View all veterinary jobs
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 has clarified its role concerning new UK veterinary schools, saying that it has no mandate to control student or graduate numbers.
Responding to calls from the profession that it should comment on the desirability of any change in the number of schools or graduates, the College has confirmed that whilst it is committed to setting, upholding and advancing the standards that any new UK veterinary degrees would need to meet in order to be approved by the Privy Council, it has no role in capping student numbers.
The College also points out that the free market and mobility of workers in the EU makes any control at the level of a sovereign state effectively meaningless with respect to workforce management. However, the College says it is committed to ensuring that standards are maintained, and to continue working with bodies such as the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education, which evaluates veterinary degrees across Europe.
The College also seeks to support healthy debate through providing information on the state of the profession - an example of which is the survey that it recently commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies on job availability for veterinary graduates over the last five years.
The headline results from that survey were released in the summer, and showed that increasing graduate numbers over the last five years have so far appeared to have had little impact on veterinary job prospects, with 94% of graduate respondents seeking a role in clinical practice obtaining work within six months of starting to look.
The full RCVS Survey of Recent Graduates report is now available, and also shows that, of the 43% of veterinary surgeons who graduated in the last five years who responded:
The answers were analysed by year of graduation, veterinary school, age and gender, and the full report is available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
The investment is being made to increase the speed at which concerns are either closed or referred, ensure that the process meets its service standards and reduce stress for the public and profession.
The decision to increase investment in the process was made by the College’s Operational Board in response to a steady increase in the number of concerns being investigated. The College forecasts that it will receive in excess of 1,000 concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses this year.
The RCVS developed a simplified, three-stage concerns process in 2014 which included the introduction of targets for cases to be either closed or referred at each stage. In order to ensure that these targets can be met, the College will now be hiring five paralegals to assist the existing five case managers.
Eleanor Ferguson, Acting Registrar, said: "Currently we are only closing or referring just over half of concerns we receive at stage 1 (case examiner stage) within our four month target. In order for the system to run more smoothly we will be investing in extra staff to help clear the backlog and ensure that these targets are met going forward.
"Similarly, in order to deal with the increase in the number of cases being referred to Preliminary Investigation Committee (stage 2), we will be increasing the frequency of these committee meetings from one to two per month.
"It is important to add that this investment is not just about dealing with concerns more quickly but is also about quality of service and having more staff on hand will ensure that this quality is maintained in terms of how we communicate with complainants and members of the profession. Speeding up the process will reduce the stress and anxiety felt by all involved."
More details about the College’s concerns investigation process and its different stages can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Dr Butterworth’s practice was a member of TBAS, a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded (Defra) project administered by Farmcare Solutions Ltd which provides advice to eligible farmers via its veterinary partners.
The farm to which the charges relate to was owned by Dr Bexon’s partner. It had no cattle on-site (though was still eligible for the TBAS).
Dr Butterworth was charged with signing a TBAS visit report, in which he was named as the TBAS advisor, relating to a visit to the farm in February 2023 which had, in fact, not taken place and then subsequently signed a report about a follow-up visit in July 2023 which also hadn’t taken place.
Dr Bexon was charged with signing the same two false reports as a representative of the farm in question.
Both faced a secondary charge that their actions were dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures relating to public health and animal welfare.
Dr Butterworth and Dr Bexon admitted all the charges against them and that these charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that their actions amounted to serious professional misconduct in that they had breached three of the five key principles in the Code of Professional Conduct relating to: honesty and integrity; client confidentiality and trust; and professional accountability.
The Committee also found that the actions of both veterinary surgeons had breached the ’10 principles of certification’ outlined in the supporting guidance to the Code.
Considering Mr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee found that there were a number of aggravating factors including: the premeditated nature of the conduct as he was the driving force behind the deceit, the fact there was financial gain as his practice would have been paid for the non-existent visits, breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and abuse of professional position as a TBAS advisor.
For Dr Bexon the aggravating factors were breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and the fact that, as a TBAS advisor, she should have known that physical visits to farms within the scheme were mandatory.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered both respondents’ conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in the profession and the TBAS process.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would be deeply troubled that registered veterinary surgeons had behaved in this way.”
At the hearing the Committee received a large number of positive testimonials for Dr Butterworth, including three given directly to the Committee – one from a veterinary surgeon colleague and two from farmer clients.
