There are 13 candidates standing in this year’s election for RCVS Council, the voting period for which will open on the week commencing Monday 14 March and close at 5pm on Friday 22 April 2022.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and manifesto statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote22.
To submit a question to the candidates, email: vetvote22@rcvs.org.uk or post it on the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote22.
Candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
You have until Monday 21 February 2022 to submit your question.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
Three members (one vet, one new grad and one nurse) are being sought to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for veterinary surgeons and nurses, supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.
The group will also oversee and update CPD and VetGDP guidance documents, as well as overseeing updates to the VetGDP Adviser and VetGDP Peer Reviewer training and guidance.
RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.
She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.
“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.
“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”
Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.
The RCVS is looking for two Advanced Practitioners working in practice who have completed a designated CertAVP qualification to join the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) Subcommittee to help actively advance the standards and policies of the RCVS CertAVP.
Applicants who are interested also have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members.
Applicants are invited to send an email to certavp@rcvs.org.uk with a summary of their experience and what skills and knowledge you feel that you can bring to this committee.
Finally, the College is also looking to recruit examiners for the Statutory Membership Examination, from 2025 onwards.
Examiners need to have been Members of the RCVS for a minimum of three years and be familiar with the day one competences for new registrants and the standards expected of final year students and new graduates. Experience as an assessor or examiner is preferred, although not essential as training will be provided. The College is looking for examiners with knowledge across a range of species domains including equine, veterinary public health, farm and small animal.
Contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Postgraduate Lead, on j.soreskog-turp@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon, having found him not guilty of charges relating to the measurement of horses and ponies.
At the ten-day hearing, Marc Auerbach of Oak Equine Veterinary Surgery, Ongar, answered charges relating to measuring the height of 29 horses/ponies presented for measurement by two agents in early 2009. Dr Auerbach had undertaken these measurements as an Official Measurer (OM) for the Joint Measuring Board (JMB), which provides a system for independently measuring and certifying the size of competition horses/ponies. An animal's financial value relates to its size, with larger animals being more likely to win in their competitive class.
The case centred on the expected accuracy of such measurements, whether Dr Auerbach was dishonest in colluding with the agents, or whether there had been signs of malpractice which a reasonably competent vet acting as an OM ought to detect.
From evidence submitted, the Committee determined a margin for measurement accuracy, and consequently dismissed from its consideration ten animals where the difference between the initial measurement and the re-measurement was 3 cm or less. However, the College submitted that the average difference was so great that, either, Dr Auerbach had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the correct measurements were recorded, or else he had been dishonest. Dr Auerbach's Counsel accepted the inference that presenting agents were dishonest, but denied that Dr Auerbach was dishonest or had failed to pick up signs of malpractice on the part of the agents.
The Committee was of the view that there may be unscrupulous presenters capable of materially interfering with the height of horses. While it was unable to determine with certainty the extent to which it could be done, the Committee formed the view that unscrupulous interference (together with intrinsic variables) could have caused the differences between measurement and re-measurement in the 19 horses.
The Committee noted there was no evidence of improper payments being received by anyone. It also accepted evidence that Dr Auerbach was not a dishonest man, taking into account his record of 23 years of honesty and excellence in the profession, unchallenged character references and the lack of any credible motive for him to act dishonestly.
Next, the Committee considered whether there had been signs of preparation malpractice which ought to have been picked up by any reasonably competent veterinary surgeon acting as an OM. The College submitted that Dr Auerbach had failed to take several steps including the amount of time and attention given to the animals he measured, and whether they might be drugged or sedated.
The Committee concluded from the evidence, including scientific papers, that mildly sedated animals may not be distinguishable from properly prepared animals; well-behaved horses were not an indication that something was amiss. The Committee accepted that Dr Auerbach took around 15-20 minutes to measure each of the horses presented on 9 January; and, in the absence of guidance from the JMB, it could not conclude this was rushed or unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee was unable to be satisfied, so that it was sure, that the allegation of failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the recording of correct measurements was proved.
"Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is that the facts set out in the Charge in relation to all the horses and ponies listed have not been proved to the necessary standard of proof," said Prof Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee as he directed the charges be dismissed.
Lincolnshire veterinary surgeon David Bull MRCVS has won a Vet Futures ‘Headlines of tomorrow’ competition with his entry: ‘Vets and medics collaborate to prevent human and animal obesity’.
The competition was held at BSAVA Congress in April where Vet Futures-themed fortune cookies contained a message asking those attending ‘What future headline do you want to see?’ and providing a weblink to enter the competition.
David, a joint partner at Vets4Pets in Lincoln South and an Advanced Practitioner in General Small Animal Surgery, said: "The headline was inspired by topical issues, having ‘One Health’ in mind and the issue of obesity in our patients, as well as the general human population. I feel that these are some of the big issues of our time, especially that of obesity which has been linked to so many other diseases and is essentially a self-induced problem.
“We see so many overweight cats, dogs and rabbits on a daily basis. It seems to be becoming a more common problem, as well as seemingly more accepted in society. This is to the extent that we have some clients that come in worried because they have been told that their dog is too thin, when in actual fact they are in an ideal body condition and are being compared to overweight pets which have become perceived as normal.”
Some of the other topics raised in the competition include the veterinary profession taking the lead in tackling ‘superbugs’, veterinary surgeons topping job satisfaction and wellbeing polls and the profession taking a leading role in One Health and medical advancements.
Mr Wood faced three charges, all relating to allegations of misconduct over a laboratory test for an alpaca while he was working at a practice in South Oxfordshire.
The charges alleged that in September 2023, Mr Wood told the alpaca’s owner that it had tested positive for Johne’s disease when in fact, the animal had not been tested.
He then allegedly sent a letter confirming a positive test result for the test that had not taken place, and then created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent it to another colleague by email.
He later told the alpaca's owner that he had given her the wrong result by mistake and that the test result was actually negative.
Then in October 2023, he emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report.
In November he told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it.
Finally, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.
Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors in Mr Woods' conduct, including his lack of honesty, probity and integrity, the fact the conduct was premeditated, that it involved a breach of the client’s trust, the abuse of his professional position, the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.
The mitigating factors included positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers, the fact that he had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and that he showed significant insight into his misconduct.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.
“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”
He added: “The Committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
"The Committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent.
"In determining this length, the Committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
At the hearing, Dr Crawford made no admissions to the charges against him which involved allegations of: failing to provide adequate and appropriate care; failing to provide adequate clinical histories to another practice in respect of several animals; failing to treat fellow veterinary professionals and other members of staff from another practice with courtesy and respect; failing to maintain adequate clinical records; failing to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance or equivalent arrangements; and, failing to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS.
Dr Crawford’s representative drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Crawford was 71 years old, had no previous disciplinary findings against him and had now ceased practising, including closing his practice premises and notifying his previous clients of the closure.
His representative confirmed that Mr Crawford was fully aware that if his application was accepted, he would no longer be able to practise as a veterinary surgeon or identify as a veterinary surgeon. The Committee also noted that the RCVS had consulted with the complainants who were satisfied with the case being disposed of in this way.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having weighed the public interest in a hearing with the registrant’s interests, the Committee determined that this is not a case in which the public interest required there to be a full hearing. Protection of the welfare of animals would also not be further served by a full hearing. The Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.
"The Committee considered that the adjournment on undertakings served to protect the public interest, confidence in the profession and the welfare of animals.
"The Committee carefully considered the detail of the undertakings. It decided, after due consideration that it would accept the respondent’s undertakings in the terms offered and signed."
The Committee also heard that if Dr Crawford were to apply to re-join the Register at a future point, then the adjourned case would be re-opened and a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing would be held.
