The Practice Standards Scheme was launched in 2005 and then relaunched in 2015 to better recognise and reward how practices use their resources to create a positive outcome for patients and clients.
The modules and awards for all species groups (small animals, farm animal, and equine) have now been updated and a summary of the changes can be found at the end of each set of the respective modules.
Pam Mosedale, Lead Assessor, said: "These updates are part of our continuous efforts to ensure we have a flexible PSS, one that can respond to feedback and constantly reflect the realities of everyday practice.
"We would encourage all PSS-accredited practices to familiarise themselves with the updated modules, especially if they have an accreditation or awards assessment in the near future."
To view the updates, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/ and download the appropriate 'related document' (v1.2)
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
The Legislative Reform Consultation took place between November 2020 and April 2021 and asked members of the veterinary profession and the public to give their responses to a package of proposals for future veterinary legislation designed to enhance the role of veterinary nurses, modernise RCVS registration, lead to a modern fitness to practise regime, and ensure the regulation of veterinary practices.
The proposals represent the biggest legislative reform since the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.
In total the consultation received 1,330 responses, of which 714 (54%) were from veterinary surgeons, 335 (25%) from veterinary nurses, 93 (7%) from veterinary paraprofessionals, 73 (5%) from student veterinary nurses, 58 (4%) from members of the public, 40 (3%) from veterinary and industry organisations, including representative bodies, and the remainder from veterinary students and veterinary practice managers.
An analysis of the consultation responses covering each of the five core areas and their individual recommendations can be found in the final report, which is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
After considering this report, Council voted by a majority to accept the recommendations, meaning that they are now formally adopted as RCVS policy and will form the basis for discussions on the need for new legislation with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
Professor Stephen May has chaired the Legislation Working Party that developed the proposal since its inception in 2017 when he was RCVS President. He said: “We are very grateful to those individuals and organisations who took the time to complete this very important consultation on recommendations for the future legislative framework for the professions. We also appreciate the candour of those who were unsure about or opposed to the recommendations.
“When the Legislation Working Party met to consider the responses and the report, it decided that, while no substantive changes needed to be made to the principle-based recommendations, the points raised both against and in favour of individual recommendations gave us important material for additional consideration, and food for thought as to how any detailed proposals would be implemented once enabling legislation is in place.
“We look forward to submitting these recommendations to Defra formally, with a view to them becoming, in time, a bill put before Parliament to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In so doing, this would establish a modern, flexible and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make sure the regulatory structure for the veterinary professions is fit for purpose for decades to come.”
As well as the main report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, RCVS Council also considered a series of interim measures that would be in line with the overall aims of future legislative changes, but which could be implemented without primary legislation.
The proposed interim measures included:
Council members voted on each of these interim measures on an individual basis – with the mini-PICs and the Charter Case Protocol being accepted by majority vote.
However, Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof at this time, citing a number of concerns about the potential impact of it being implemented under the current concerns investigation and disciplinary procedures. Similar concerns had been put forward by many of those who responded to the consultation itself.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The approved procedural changes will, I believe, lead to a significant improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of our disciplinary processes. The Charter Case Protocol will mean that, in suitable cases where a finding of serious professional misconduct at a full disciplinary hearing would likely only lead to a reprimand or to no further action being taken, a more proportionate and less time-consuming and expensive means of resolving cases will be available. However, it will still reflect the seriousness of the matters and continue to protect the public interest, welfare and the reputation of the profession.
“Furthermore, by phasing out the Case Examiner Group stage and instead referring concerns to ‘mini’ PICs, which will decide if the threshold of serious professional misconduct has been met, it will make our concerns investigation processes clearer and more streamlined and therefore more efficient. We look forward to publishing further details on both of these changes in due course.
“Although Council members accepted that a change of the standard of proof would be an integral part of introducing a modern fitness to practise (FTP) regime as part of any future legislation, they had significant concerns about the ‘interim’ recommendation to introduce it under the current arrangements, in advance of implementing a full FTP model, and so a majority felt that they could not vote for it.”
To read the full report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, including analysis of the responses, please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene at his professional premises and failing to properly maintain a Controlled Drugs Register or patient records.