The Committee also considered his lack of previous disciplinary history and otherwise unblemished career, open and frank admissions at an early stage, insight into his misconduct, genuine remorse and positive reflection, efforts to avoid a repetition of behaviours and evidence of a more mature approach to management, lapse of time since the incident.
Taking everything into account the Committee decided reprimanding Dr Butterworth and warning him with regard to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate response.
Paul added: “The Committee did give serious consideration to suspending Dr Butterworth’s registration with the College.
"Such a sanction would have sent out a clear message that this sort of behaviour is absolutely not to be tolerated.
"However, in light of the extensive mitigation, his honesty and significant insight throughout these proceedings and the unlikeliness of behaviour of this type ever being repeated, the Committee considered the public would not be best served by suspending an otherwise exemplary veterinary surgeon and that such a sanction would be disproportionate and punitive.”
"In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals and would satisfy the public interest.
"The Committee was persuaded that Dr Butterworth would be most unlikely to make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if he were allowed to continue to practise.”
The Committee also received a significant number of positive testimonials for Dr Bexon, with three veterinary surgeon colleagues giving oral evidence to the Committee.
The Committee also considered her lack of disciplinary history and hitherto unblemished career, her open and frank admissions, her insight, remorse and positive reflections, her efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviours and the lapse of time since the event.
Taking everything into account, the Committee decided to reprimand Dr Bexon.
Paul said: “This was not a case where she had been motivated by any financial gain.
"Indeed, everything the Committee had read and heard about her indicated the opposite and furthermore, it was apparent that she had nothing to gain by her actions beyond satisfying Dr Butterworth.
"As already stated, the Committee acknowledged that the role played by Dr Bexon was less than that played by Dr Butterworth.
"Moreover, there was a power imbalance at play and Dr Butterworth was able to take advantage of, albeit unknowingly, Dr Bexon’s lack of self-confidence.”
"The Committee has already indicated that it believed the likelihood of her repeating such behaviour to be non-existent.
"Her significant insight, together with the reflection and remedial work she has undertaken are as much as any person could do.
"She had truly learnt her lesson in the harshest of ways.
"In the Committee’s view she did not represent any risk to animals or the public, indeed quite the contrary as she is a very able vet, in high demand by her clients.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
One £20,000 grant will be awarded each year for five years, starting in 2019 (making a £100,000 total by 2023) to fund research that focuses on mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary professions, including areas such as prevention, diagnosis, intervention and treatment.
Applications are welcome from individuals at all stages of their research careers, including those who have not previously been published, with research proposals relating to any aspect of mental health or wellbeing in the veterinary professions. Researchers must be affiliated with a university, and ethical approval must be in place.
RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett, said: "Sarah Brown was a talented veterinary surgeon who was passionate about her profession. She was respected and loved by so many people and worked hard to support others. So it is fitting that, with the blessing of Sarah’s family, we are able to launch this grant in her memory. It’s only by improving the veterinary mental health evidence base that we will be able to hone the interventions and support that is available to members of the veterinary team."
Applicants should send their research proposal, along with a CV and short biography for all lead researchers, to Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, by 5pm on Friday 31 May 2019.
Each proposal should be a maximum of 3,000 words and should include aims, methods, ethical considerations, proposed timelines, and a bibliography. Any academic literature referred to within the proposal should be accurately referenced. The winner of the grant will be decided in June 2019, with the winner then receiving their award at Royal College Day in London on Friday 12 July 2019.
The recipient of the Sarah Brown Mental Health Research Grant for 2019 will be invited to present their research findings at the biennial Mind Matters Initiative Research Symposium in 2021.
Applications are particularly welcomed from those at an early stage in their research career. Guidance on how to prepare a research proposal is available at: https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/how-to-write-a-good-research-grant-proposal
The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:
In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.
Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.
In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct.
In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping.
"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."
In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.
However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register.
Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."
Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has dropped the requirement that veterinary practices display a poster in waiting rooms which tells clients what the top ten medicines they supply are, and their costs.
The requirement was apparently dropped, initially for a six month period, following pressure from the Royal College, which felt says it felt the poster did not entirely serve its purpose.
The requirement for the poster was brought in following the Competition Commission investigation into veterinary medicine sales in 2005, as part of a range of measures. Some of the responsibilities were enforced via the RCVS as an alternative to legislation under the Fair Trading Act, to ensure that clients have access to sufficient information to be able to decide where to obtain veterinary prescriptions and medicines.