The full documentation for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
There are 14 candidates standing in this year’s election, including one current RCVS Council member eligible for re-election and 13 candidates not currently on Council. They are:
In 2018 changes were made to the governance arrangements of the RCVS after a Legislative Reform Order changing the size and composition of Council was passed by Parliament. The changes mean that, in most years, there will be three elected places available for the candidates. However, this year the four candidates with the most votes will be starting their four-year terms on Council. This is to ensure that elected RCVS Council members remain in the majority.
Emails containing links to the secure election voting websites which are unique to each member of the electorate, were sent on 17 March 2021 by Civica Election Services (CES) (formerly Electoral Reform Services) which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast online by 5pm on Friday 23 April 2021. The small numbers of veterinary surgeons for whom the RCVS does not hold email addresses have been sent letters in the post containing instructions on how they can vote online, including contact details for CES to provide further advice.
The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote21.
This year the College invited RCVS Council candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. The videos have been published on the RCVS website as well as on the RCVS YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
The BVA and the RCVS are inviting applications from veterinary surgeons to join the new Vet Futures Action Group, set up to drive forward the ambitions identified in the Vet Futures report launched at BVA Congress at the London Vet Show on 20 November.
The Vet Futures report, Taking charge of our future: A vision for the veterinary profession for 2030, was the culmination of a year-long joint project by BVA and RCVS designed to help the veterinary profession prepare for, and shape, its own future. The Action Group is a vital next step in the Vet Futures project, ensuring the delivery of the report’s six ambitions and 34 recommendations.
BVA and RCVS are seeking seven veterinary surgeons and one veterinary nurse to join the Action Group to ensure there is buy-in from across the professions and to drive forward workstreams of activity. The group will be co-chaired by the BVA and RCVS Presidents, and both Junior Vice-Presidents will sit on the group. Action Group members will be independent and will not represent, or be required to report back to, any particular organisation.
Veterinary surgeons or nurses keen to apply for an Action Group role should have experience of working as an active member of a group or committee and the ability to deliver, engage and inspire others. The veterinary surgeon members should have specific expertise, knowledge and experience in relation to at least one of the Vet Futures ambitions or the cross-cutting issue of veterinary education. The ambitions cover:
Successful applicants must be able to attend three all-day meetings in London (9 February, 17 March and 12 May) and an all-day Vet Futures Summit (20 June), with a time commitment totalling approximately seven days between February and June 2016. The group will be supported by BVA and RCVS staff. For the full Vet Futures Action Group role profile and terms of reference, please visit: www.vetfutures.org.uk.
The deadline for applications is 12 noon, 31 December 2015.
The Queen's Medal is the highest honour the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon.
Dr Johnson is the Chairman of World Horse Welfare, travelling internationally and lecturing on behalf of the charity with a particular involvement in fundraising, profile-enhancing and education. He is also the Chairman of the World Horse Welfare International Committee, and a regional representative for the Veterinary Benevolent Fund as well as being Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Lancashire.
After graduating from the University of Liverpool in 1969 he established an equine and farm animal practice in 1974 on the Fylde Coast. He then quickly became involved in many other lines of work, lecturing at the Myerscough College for thirty years, acting on the Agricultural Training Board, and serving as RCVS President from 1993-1994. He was also an RCVS Council Member for 28 years (1986-1998; 2000-2016) and served on many RCVS Committees.
Barry said: "This is an enormous honour for a practitioner from Lancashire. I have always enjoyed being a veterinary surgeon and am grateful to my colleagues and clients for making my career so fulfilling rewarding and fun."
He was nominated by fellow veterinary surgeon, Dr Peter Jinman, a current member of RCVS Council. In his nomination Dr Jinman said: "There are few members who have contributed so much of their personal time for the benefit of the veterinary profession both locally and nationally… That this has been done often without the knowledge of the public or the rest of the profession and at no little personal expense, demands recognition… Barry represents the very best of what a veterinary practitioner can achieve both in terms of his profession and in wider society."
The College has also announced that Kathy Kissick has won this year's Golden Jubilee Award, the highest honour that can be bestowed on a veterinary nurse.