In June 1994, the Committee found that Mr Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton, at that time the only veterinary surgeon practising at premises at 9 Orchard Grove, Orpington, Kent, was guilty of disgraceful professional conduct and should have his name removed from the Register. The state and condition of the premises were found to be such as to risk the health and welfare of animals taken to the premises, and bring the profession into disrepute. An application made by Mr Seymour-Hamilton for restoration made in 1995 was refused.
At a restoration hearing on 18 June 2010, Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he sought restoration to the Register because he wished to further his research work into plants with potential medicinal properties. Restoration, he said, would improve his professional status by giving him more credibility, particularly in terms of recognition by the medical and veterinary professions.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he had no intention of returning to clinical practice immediately, and neither the Committee nor the College had heard of any adverse conduct by the applicant since his removal.
However, Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, noted that if Mr Seymour-Hamilton were to be restored, the Committee would have no power to prevent him from returning to general practice.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's response to questioning by the Committee raised a number of concerns with respect to the future welfare of animals should restoration be granted. He told the Committee that he had not undertaken any relevant Continuing Professional Development in the past 15 years, and said he lacked knowledge of current relevant legislation, for example, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and basic 'Cascade' prescribing requirements. He also said that he had not read the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in the past 15 years and that it would not be satisfactory for him immediately to return to general practice.
Ms Freedman said: "If the Committee were to reinstate the Applicant to the Register, it would have to be satisfied that he is competent and safe to practise immediately. The Committee has an obligation to protect the public and animal welfare and cannot simply accept his assurances that he would take steps to rectify his self-confessed shortcomings at some point in the future."
Having taken all the evidence presented into account, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Seymour-Hamilton was fit to be restored to the Register and dismissed his application.
The Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of approved educational institutions (AEIs), delivery sites and the training practices (TPs) responsible for providing the training and support for student veterinary nurses.
The College reviews the standards framework every five years to ensure that AEIs, delivery sites and TPs have the structures to best provide contemporary and innovative approaches to education for student veterinary nurses, while being accountable for the local delivery and management of accredited programmes.
The new draft framework includes updates relating to sustainability and academic integrity.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “We are looking for veterinary nurses in all walks of life – as well as student nurses and veterinary surgeons – to provide constructive and specific feedback on our proposals.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for our students, prepare them for life in clinical practice, and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
“In fact, animal health and welfare and public safety is central to our standards.
Students will be in contact with patients and their owners throughout their education and it is important that they learn in a safe and effective way.”
The consultation runs until 5pm on Wednesday 3 April 2024 and all members of the veterinary team – including RVNs, student veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons – can take part in order to provide detailed feedback on each of the six core standards and each of individual requirements within these standards.
A PDF version of the new draft Standards Framework is available to download from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations.
If you have any questions about the document or how to respond to the survey, contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Team on vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk
Kit, who has served on Council as an elected member since 2013, is currently the Chair of the RCVS Finances & Resources Committee and has been RCVS Treasurer for the past three years.
He is also a member of a range of committees and project groups across the RCVS including: the Audit and Risk Committee; the PIC/ DC Liaison Committee; the Certification Subcommittee; the Estate Strategy Project Board; the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees; and the Advanced Practitioners Panel.
Since 2003 Kit has been working as an internist (he is an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Small Animal Medicine) in private referral practice. In 2006 he became a founding partner in a multidisciplinary referral centre that he saw grow from five to 65 members of staff within five years.
His interests include workforce issues, communicating the diverse clinical and non-clinical skills of veterinary surgeons to the general public and government, and facilitating life-long learning through achievable further professional qualifications and effective CPD.
Kit said: "It was a great honour to be elected as the next Junior Vice President by my fellow council members. I feel that I can make a positive contribution to the work that the RCVS is already undertaking in ensuring the veterinary team remains healthy and respected. In particular I am keen to look at how the RCVS can help find solutions to our workforce issues - improving retention as well as encouraging and facilitating vets and nurses back into the profession."
In addition to Kit being elected as JVP, the current holder of that office, Dr Mandisa Greene, was confirmed as President for 2020-21 and current President, Dr Niall Connell, was confirmed as Senior Vice-President for this period.
Professor Susan Dawson was voted in as RCVS Treasurer, and she will be formally invested in this role at Royal College Day on Friday, 10 July.
Professor David Argyle has been elected as Chair of Advancement of the Professions Committee for a second year, Dr Susan Paterson has been elected as Chair of Education Committee for her second year, and Dr Melissa Donald has been elected Chair of Standards Committee for her second year.