The poster, which was outlined in the Guide to Professional Conduct, and subsequently the Code of Professional Conduct, had to include information about prescriptions and repeat prescriptions, together with the 'ten relevant veterinary medicinal products most commonly prescribed during a recent and typical three-month period'.
How 'most commonly prescribed' has been calculated has often varied - for example, by price, volume, number of prescriptions, etc - and, in addition, different formulations, brands or pack sizes of the same active ingredient could cause confusion.
RCVS President, Jacqui Molyneux said: "Having seen how this has worked in practice, we have been keen to push for change because it was felt that the list could be confusing to clients.
"We have also been mindful of the fact that the ways in which consumers access information has changed radically over the last seven years or so, with internet searches becoming more prevalent.
"These factors conspired to make the list less meaningful as a tool that allowed consumers to shop around. It is thus hoped that the removal of the list will reduce potential misunderstanding among the public."
During the first six months following the change, the College and the OFT will monitor the situation. If there is no appreciable level of complaint from the public, the change will become permanent.
The other requirements of supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct Chapter 10 (Fair Trading Requirements) remain unchanged (www.rcvs.org.uk/fairtrading), and the OFT recommends that the notice advising clients that they can obtain a prescription from the practice be made even more prominent.
In addition, it remains important that veterinary surgeons communicate medicines prices clearly to their clients and other callers, and that invoices itemise individual products supplied (www.rcvs.org.uk/medicines).
Since 2014 the RCVS has trialled two different ADR services with the aim of helping resolve complaints between animal owners and veterinary practices that do not meet its threshold for serious professional misconduct.
Since October 2016, this has been in the form of the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), administered by Nockolds Solicitors. The VCMS is free for both animal owners and veterinary professionals and cases will only be taken with the consent of both parties.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are very pleased that ADR in the form of mediation has received the unanimous support of RCVS Council members as part of the process for handling veterinary complaints.
"Throughout its trial period the VCMS has very much been complementary to our concerns investigation and disciplinary process. While we are bound by statute to investigate concerns, it has allowed our Professional Conduct Team to 'triage' cases, and to signpost complainants either to the College or the VCMS as appropriate. This has allowed greater time and resources to investigate concerns that could constitute serious professional misconduct.
"We also believe that the VCMS is good for both the public and the profession because it encourages both parties to communicate, find areas of agreement and come to constructive solutions, rather than being an adversarial process that assigns blame and adjudicates remedies."
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors which administers the VCMS, said: "The service is here to help veterinary clients and practices find a resolution for complaints that cannot be resolved within the practice. Complaints are referred to the VCMS by clients and practices where the relationship has become strained or communication may be difficult. Importantly the service does not look at who is right or wrong, but focuses on finding an outcome that both parties can live with and bringing an end to the complaint.
"In our experience this has ranged from reassuring clients and helping them to come to terms with what has happened, refunding fees, further explanations, apologies, small goodwill payments, securing procedural changes at the practice and agreement by the client to settle outstanding fees which have been withheld because of the complaint.
"We understand complaints are highly emotional and stressful for both parties, so the VCMS team will not ask parties to speak to one another directly. It is also not about assigning blame but is about moving forward to allow both parties to bring the complaint to a conclusion. When we hear from practices and clients alike that they can now sleep at night, or their relief that a complaint is resolved, I know ADR and the VCMS does help and make a difference."
The College says that during the trial period, 165 of the 870 enquiries received by the VCMS went to mediation. Of these, 129 were successfully mediated with the other 36 remaining unresolved. Of the other enquiries 297 resulted in the animal owner being referred back to the practice so that internal complaints processes could be exhausted first, 93 did not progress because the animal owner did not pursue the complaint, 73 were dealt with through advice, 66 did not progress as the practice declined to engage, 76 were outside the service’s remit and 100 are currently ongoing.
Taking into account the overall feedback received from both animal owners and veterinary professionals and the positive responses on the independence and fairness of the VCMS, Council agreed that Nockolds continue administering the scheme, with a review starting in 18 months’ time to take into account experience and learning as the scheme continues to evolve. During the Council meeting statements of support for the VCMS were also heard from a representative of the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS) and an independent consultant on consumer affairs.
A spokesperson for the VDS said: "The VDS assisted over 150 practices that agreed to participate in the ADR trial and developed a constructive working relationship with the VCMS staff. In the vast majority of cases mediation has resulted in a satisfactory outcome with little or no financial consequences.