Kathy is a trustee of the Alderney Animal Welfare Society and has previously acted as the Head of School for Veterinary Nursing and Farriery Science at Mysercough College in Lancashire. She qualified as a veterinary nurse in 1983 and, since then, has acted as an external examiner and adviser for a number of veterinary nursing course providers over the years and is currently on the editorial board for The Veterinary Nurse.
She has also been very active within the RCVS, initially as a nursing examiner and then as both a Member and then Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
Kathy said: "I am delighted, honoured and humbled to accept the Golden Jubilee award and hope that I can continue to inspire veterinary nurses, throughout their careers, to always do the very best for their patients, clients and colleagues but not to forget to follow their dreams."
The winners will receive their accolade at this year’s RCVS Day, which takes place on Friday 7 July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.
At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.
The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.
"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."
The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.
In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."
Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."
Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.
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.
The nomination period runs until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2018. In order to stand, candidates will need to submit a nomination form along with contact details, a short biography and a statement, and supply a high-resolution digital photograph.
Each candidate also needs two nominators, who should be veterinary surgeons who are on the College’s Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "I myself have been an elected Council member since 2012, and it has given me tremendous opportunity to get involved with a whole range of subjects, including my particular interests, undergraduate education and lifelong learning. It’s incredibly rewarding to see how the decisions you make during your time on Council can really benefit the profession, and I would encourage anyone who shares an interest in the future of our profession, whether that be about graduate outcomes, practice standards, the wider veterinary team or the effects of Brexit, for example, to stand for election."
Although the RCVS is planning the elections as usual, it is concurrently preparing for a change to its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of the Council, as agreed in March 2016.
Commenting on the Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that will be required to amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: "This is a complex matter and, unfortunately, due to unavoidable delays associated with the 2017 General Election and the impact of preparing for the UK’s departure from the European Union, the LRO has not yet completed the legislative process.
"This means that whilst we will be running the elections on the basis that there will be six elected places available, as per the old size and structure, it should be expected that under the new size and structure, only three places will ultimately be available."
Meanwhile, due to comparable changes to the governance of the Veterinary Nurses Council, including a reduction in its number, there will be no 2018 VN Council elections as the outgoing members will not need to be replaced.
The RCVS Council election period will start around mid-March and voting will close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions are available for prospective RCVS Council candidates at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is warning practices and would be veterinary nurse students to check that VN training courses are approved by the College, or they will not lead to qualification as a veterinary nurse.
The RCVS has reported one such course, run by Direct Veterinary Services of Oxford (http://www.direct-vets.com/), to Trading Standards: it advertises 'accredited training for veterinary nurses' leading to 'an honours degree in veterinary nursing' without being an RCVS-approved training provider or awarding organisation.
RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing, Libby Earle said: "Would-be veterinary nurse students should always check that the course they are embarking upon will lead to a qualification that is recognised by the RCVS for the purposes of registration, or they may be in for a disappointment.
"Only those courses approved by the RCVS will lead to registration, and without registration (or listing), individuals should not call themselves veterinary nurses and cannot legally carry out medical procedures and minor surgery under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act."
The College says candidates should also be wary of training providers who demand money upfront online.
All new veterinary nursing courses and qualifications must be approved by the RCVS and this process can take some time. The list of approved centres providing VN training courses, together with details of approved qualifications, are available at: http://awardingbody.rcvs.org.uk/,
Tim, who is Managing Partner of Larkmead Vets and also a Director at the independent veterinary community XLVets, graduated from Liverpool Vet School in 1994 and joined Larkmead Vets in 1998.
He said: “I grew up in the South Yorkshire coalfields and worked in a city centre small animal practice in Wakefield before relocating to Oxfordshire to develop the small animal department of a mixed practice.
"First-opinion veterinary practice has been my life since starting cleaning kennels aged 12.
“I am passionate that whilst what we do is work with animals, how we do it is by working with people: our colleagues and the owners who entrust their animals to our care.