Kit and Melissa's positions are subject to their successful re-election in the 2020 RCVS Council Elections
More information on the RCVS Council and its members can be found on the RCVS website: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council.
Niall, who stepped up from Vice Chair to acting interim Chair of the Fellowship Board after the resignation of the previous Chair, has been formally elected as Chair of the Board.
In his role as Chair, Niall will continue to lead the Board, which is responsible for setting the criteria for joining the Fellowship across all three of its routes to entry, as well as the process by which applications are assessed.
An election for the position of Vice Chair of the Fellowship Board will take place in the autumn.
Niall said: “I am honoured beyond words to be elected Chair of the RCVS Fellowship and I'm very grateful for the support received to achieve this.
“I know I have very big shoes to fill, thanks to the great efforts that have gone on before and I will put all my available energy into continuing to work with our Fellows and the College to progress the goals of RCVS Fellowship as a resource of independent knowledge for our professions, to upskill and always innovate, while looking to enrich public awareness and discussion.”
Nicky Paull MRCVS, who has held the position of Chair of the Credentials Panel for the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway for the past three years, was successfully re-elected.
Nicky will continue to be responsible for making assessments of applicants aiming to gain Fellowship through the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway.
She will co-ordinate and oversee a review of the applications by her fellow panel members, as well as chairing any required appropriate panel meetings.
On her appointment, Nicky said: “I look forward to the challenge of continuing to grow the diversity of the Fellowship and celebrate those who, by their contribution to the advancement of the profession by clinical or educational scholarship and leadership, have had a significant impact on clinical practice within the veterinary profession.”
Niall and Nicky will be formally instated into their roles at Fellowship Day, which is due to take place on Thursday 28 November at One Great George Street, London.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/
There are eight veterinary surgeons standing in this year’s RCVS Council election, including three existing Council members eligible for re-election and five candidates not currently on Council. They are:
John DaviesDr Melissa DonaldDr Tom LonsdaleProfessor Stephen MayDr Kate RichardsPeter RobinsonDr Richard StephensonDr Kit Sturgess
Ballot papers and candidates’ details for both elections have been posted to all veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote. Voters have also been emailed unique links the secure voting websites.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020.
All candidates were invited to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted to the RCVS by members of the electorate. The videos received so far have been published on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote20 and on the College's YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos). The candidate statements and biogs, and the questions submitted by members of the profession have also been published on the vetvote20 page.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer, said: “With all that is happening currently, we are glad to say that we have been able to continue with business as usual as far as the RCVS and VN Councils elections are concerned, albeit with some minor delays on publishing the candidate videos.
Those who are eligible to vote in the RCVS Council election but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Media Manager, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk
The redesign includes an overhaul of the layout, structure and navigation of all the College’s websites: Professionals, Animal Owners, Find a Vet and RCVS Knowledge.
Some of the main changes are:
Ian Holloway, Head of Communications, said: "We’re delighted to be launching our new-look site today and hope all the improvements we’ve incorporated will make using the site a much better experience for veterinary professionals and animal owners alike.
"Working closely with our website provider, NetXtra, over the past nine months, we’ve been able to develop a new-look site with vastly improved design, structure and navigation, whilst avoiding the major expense of building a completely new website from scratch.
"We’re very grateful to them, and to all those vets, vet nurses and members of the public who have helped us with user-testing and content mapping to improve the site as much as possible for everyone who uses it."
Anyone with any comments or feedback about the new-look site is invited to send it to communications@rcvs.org.uk.
The six-floor building, which the College bought for £22.3m in 2022, was originally a warehouse.
Over the years it has been home to a range of businesses from leather manufacturers and papers makers to lithographic plate makers and shoe upping manufacturers, before becoming an office space.
The building remained tenanted until 2024, when £5.8m worth of renovation work to convert the building into a space suitable for a royal college began.
In addition to the working areas for RCVS and RCVS Knowledge staff, the building also has:
RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett, said: “After a few years in a rented co-working office space, we’re delighted to have moved into our new home, designed not only to meet the needs of College staff, but to support the broader ambitions of the RCVS as a whole.
“Our new strategic plan has collaboration at its heart – the idea of being stronger through working together – and our new building will help us to achieve that.