"The Society considers this voluntary scheme particularly suited to the many client care complaints that are directed at the RCVS due to public misunderstanding of the College’s role, but the investigation of which creates disproportionate concern to the professionals involved. The independent nature of the VCMS has been a key feature of the trial, although access to experienced, non-judgemental, veterinary advice has provided the necessary professional expertise when necessary."
More information about the VCMS and its processes can be found on the service’s dedicated website: https://www.vetmediation.co.uk/
To contact the service directly call 0345 040 5834 or enquiries@vetmediation.co.uk
Following two postponed hearings and a stayed Judicial Review, the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week accepted a wide-ranging 18-month programme of undertakings from a veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct, to address his "serious deficiencies" and "practice failings".
In October 2006, Mr Joseph Holmes MRCVS, of the Waltham Veterinary Clinic near Grimsby, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct for performing inappropriate and out-of-date veterinary treatment. Judgment was postponed for a period of two years subject to conditions that were put in writing and agreed by Mr Holmes.
The hearing resumed early, in February 2008, as Mr Holmes had deliberately ceased to comply with these conditions in the hope of forcing an appeal against the Committee's original finding of serious professional misconduct.
At the resumed hearing, Mr Holmes was told there was no legal framework for such an appeal (only against a sanction of suspension or removal from the Register) and that he would be subject to an 18-month period of compliance with the conditions set out at the original hearing; he was also invited to propose a programme of continuing professional development (CPD) and other undertakings for that period.
As Mr Holmes then applied for a Judicial Review of the Committee's decisions, this programme was never proposed. However, at the Royal Courts of Justice in October 2008, Mr Holmes' application for Judicial Review was stayed, by mutual consent, allowing for the DC hearing to be resumed and for him to offer undertakings for the Committee's consideration.
At last week's hearing, the Committee reminded itself of the original four findings of serious professional misconduct against Mr Holmes, which, in each case, it had stated would "be viewed by reasonable and competent members of the veterinary profession to be deplorable...and far below the standards that members of the public were entitled to expect."
In relation to these findings, the Committee was particularly concerned about his deficiencies in the fields of orthopaedics, oncology, radiology and therapeutics and considered that his future CPD should specifically address these areas.
Consequently, Mr Holmes agreed to an extensive range of undertakings over an 18-month period, including: participation in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (including two inspections); keeping abreast of changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct; 105 hours of standard and additional CPD; proofs of purchase of up-to-date text books and journal subscriptions; and six-monthly progress reports to the Chairman of the Committee.
Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Committee, said: "The Committee considers that the undertakings in the form that you have offered to it, if fulfilled by you, will serve to ensure that there will be no repetition of the conduct which resulted in our original findings and serve to ensure that animals and the public will not be put at risk.
"We trust that you will enter into these courses with the right mind-set and find that at their conclusion, these tasks have been of advantage to your practice."
The VetCompass database now holds millions of anonymised veterinary clinical records collected from primary practices and referral centres across the UK.
The records allow researchers to investigate a range and frequency of companion animal health problems and identify important risk factors for the most common disorders.
This research can then be used by veterinary professionals in clinical practice to help improve education and outcomes related to animal welfare.
Dan’s nomination included recognition for VetCompass operating under non-profit and open-access principles and embedding mandatory welfare pathways into all studies.
VetCompass was also recognised for having supported more than 140 research papers supporting broad welfare initiatives spanning breed-related health, extreme conformations, welfare scoring, specific disorders, oncology, disease surveillance, prescribing practices, and more.
Dan said: “I am truly humbled to receive this recognition from the RCVS.
"When I moved from clinical practice to the RVC 15 years ago to develop VetCompass as my PhD project, I could only dream of the untapped potential for practising veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to contribute to cutting edge science and welfare.
"And now the amazing VetCompass team at the RVC have made that aspiration to redefine the clinical evidence base on companion animal welfare a reality.
"I now need to reset even higher animal welfare dreams for the next 15 years.”
https://www.rvc.ac.uk/vetcompass/about/overview
The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.
After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.
In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.
Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.
On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.
Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.
Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.
After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.
She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.
She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.
In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour.
Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.
The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.
However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.
In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.
However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.
The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”
Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”
The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.
"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.
"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.
"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.
"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.
"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.
“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.
"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.
"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."
