for the new Advanced Practitioner status from the start of September.
The new accreditation status represents a 'middle tier' between veterinary surgeons holding an initial veterinary degree and RCVS Specialists and will demonstrate that the veterinary surgeon has advanced knowledge and experience in a designated field of veterinary practice.
Practising veterinary surgeons with at least five years' experience and a relevant postgraduate qualification are eligible to apply to be recognised as RCVS Advanced Practitioners. Accepted qualifications include the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) with a designation; the RCVS Certificate awarded up to 2012; postgraduate clinical qualifications awarded by universities or recognised awarding bodies; and other relevant clinical postgraduate master's degrees. Full details of eligible qualifications can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced
Advanced Practitioners will be expected to undertake at least 250 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) over each five-year period of accreditation, of which 125 hours should be in their designated field.
Dr Kit Sturgess is Chair of the Advanced Practitioner Assessors Panel and was involved in the development of the scheme. He said: "I am very proud that we will soon be accepting applications for the Advanced Practitioner status, just two years after the need for such an accreditation was highlighted by Professor Sir Kenneth Calman's Specialisation Working Party, set up to look at the whole specialisation framework.
"Being an Advanced Practitioner is more than just a status - it will demonstrate to members of the public and colleagues alike that a veterinary surgeon is working at an advanced level in their field and has made an ongoing commitment to career development and lifelong learning through engaging with CPD over and above the RCVS minimum requirement."
Applications from holders of the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) with a designation can apply from 1 September 2014 while those holding any other relevant qualifications can apply from 13 October 2014. The deadline for all applications during this first round is 30 November 2014.
Applications can be made online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced where further information about eligible qualifications, CPD requirements and other details can be found. The application fee for this year is £50 - from next year it will be £80. Thereafter there will be an annual fee to remain on the list (£80 by direct debit; £90 otherwise, at current rates).
All eligible applications will be assessed by the Advanced Practitioner Assessors Panel. The first list of Advanced Practitioners is due to be published, alongside the updated Specialist list, in spring 2015 subject to approval by the RCVS Education Committee in February 2015.
If accepted on to the list, practitioners will be able to use 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner in [designated field]' after their names. The accreditation and its designation will also be a primary search field on the RCVS Find a Vet practice database as well as appearing after an individual's name on the Check the Register search tool.
Once the first list has been published, the status of Advanced Practitioner will be promoted to the public.
A free webinar about Advanced Practitioner status, hosted by the Webinar Vet, will take place on Tuesday 30 September at 8.30pm. To register for the webinar visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs-advanced-practitioner-status
For further advice or details about making an application for Advanced Practitioner accreditation, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced or contact the Education Department on 020 7202 0791 or ap@rcvs.org.uk
201 practices took part in the survey between 25th February and 4th March 2021. The main findings were:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Although this survey took place in the midst of the lockdown and before the schools re-opened, there were some positive results here around staffing and the financial situation for practices. Hopefully this will mean that, as the restrictions ease going from spring into summer, many practices and practice staff will be in a position to return to a near-normal level of service and business.
"There were, however, still a few areas of concern, some of which will hopefully be resolved by the forthcoming easing of restrictions, for example, the difficulty in obtaining independent witnesses for the destruction of controlled drugs, with some 34% of practices reporting difficulties, compared to 20% in December.
“Once again, I would like to thank all those practices who responded to this and previous surveys, and continue to provide invaluable evidence and feedback about the current state of veterinary practice.”
The full results of the survey can be downloaded at: www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that the retention fee payment deadline is 31 March. Fee payments received after 1 April are subject to an extra £35, and veterinary surgeons whose fees remain unpaid after 31 May are removed from the Register.
Veterinary surgeons also need to confirm or update their Register details annually as part of renewing their registration. Although the deadline for this is 30 September, members may find it convenient to do this at the same time as making fee payments. UK- and overseas-practising members need to confirm additionally that they have met the continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. Renewals can be made either online or via the form included with the annual renewal notice, regardless of how payments are made.
Fees can be paid through the RCVS website, by cheque, direct debit (which will need to have been set up in advance) or bank transfer. Particularly relevant for those making payments on someone else's behalf, is to remember to write the vet's name and Register number on the back of the cheque, or as a bank transfer reference. The RCVS processes over 22,000 registrations every year and needs to know to whom each payment relates.
For those who have set up a direct debit, the RCVS generally aims to take the payment on 31 March. As this will be a Sunday this year, the payment will be taken as soon as possible afterwards. To set up a bank transfer (which can be from a bank account online, telephone banking, or a branch, depending what the bank offers) the RCVS account details are available by telephoning the Finance Department (020 7202 0723). Payments cannot be taken over the phone.
A veterinary surgeon's registration acts as a licence to practise and those removed from the Register may not practise unless and until they have been restored.