“Whether attending events, exploring RCVS Knowledge’s archives, using the members' area and meeting rooms, or benefitting from the outputs that the new space enables, the building has been developed with members and associates as a central focus.”
RCVS President, Linda Belton, added: "It’s great to see what’s been achieved through this project and my thanks go to the team who have managed the refurbishment and move.
“The new premises are equipped to ensure that the voice of the veterinary professions remains integral in assuring animal health, welfare, and public health in the UK, allowing for those all-important stakeholder conversations essential to setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.
“We look forward to welcoming members, associates, students and stakeholders alike in the coming months and years.”
The Fellowship was relaunched earlier this year with three new routes to entry and a greater focus on giving veterinary surgeons from all parts of the profession the opportunity to become an RCVS Fellow. In total over 50 people applied to become a Fellow through one of the three routes – Meritorious Contribution to Knowledge, Meritorious Contribution to Clinical Practice and Meritorious Contribution to the Profession – of whom 44 were successful.
Those who were successful were honoured at the College’s inaugural annual Fellowship Day on Wednesday 19 October were they received their certificates of Fellowship from RCVS President Chris Tufnell.
Nick Bacon chairs the Fellowship Board which, through its various Credential Panels, assesses each of the Fellowship applications. He said: "The recent Fellowship Day was a great success and celebrated the contributions of many colleagues who had a wide range of veterinary careers and expertise.
"I hope to see many similar days over the coming years and would encourage experienced veterinary surgeons who feel they have made a significant contribution to our profession to apply to become a Fellow – whether you are from teaching, research, industry or clinical practice."
Details of how to apply are on the College’s website at www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship. Those who are interested in applying can also contact Duncan Ash, Senior Education Officer, for further details on d.ash@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0703.
The RCVS has called for comments on a Concept Note which considers how the Practice Standards Scheme might develop in the future.
The Scheme is administered by the RCVS and the detailed Standards are decided in consultation with the Practice Standards Group (PSG), which includes representatives from all of the key veterinary organisations.
The PSG is considering the future direction of the Scheme as part of the second five-year review that has been undertaken - the first resulted in a new Manual and Standards in 2010.
The proposal this time is to move to a more modular approach, with greater flexibility and an increased focus on behaviours. The proposals also aim to address some of the perceived shortcomings of the Scheme, for example, that it is a 'box-ticking' exercise; that the Scheme puts too much emphasis on paperwork requirements; and, that it is inflexible, particularly at Hospital level, meaning that to qualify, practices would have to purchase expensive equipment that they would never use.
PSG Chairman, Peter Jinman said: "Although the fundamental aim of the Scheme remains to raise and maintain high standards, the PSG recognises that it's important to address criticisms that may be acting as barriers to new members joining.
"It is hoped that changes can also be made that will provide a pathway for existing members to attain higher, more meaningful standards, which are directly relevant to animal care."
The Concept Note is available on www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations, and feedback should be sent to Practice Standards Scheme Manager Eleanor Ferguson, at e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk, or to a Practice Standards Group member (as outlined in the Concept Note), by 20 December 2012.
This feedback will inform the development of more detailed proposals, which will be put out to full consultation in due course.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off a Wiltshire-based veterinary surgeon for charges relating to tuberculin (TB) testing on cattle that he undertook and certified at four farms during June and July of 2010.
At the end of the ten-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Sorin Dinu Chelemen guilty of 32 charges relating to his work as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for Animal Health, while employed as a locum at Endell Veterinary Group, Salisbury. Mr Chelemen, who represented himself at the hearing, disputed all of the charges. He also said he had had poor knowledge and comprehension of written and spoken English at the time, which had since improved.
Mr Chelemen gave the Committee detailed accounts of what he said occurred in relation to the TB testing at all four farms. However, in almost all the points where the facts were denied, the Committee found a stark divergence between his evidence and that given by witnesses for the College.
The Committee was generally unimpressed by Mr Chelemen's account of events, finding many of his allegations and explanations for his actions to be incredible or unreliable. For example, he claimed that during his Animal Health training, he had not been given a copy of the 'Manual of Procedures' containing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for TB testing. Although the Committee accepted Mr Chelemen's English had been poor at the time, leading to communication problems, he had satisfactorily demonstrated that he knew how to perform TB tests in accordance with these SOPs when he started work at the practice. Overall, the Committee found Mr Chelemen's attitude was that he had not done anything wrong and nothing was his fault, and that he had little understanding of the professional responsibilities incumbent on an OV.