Although developed by the RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group ostensibly for use by Universities, EMS placement host practices and other educational establishments, it is recommended that all veterinary practices review the guidance.
The Guidance on Religious Clothing and Beliefs covers issues such as: balancing accommodations for religious dress with clinical considerations, and making accommodations for religious observance in academic timetabling and exams.
Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager said: “This document is about recognising that personal religious beliefs should be respected and accommodated as far as possible, while also not compromising professional responsibilities such as infection control, effective communication and the health and safety of individuals and their colleagues.
"Most importantly, it is about creating a welcoming and inclusive environment and ensuring that all students are able to express their religious identity whilst participating in educational and workplace settings.
“Although the guidance is not exhaustive, we would highly recommend that, where relevant, educators, practices and other veterinary workplaces review, adopt and adapt this guidance for their own settings to ensure that all members of the professions are welcomed and included.”
The Guidance on Religious Clothing is available to download from: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/guidance-on-religious-clothing-and-beliefs/
In next year's election, there are three places on Council for elected veterinary surgeons, with successful candidates serving four-year terms.
The nomination period runs until 5pm on Friday 31 January 2020. In order to stand, candidates need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs to have two nominators who need to be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer said: "As always, we would encourage those who are interested in having their say in some of the key debates in the regulatory sphere, such as our under care review, our policies around the impact of Brexit and our vision for new veterinary legislation, to become a candidate.
"RCVS Council is at its best when it encompasses a broad range of perspectives, experiences and knowledge, and so we encourage people from all areas of veterinary life and all levels of experience to put themselves forward and share their expertise and insight."
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil20.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council are welcome to contact the Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson (e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk) and the RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett (l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk) for more information about the role of the College and/or RCVS Council.
RCVS Council will also be holding its next public meeting on Thursday 23 January 2020, prior to the closure date for Council candidate nominations. Prospective candidates are welcome to attend the Council meeting as an observer. Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you wish to attend.
Nominations are now being sought for candidates to stand in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and Veterinary Nurse Council (VN Council) elections. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive said: "Last year, a record number of veterinary surgeons showed by seeking a seat on RCVS Council that they were willing to help regulate their profession. The RCVS needs the efforts of willing vets and VNs to ensure that their professions continue to be well regulated. If you've thought about standing 'someday' - why not make someday now?"
There are six seats due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
Each candidate needs to find two proposers; any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse (who is not presently on either Council) may propose one candidate for RCVS or VN Council respectively.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
For the first time this year the RCVS will organise a webinar-style hustings event for RCVS Council candidates during the election period. This will offer candidates the opportunity to outline his or her manifesto verbally in a live event, with an audio-only recording. It will not be compulsory for candidates to take part, although it is hoped that the event will enable candidates to make their points in a way that will engage a broader range of voters than the paper manifestos alone.
The RCVS Inspiration Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout his or her career.
The award is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals or groups or who have worked at a profession-wide level. It will recognise those who have gone 'above and beyond' what may normally be expected from a professional colleague or tutor.
The RCVS Impact Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has made a considerable impact that has affected the profession, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.
Chris Tufnell, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS, said: "I am very excited to be introducing these two new awards for those veterinary surgeons and nurses who go above-and-beyond the call of duty for the benefit of their profession, animals and society as a whole.
"I am keen to emphasise that these two new awards are relevant for veterinary professionals from all walks of life and any stage of their career – these are not life-time achievement awards but are for those making a tangible difference whether that’s in their practice, their region or across the country as a whole.
"If you know someone like this then I would strongly encourage you to find out more on our website and fill out a nomination form."
These two awards join four others made by the College:
Nominations for all six honours are now open. Nomination forms and guidance notes can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and any questions can be directed to Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
The deadline for making nominations is Friday 22 September 2017.
The project was launched as a joint initiative between the RCVS and the BVNA in 2016. Its objectives included highlighting veterinary nursing as a career, encouraging more people into veterinary nursing, improving retention, expanding the scope of the VN role, and providing more opportunity for career progression.
The report begins by highlighting perhaps the biggest challenge facing the profession, that in 2019, 25% of veterinary nurses said they plan to leave the profession in the next five years, largely because of poor pay, because they don't feel sufficiently valued, lack of career opportunities and because of a poor work/life balance.