Under the protocol trial, the RCVS can launch private prosecutions against unqualified people practising veterinary surgery or using the title 'veterinary surgeon'.
The College says that where breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act cross over to other criminal offences, for example, fraud by false representation, they will be more properly dealt with by the relevant police force.
Local authority trading standards agencies will also deal with issues around, for example, misleading courses that purport to lead to registration with the RCVS but do not; concerns about dog grooming businesses and concerns about dog breeding establishments (other than where there is illegal practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons).
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “This protocol recognises that there are constraints on the time, resourcing, and budgets of both the police and public prosecutors which means that the pursuit of these breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, both of which carry minor criminal penalties, is not necessarily a priority.
“While we are always willing to work with the police and other agencies to pursue such breaches, the protocol details how we can act independently where appropriate and ensure we are fulfilling our stated ambition to safeguard the interests of the public and animals, as well as the reputation of the professions, by ensuring that only those registered with us can carry out acts of veterinary surgery.
“We would like to manage expectations around this trial period as we will only be launching private prosecutions where they meet the criminal evidential standards of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it is judged to be in the public interest to do so.
"We will also be relying on members of the professions and the public to report breaches and provide sufficient evidence to us, as we have no statutory investigatory powers.”
The trial period will last for one year and the College has set aside £50,000 to pursue private prosecutions.
The trial will be overseen by the Disciplinary Committee/ Preliminary Investigation Committee Liaison Committee while decisions on whether to pursue private prosecutions will lie with the Registrar/ Director of Legal Services.
Suspected breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act can be reported to the RCVS Professional Conduct Department on breachvsa@rcvs.org.uk.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and the BVA to help the profession prepare for and shape its own future, has revealed the results of a survey which found that 59% of veterinary surgeons are optimistic about the future of the profession. 600 vets took part in the survey, which explored vets' attitudes towards their profession, and asked them to prioritise the key issues and rank some of the major threats and opportunities for the profession.Reducing stress was the single most important goal for the future, with 19% of respondents choosing it from a long list of options.The BVA and the RCVS say that priority goals for veterinary surgeons varied according to different areas of work and seniority in the profession. However, an overriding and uniting theme from the findings was the pursuit of recognition for the role vets play across the board. Vets' perception of the veterinary contribution to non-clinical roles, such as research, food supply and security, and public health, is high, but they don't believe the general public values these roles.Four of the respondents' top five goals for 2030 related to recognition:
Looking at how vets are respected and valued by society, Vet Futures points to its national ICM opinion poll of more than 2,000 members of the public which found that 94% of the general public trusts the veterinary profession generally or completely.
In terms of their own careers, 59% of vets said they felt that they had met or exceeded their expectations, leaving 41% saying their careers had only met some expectations (38%) or not met any (3%). Amongst this large minority of dissatisfied vets the reasons for their responses included: few opportunities for progression, pay, and working hours.The survey also asked vets to rank threats and opportunities for the profession and found that respondents considered the three greatest opportunities to be:
BVA President John Blackwell said: "It's heartening to see that, at the moment, the veterinary glass is half full for many. But we know that younger vets are disproportionately represented amongst those who are feeling less positive about their own careers, which is a real concern for future generations. There is clearly work to be done, through Vet Futures, for the profession to think innovatively in order to tackle some of their concerns around career progression, pay and working hours, as well as stress."The good news is that, through the Vet Futures UK-wide roadshow and our online engagement, we have been hearing new and interesting ideas for the future. We want to hear from as many vets, vet nurses and others who have a stake in the future of the profession and I would encourage people to get involved through our 'Veterinary Vision' essay competition or via the Vet Futures website."RCVS President Stuart Reid added: "There is a lot for the veterinary profession to be proud of but the Vet Futures survey shows that vets are concerned the general public doesn't understand or value the variety of roles we undertake outside clinical practice."We have also heard through our guest blog that vets working outside of practice sometimes feel that they are treated as second-class vets. "Through the Vet Futures project RCVS and BVA aim to address the lack of public awareness about the variety of roles undertaken by members of the profession, as well as increase understanding and access to these varied career opportunities amongst the profession. "We want to enable all veterinary surgeons to not only feel optimistic, but confident in their future."
Nominations can be made for three RCVS Honours: the Queen’s Medal, the Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship.
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon. The 2016 winner of the award was Professor Randolph Richards who was honoured for his contribution to the development of aquaculture in Scotland.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. The 2016 winner of the award was Louise O’Dwyer who was recognised for her pioneering role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have made a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists. This year an Honorary Associateship was awarded to Professor David Lane for his support in launching the College’s Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours.
The deadline for nominations is Friday 16 September 2016 and all awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.
The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.
At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.
However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application.
The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017.
"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."
Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing.
Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."
Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.