By contrast, the Committee considered all the witnesses called by the College to have given clear, credible and consistent evidence. Complaints had been made about three farms that were separate and unconnected, and where the tests had been conducted on different dates. These complaints, if not identical, were very similar. The evidence was overwhelming that Mr Chelemen had not followed the SOPs when carrying out testing at three of the farms.
The Committee noted that the measurements recorded by Mr Chelemen did not show the differences which would be normally expected. Mr Chelemen had not measured the animals in accordance with the SOPs when he knew he ought to have, and he had been dishonest in certifying the tests.
When considering sanctions, the Committee found an aggravating factor was that Mr Chelemen's actions undermined procedures to prevent the spread of disease. In particular, he failed to notify the owners of animals on three farms that he had found reactors or inconclusive reactors, resulting in those animals not being isolated. Nor did he submit paperwork to Animal Health about these animals, which was a fundamental breach of his duties as an OV.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that Mr Chelemen had no previous RCVS disciplinary findings against him; and, that the OV training he received was limited, having regard to English not being his first language and relative inexperience as a TB tester. It also took into account that this disciplinary case had been in progress for three years, his poor health and his financial and family circumstances.
Mrs Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is of the view that this is a most serious case, in which the integrity of TB testing was undermined, and animal health was put at risk, which may have resulted in the spread of disease. Furthermore, this case involves findings of dishonesty, which has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
She directed that Mr Chelemen be struck off the Register.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a Berkshire-based veterinary surgeon, previously convicted of four offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, should be removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Dr Ohene-Gyan was convicted at Reading Magistrates Court on 13 June 2012 of offences involving causing unnecessary suffering to three dogs and a cat that he had treated whilst working at Woosehill Vets, Wokingham, between February and October 2011. These offences related to failing to provide adequate or appropriate veterinary care or treatment, or failure to investigate and address an animal's poor condition. He was sentenced to 21 weeks' imprisonment concurrently for each offence.
Dr Ohene-Gyan did not attend the one-day Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented, although College records showed that he was aware of the dates of the hearing, and had had opportunity to apply for an adjournment. In the absence of any known good reason for Dr Ohene-Gyan's non-attendance, the Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the hearing go ahead.
In considering whether the Respondent's convictions made him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, the Committee depended on the findings of the District Judge and the remarks she had made when sentencing. "I found as a matter of fact that some of your actions were taken simply to run up a bill for the owners of pets," she had said. "You were in a position of special responsibility, trusted by the owners of the animals to treat them appropriately and to alleviate their suffering. You ignored advice from staff. Several animals were affected by your cruel disregard of their welfare. Some of the cruelty arose due to your incompetence. You have demonstrated that you are not fit to be trusted with the care of animals."
The Disciplinary Committee Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Respondent's actions, motivated by financial gain, caused serious actual injury to the four animals over a prolonged period of time. Clients are entitled to expect that veterinary surgeons will treat animals in their care humanely and with respect, and make animal welfare their first priority. The Committee considers that the care described in the District Judge's findings demonstrated a total disregard for the professional responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon."
The Committee concluded that the removal of Dr Ohene-Gyan's name from the Register was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case in order to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, and it directed the Registrar to do so.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.
At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.
He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.
Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.
The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.
The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.
However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.
Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.
This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed.
The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".
The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.
In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.
It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.
In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking. In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.
It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act.
"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.
It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short."
After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the Register for nine months for convictions regarding docking puppies' tails and driving offences, and for failing to obtain a client's consent to treatment or explore other treatment options.
At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Leicester, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute.
They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained. Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent. Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008.
Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery. It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass."
On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over £3,000. During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children. He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues. He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008. He also drew to the Committee's attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.
The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife's death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.
It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog's tails unless for "truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons." In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.
Mrs Freedman said: "The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
She added: "Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension. However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College's Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust's Adopt-A-Book campaign has raised almost £17k in sponsorship to pay for the restoration of books in the historical collection.
The latest book to be restored under the scheme is a nineteenth century edition of Every man his own farrier, by F. Clater, which has been restored thanks to veterinary surgeon Fiona Dalzell.
Fiona said: "I have always loved books, and especially old books, but I got inspired by the Adopt-a-Book scheme when I came to the RCVS for a meeting of the Veterinary History Society".