The main achievements of the project, which should certainly help with some of these issues, include:
Jill Macdonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator, said: "The report is a culmination of years of hard work, putting in place measures to champion the veterinary nursing profession and safeguard it for the future. Through the introduction of initiatives like the School Ambassador Development Programme and the introduction of the CertAVN, to name but a few, we have put in place steps to inspire the next generation of veterinary nurses and support the training and development of people currently working in the profession."
You can read the full VN Futures Interim Report at https://www.vnfutures.org.uk/resource-items/vn-futures-interim-report-2021
The research took the form of a voluntary survey asking those voluntarily leaving their registers to explain why.
643 veterinary surgeons in the survey were leaving the UK-practising category, mostly to be close to family or friends, whilst 306 were leaving the Register altogether.
The next most common reason for veterinary surgeons leaving the UK-practising category was retirement (23%), most of whom were retiring before the state pension age.
Of those retiring before state pension age, one-third cited health and wellbeing reasons.
Vets were asked to explain in greater detail their decision to leave either the UK-practising category or the Register altogether in free text boxes at the end of the survey.
Those leaving the UK-practising category were most likely to mention health and wellbeing issues, closely followed by issues in the profession such as the demands of working in clinical practice.
A third of the comments left by those leaving the Register altogether mentioned issues to do with RCVS regulation, such as cost and continuing professional development (CPD).
Vicki Bolton, RCVS Research Manager, said: “This data is invaluable to us in understanding the reasons why people choose to leave the RCVS Registers.
“The reasons given don’t always make for easy reading, especially when they are to do with dissatisfaction over the direction the professions are taking, physical and mental health and wellbeing, financial pressures and concerns about regulation and its costs.
“However, it is important to remember that, overall, relatively few veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses leave the professions each year.
"There is no mass exodus from the professions and the numbers joining the UK Register annually well exceed those leaving, as demonstrated by consistent year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse registrants.
“That being said, these results will form an invaluable part of our ongoing work on veterinary workforce and gives the RCVS food for thought about how and where we can better support veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to stay in the professions rather than leave prematurely.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/exit-survey-2022-2024/
Photo: AI generated.
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons to complete their registration process by confirming they have met the requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) and declared any outstanding convictions.
The College says that although the deadline for completing the annual renewal was April 2014, there are still some vets who, despite having paid on time, have not yet fully completed the registration process. This includes declaring that they have met the minimum requirement of 105 hours of CPD over a three-year period.
Failing to confirm that the CPD requirement has been met means that the College may request the individual's records as part of its annual monitoring of CPD compliance.
As of this year, veterinary surgeons must also declare any convictions, cautions and adverse findings since 1 January 2006 - or lack thereof - to complete the registration process.
Convictions disclosure forms and a document explaining the new protocol are available to download. The College also has a convictions helpline on 07818 113 056 which is open Monday to Friday, 11am to 4pm.
Those veterinary surgeons who have yet to complete their registration should contact the Registration Department as soon as possible on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk for assistance from a member of the team.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has refused to release the McKelvey Report in full, despite Freedom of Information requests made by VetSurgeon.org and others.
According to the College, it had always been the intention of RCVS Officers that the full report, which considered the building works in the Lower Ground Floor of the RCVS offices in Belgravia House, and the implementation of a new database, would be published.
However, on the advice of solicitors (Penningtons), only the recommendations of the Report were published initially, in November.
This publication followed discussion of the full report (one sentence was redacted on legal advice) by RCVS Council on 3 November.
Freedom of Information requests for the full report were then received by the College, so further, external senior legal advice was sought.
This advice, from Counsel, confirmed the original view from solicitors that it would be inappropriate to publish the report in full because it includes personal data, which ought not to be made public, under the Data Protection Act.
The College claims the meat of the report is in the recommendations, which account for approximately 50% of the report, and which are being taken forward by Officers and RCVS Council, with plans to put an Audit and Risk Committee in place taking priority.
The recommendations of the report, which were adopted by Council, were published online on 11 November and are available to download from the 'Related documents' box, above right.
Plans for the introduction of a disciplinary mechanism for Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) have been agreed by the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
RVNs agree to account for their professional conduct and keep their skills and knowledge up to date: over 70% of eligible veterinary nurses have now joined the non-statutory Register.
The Veterinary Nurses Council agreed to a period of nearly three years between the opening of the Register and the College putting in place a disciplinary mechanism. This was to give RVNs time to get used to their new rights and responsibilities. Plans are now in place to introduce a disciplinary system from September 2010.