"As a first-opinion vet and practice owner I have had the privilege of growing and developing my practice (team and facilities) to meet the changing needs of our local community.
“At a time of great change for the veterinary profession, with the tantalising hope for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act set against the backdrop of the Competition and Markets Authority’s market investigation of the veterinary sector, it is an opportunity to bring this experience to the heart of our College.
“It was an unexpected honour to be elected to the position of JVP and I thank my colleagues on Council for entrusting the role to me.
"I also reflect on my initial university application which saw a clean sweep of rejections and hope that this can inspire others from the grass roots of our profession to get involved in shaping the future.”
Council also voted to confirm Professor Tim Parkin as RCVS President, Linda Belton as Senior Vice-President and reconfirmed Tshidi Gardiner as Treasurer (subject to her re-election), all effective from July.
Tim will take up his post at the College's AGM in July.
RCVS Day - the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Annual General Meeting and Presentation of Awards - will be held on Friday 1 July 2011 at One Great George Street, London.
All members and listed/registered veterinary nurses are invited to attend the day, which will start at 10am with AGM business, followed by the celebration of veterinary and veterinary nursing achievements. Professor Soraya Shirazi-Beechey will be receiving her Honorary Associateship and Dr James Kirkwood and Des Thompson will be accepting their Honorary Fellowships.
A new award to mark the 50th anniversary of veterinary nursing will also be presented, as well as a Lifetime Contribution Award from the RCVS Charitable Trust.
In his last official engagement as President, Peter Jinman will give a review of his year before formally welcoming new Council and VN Council Members, and Dr Jerry Davies to the role of President for 2011-2012.
To celebrate Vet2011, the RCVS is honoured to announce that there will be two guest speakers this year - Dr Christophe Buhot DVM and Professor Gary England FRCVS, who will deliver a talk about the history and future direction of veterinary education.
For tickets, which are free and allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, please contact Fiona Harcourt at the RCVS on f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773.
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.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: "I am so proud of our performance in the Great Place to Work Awards and the efforts of everyone at the College, and especially our HR team, who have been tirelessly and creatively striving to make the College a wonderful place to work.
"Consistently being placed in the top 50 Great Places to Work is also a testament to the sustained hard work all of our employees and the important part they play in creating a supportive, interesting and good-humoured workplace.
"We are a service-led organisation and we want to make sure that we give our best to the veterinary professions and the general public. If our team enjoys the work, and the workplace, that will improve the service we are able to offer and, ultimately, benefit animal health and welfare."
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The theme for the symposium this year is ‘Advancing veterinary mental health research: learning from the past, considering the present, and looking to the future’.
The day will consist of a variety of oral presentations and poster presentations, and there will be a number of exhibitors, including charitable organisations and wider animal health and welfare organisations.
The College is inviting all those interested in the field of veterinary mental health to attend the day.
RCVS Council member and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative, Dr Louise Allum, said: “Our symposium presents a fantastic opportunity for knowledge exchange in the veterinary mental health sphere so that, together, we can continue to foster a compassionate environment and build a solid evidence-base for veterinary mental health research to grow and evolve.
“This is an inclusive event open to all with an interest in veterinary mental health including vets, nurses, students, practice managers, academics, healthcare professionals, policy makers, mental health advocates and everyone in between.”
MMI Lead Rapinder Newton added: “We have come a long way in developing our understanding of mental health in veterinary professionals over the past ten years but still have a way to go.
“Only through continued collaboration with mental health researchers, and learning from other allied professions, can we efficiently work towards our shared goal of enhancing mental health and support within the veterinary professions.
“This is why events such as our symposium are so important.
"Veterinary mental health is a small but growing field. Creating environments for open discussion and networking are key to advancing our understanding of where the challenges lie.
"By extension, this also plays an invaluable role in learning how research can be applied in a practical manner to help improve the lives of veterinary professionals which, ultimately, aids in upholding animal health and welfare too.”
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2025-tickets-1247144485729