These editions, she says, are "works of art in their own right," and it has given her a "huge amount of pleasure to know that you can do so much just from a small donation."
RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell explained the idea behind a campaign: "When you think of 'adoption', you may more readily recall the rescue animals treated in veterinary practices than old books. However, these old books also need your help - and are an important part of the veterinary heritage that the Trust seeks to preserve."
Restoring a book can cost between £25 and £250, and adopted books carry a book-plate naming their benefactor. They can also be dedicated 'in memoriam'.
Since its inception six years ago, the Adopt-a-Book campaign has raised £16, 851, and funded the restoration of 139 volumes:
Those interested in supporting this work by adopting a book can view available titles at www.rcvs.org.uk/adoptabook or contact Clare Boulton, RCVS Trust Librarian (c.boulton@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0752).
David Chalkley MRCVS faces four alleged charges:
At the start of the hearing Mr Chalkley made no admissions as to the charges but he had made an application for an adjournment based on undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In addressing the Committee on behalf of Mr Chalkley, his counsel said that Mr Chalkley denied all charges of dishonesty, that there was no evidence of harm to animals as a result of the alleged conduct, that there had been no complaint from the client and that he had repaid all the sums he had received for tuberculin testing on the farm in question.
His counsel also submitted that a full hearing would be expensive and time-consuming, and that it would serve no useful purpose as animal welfare and the protection of the public would be served by Mr Chalkley’s proposed undertakings.
Counsel on behalf of the RCVS confirmed that the College did not oppose the application and confirmed that the Animal Plant and Health Agency did not object.
However, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that because the case concerned issues of alleged dishonesty in veterinary certification over a prolonged period of time and the importance of public trust in the accuracy and reliability of that process, there was a need to hold a full, public hearing into Mr Chalkley’s alleged conduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee expressed no view as to whether the allegations could be substantiated or not and it recognised that the process of determining the allegations would be burdensome for many, particularly the respondent.
"It was satisfied, however, that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would be disturbed to learn that allegations of this kind had not been the subject of a formal determination by the Disciplinary Committee. The respondent’s own interests had to take second place to this important public interest.
“The Committee therefore declined to accept the application to adjourn this inquiry [until an unspecified date] and directed that arrangements should now be considered for the listing of a hearing in this case.”
It is expected that the full hearing will take place in spring 2021.
The RCVS has launched a survey to discover what the profession thinks it does well and what it could improve upon.
The confidential online survey asks about your recent interactions with the College, what you think the organisation does well and what can be improved upon.
The survey is one of several activities that the College is undertaking as part of its First-Rate Regulator initiative. Others include a survey amongst those who have made complaints; research amongst RCVS staff and Council / VN Council members; in-depth phone interviews with veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers; and, questionnaires aimed at stakeholder organisations that work regularly with the College.
Desk-based research is also being carried out, to see how the RCVS shapes up when compared to other similar regulators, both in the UK and overseas.
Following this evidence-gathering stage, an assessment will be made about where gaps exist between how the College performs and what it ought to be achieving, together with recommendations for change.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "Becoming a first-rate regulator is the aim, building on the good things we do, and challenging ourselves to be better where we fall short."
"Although the RCVS has a long and proud history, we also need to have a sustainable future. Careful scrutiny of what we do, and how we can improve, will ensure this. I would urge all members of the veterinary team to take this unique opportunity to help improve the regulation of their professions."
The survey closes on 4 January 2013. All veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for whom the RCVS holds unique email addresses will be sent a link to the survey. Others are invited to visit www.rcvs.org.uk/firstratesurvey to take part. Practice managers, and student vets and VNs are also encouraged to complete the survey. Individuals who are not veterinary surgeons, nurses, students or practice managers, and who have views about how the College could improve, are invited to contact Nick Stace on nick@rcvs.org.uk.
Last year saw the highest ever increase in the number of people enrolling as veterinary nursing (VN) students on vocational courses, according to figures released by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
In 2011, some 1,041 students registered with the RCVS to pursue vocational VN qualifications, compared with 809 in 2010 - a 29% increase.
The total number of people enrolling as student veterinary nurses on either vocational or degree courses in 2011 was 1,439, compared with 1,083 the preceding year - an overall increase of a third.