Charges could be brought against a veterinary nurse if found guilty of fraudulent registration, criminal convictions which render him or her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse, or allegations of disgraceful professional conduct.
The sanctions would be the same as for veterinary surgeons, ie to remove a nurse's name from the Register (with the nurse eligible to apply for restoration after 10 months), or to suspend the nurse, with his or her name returning to the Register immediately after the period of suspension. A veterinary nurse would not be able to carry out Schedule 3 tasks while removed from the Register.
Complaints would initially be dealt with by the Veterinary Nurses Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC), which will assess whether the complaints should be taken to the hearing stage. Three RVNs will sit on this committee. They will be joined by three members of the veterinary PIC, including either the RCVS President, or one of the Vice-Presidents, and one Lay Observer.
Meanwhile three RVNs will join existing members of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee (DC) to form a VN DC, to adjudicate on charges against a veterinary nurse. These individuals will not currently sit on VN Council. If the case were against a VN, the sitting panel would include at least one veterinary nurse, one veterinary surgeon and a lay person acting as chairman. A legal assessor would also sit with the Committee to offer advice.
If a case were to concern both a veterinary surgeon and a veterinary nurse, the preliminary investigation would be carried out in tandem but with separate disciplinary hearings.
Applications are invited for RVNs to sit on the new VN Preliminary Investigation or Disciplinary Committees. Anyone who would like further information should contact Lesley Evans, Manager, Executive Office (l.evans@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7222 2001) by 31 May 2009.
The College says it will, however, continue to operate as close to normality as possible, with the main support services for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses such as advice, lifelong learning (including qualifications and the new 1CPD platform), finance and Practice Standards available as usual over the phone, on email or via the website.
The College’s main statutory activities around accreditation, registration and regulation of the professions will also be largely unaffected, with most Committee, Sub-Committee and working group meetings held by telephone or video conference.
Apparently, however, the April meeting of RCVS Council was going to be too big to be held remotely, so it has been cancelled.
The things that were up for discussion, such as the standard of proof and the report of the Legislation Working Party, will be moved to a subsequent meeting. Should there be any urgent business to consider, Council members have been asked to remain available via email on the date originally scheduled.
The College says it will be deciding whether to proceed with forthcoming DC hearings on a case-by-case basis, to balance maintaining the health and welfare of all involved with the College’s responsibility to protect animal health and welfare and public health.
The College is having to postpone or cancel an increasing number of its events; latest updates and advice for the profession is at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
RCVS Chief Executive Lizzie Lockett, pictured right, said: "We have been planning for this eventuality for some time, so whilst Monday’s announcement from UK Government came a little sooner than expected, we are in a strong position to be able to operate as close to normal as possible.
"We have an excellent and highly committed team of staff and Council members at the College, who I know will continue to work hard from kitchen tables, studies and living rooms over the coming days and weeks to serve the veterinary professions and the animal-owning public.
"Whilst we are fortunate that much of our work can be carried out remotely, we fully appreciate that this is not the case for most veterinary professionals who themselves are currently facing many significant challenges in their daily work to care for the nation’s animals whilst also prioritising the health and welfare of their own teams."
The College is urging all veterinary surgeons, nurses and practices to check they have supplied it with their most up-to-date email address via www.rcvs.org.uk/myaccount so it can relay its latest advice as the situation evolves.
The RCVS has been out promoting the profession, the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) and its new 'Find a Vet' search tool to animal owners at BBC Countryfile at Blenheim Palace last week.
The RCVS stand was designed to look like a veterinary practice, complete with waiting room, consulting room, prep room, operating theatre and RCVS Accredited Practice logos.
The team from the College handed out around 1,500 ‘Find a Vet’ canvas bags containing 'Find a Vet' and Practice Standards Scheme leaflets and merchandise, and persuaded over 200 people to take part in special ‘Find a Vet’ and PSS-themed games and competitions.
These included having to find a veterinary surgeon or nurse around the showground (volunteers from RCVS Council and VN Council, including RCVS President Chris Tufnell and VN Council Chair Liz Cox, along with David Catlow, Neil Smith, his dog, Fire, Lucy Bellwood and Amber Richards).
The College reports that there was also a continual stream of children eager to pretend to be veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for the day and have a go at the on-stand ‘animal examination’ and ‘animal surgery’ activities. All this gave rise to plenty of photo opportunities, which parents and competition entrants were encouraged to share on social media, to help spread the word about the College’s activities.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Head of Communications said: "This was the first time the RCVS had been to such a large-scale and high-profile public event, and it provided a superb opportunity to explain to animal owners who we are and how we can help them.
"We had a great deal of interest in our new Find a Vet service, and people also seemed reassured that there was a scheme in place to accredit veterinary practices around the country. Having attended both the London Pet Show and BBC Countryfile Live this year, we now plan to increase the number of animal owner events we attend next year, to further raise public awareness of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and our Find a Vet service."
For more pictures of the event, see: https://flic.kr/s/aHskEQkDPc
The plenary speaker was Professor Rory O’Connor, Chair of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Health & Wellbeing whose talk: "When it is darkest: understanding suicide risk" opened the day with an outline of his 25 years of work looking into suicide prevention.
Rory discussed his recent investigation into the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and how to reduce the risk of suicidal ideation turning into suicidal action.
He said: “In the last 10 to 15 years there has been an increased focus in particular on psychological and psycho-social interventions for helping people who are suicidal.
"Although suicide is complex, interventions, even brief interventions, can be effective.”
Rory was followed by presentations from a number of teams, including those who'd been awarded the MMI’s Sarah Brown Mental Health Research Grant in 2019 and 2020:
The full report of the day’s talks can be found here https://www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2021
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Miss Oakes had signed a Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Veterinary Surgeons Residential Kennel Inspection Form which indicated that there were 55 greyhounds in the kennel, when there were in fact more; that she had stated that the kennels were in an acceptable condition, when they were in fact not; and that she knew the form was inaccurate and/or was dishonest in relation to what she had indicated on the form.
The kennels in question, Rough Cottage, were owned by Louise Eccles and her husband, Rod Eccles. Mrs Eccles was licensed by GBGB as a trainer, allowing her to train and race greyhounds and making the kennels accountable to inspections by veterinary surgeons.
At the time of the form in question, Miss Oakes had been attending Rough Cottage for about a year-and-a-half on a monthly basis, up through August 2016. At that point, on or around 1 August 2016, Mrs Eccles had left Rough Cottage for personal reasons.
Miss Oakes subsequently visited the premises on 14 August 2016 along with Amanda Gething of Northern Greyhound Rescue, when she learned that rather than there being 55 dogs, there were more than 80.
On 16 August, she and Amanda Gething returned to Rough Cottage with Lucille Cavadino, from Lancky Dogs, a greyhound rescue organisation. They became aware of the existence of kennels on the premises that were not of acceptable standard, but Miss Oakes found that the dogs housed in these kennels were fit and healthy.
Miss Oakes also spoke to Mr Eccles around this time, and although he had plans to rehouse some of the dogs she was concerned that he might change his mind. Miss Oakes took the decision to complete and sign the kennel inspection form that Mr Eccles had handed to her, knowing that the details contained therein were incorrect. She stated that the reason that she did this was to appease Mr Eccles so that he would not hinder the plans to remove and rehouse the dogs. She admitted to the area GBGB Stipendiary Steward that she had signed the form and that it contained incorrect information.
At the beginning of the hearing Miss Oakes admitted all the charges except for the final one, namely that she had been dishonest about what she had indicated on the form. When she gave evidence during the hearing, however, she admitted that she had been dishonest and so all charges were found proved.
The Committee then turned to deciding whether these charges, having been found proven, would result in a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect against Miss Oakes. The Committee considered her motives in signing the form were to try and safeguard animal welfare, but considered that she was misguided in how she chose to achieve that aim. The Committee, therefore, found that signing a form that is known to be misleading or inaccurate is in definite breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, and concluded that her conduct constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When considering a suitable sanction, the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors, including some 62 testimonials that were submitted in favour of Miss Oakes, and the fact that she believed she was acting in the best interests of the animals’ welfare.
Chitra Karve, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "So far as mitigating factors are concerned, the Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s motivation for what she did was governed by her overwhelming wish to promote the health or welfare of the greyhounds at Rough Cottage.
"The Committee is satisfied that no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal occurred in this case. There was no financial gain to the Respondent and the Committee has been told that she charged no fee for her extensive efforts in organising or assisting with the removal and rehousing of the greyhounds from Rough Cottage.
"The Committee considers that this was a single and isolated incident and that the risks of similar behaviour being repeated in the future are low."
Chitra added: "The Committee has decided that it will be sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, for the Respondent to be given a formal warning as to her future conduct."