Libby Earle, head of the RCVS VN Department said: "The overall increase could partially be explained by degree students seeking to avoid increased university tuition fees. However, although there is a noticeable increase in enrolments linked to higher educational courses, this does not explain the increase in further education students.
"A more significant factor is likely to be the inception of the Level 3 Diploma, as this can be undertaken as a full-time programme," Libby continued. "As Colleges running such programmes arrange the practical training placements for their students, this opens up opportunities for the considerable number of people who want to become VNs but who are not employed by a training practice. When we introduced the qualification in 2010 we hoped that this would help to increase the number of VN students - so it's great to see this is happening already and with such a marked increase."
Student VN enrolment figures for 2010 and 2011:
2010
2011
RCVS Level 3 Diploma
647
1,041
RCVS NVQ/VRQ (now superseded)
162
-
Higher education students
274
398
Total student VN enrolments
1,083
1,439
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: "Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders."
"The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession."
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: "We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
"It takes real courage to reach out for help when you're struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call."
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible viawww.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct veterinary surgeons are expected to demonstrate that they are keeping their skills and knowledge up-to-date by engaging in at least 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period.
As part of the auditing process the 1,071 vets will be asked to share their CPD records for 2014 to 2016, either by allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the College a copy of their CPD record card.
The audit will focus on six groups:
The College says that if any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The deadline for sharing records is Tuesday 31 October 2017.
As part of the auditing process the College is reminding veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
Don't forget that reading content and participating in forum discussions on VetSurgeon.org can count towards your annual requirement, using the 'Claim CPD' feature at the top of each page.
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Education Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk.
Of particular note is the guidance that prescriptions should no longer be written in mg/kg, as it may lead to errors when the dose is calculated.
The Standards and Advice update also answers questions about:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/prescribing-pom-vs-joint-guidance-from-the-rcvs-and-vmd/
The RCVS has published a list of 369 veterinary surgeons who missed the 31st May deadline for retention fee payments, were removed from the Register and not restored by 24 June, on its website.
The College says it publishes the list to alert those vets who have not replied to its communications to check their Register status, and to remind veterinary employers to check the registration status of their employees. The registration status of any vet or VN can be checked online at www.rcvs.org.uk/check-the-register.
Information about restoration, and an application form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration, or by contacting the RCVS Registration Department: membership@rcvs.org.uk.
For a veterinary surgeon to be restored, a restoration fee needs to be paid, as well as the annual retention fee. The restoration fee is at least £299, and multiplies each successive year a removed member remains off the Register.
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.
Emotional Resilience Skills for the Veterinary Profession, which the BSAVA presents in association with the RCVS Mind Matters initiative and Two Roads Charity, are half day events will be now held virtually by the BSAVA Regions.
Mary Harrison, Programme Director at Two Roads Charity, said: “Twice as many members of the Veterinary Profession suffer mental health issues as the general population; due to many reasons including overwork, trauma, imposter syndrome, unsupportive colleagues and overly demanding clients. Emotional Resilience is a major defence against many mental health issues including depression and anxiety and the good news is that it’s primarily learned behaviours."
The programme is designed to equip participants with an understanding of the role emotional resilience plays in protecting our mental health. Emotional resilience is mainly a learned behaviour, and there are recognised steps that can be taken to increase resilience and reduce the risk of developing mental health issues including depression.
Jennie Bartholomew, Education Coordinator at the BSAVA said: “We’re thrilled to be able to offer these courses to the veterinary profession again, especially given the exceptionally tough year we have all experienced which has placed additional strain on mental health and wellbeing for many. We know that this programme will be well received and will be helpful to all members of the profession, wherever they are based”.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “We know how tough the last 18 months have been for the veterinary profession, and we’re pleased to be working in partnership with two organisations who are as passionate about supporting the mental health of the profession as we are. We are really looking forward to the launch of the programme and we are sure that anyone who attends will come away with a better understanding of their mental wellbeing and how to respond to emotional challenges.”
Designed for the whole practice team, the programme is suitable for anyone who wishes to increase their own resilience and develop the ability to help others at work or at home. Participants will work in groups, and no personal disclosures are necessary, although participants are welcome to discuss private issues after the programme.
The programme is free to BSAVA members; £40 to non-members. Spaces are limited and the sessions will not be recorded. You can book your place online now at: https://www.bsava.com/emotionalresilience.