The VetGDP, which replaced the Professional Development Phase (PDP), provides a period of structured support to aid the transition of newly-registered veterinary surgeons from veterinary studies to life in the workplace.
VetGDP is being rolled out during 2021 and this year’s veterinary graduates will need to enrol on it.
One of the main features of VetGDP is the requirement for a trained VetGDP Adviser to be available in the practice to provide their new graduate with one-to-one, meaningful support and guidance, to help develop their confidence and capabilities.
In order for veterinary surgeons to become VetGDP Advisers they must complete an online training package being developed by the RCVS and formally commit to supporting new graduates.
Practices that have trained VetGDP Advisers and make this commitment will receive the status of an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice.
The original plan was that practices who wish to employ this year’s cohort of graduates should have obtained RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status by June 2021.
This has now been amended in recognition of the additional pressures that veterinary practice teams are under as a result of the pandemic.
Practices who employ graduates this year will now have until December 2021 to achieve this status, provided they have started to work towards RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status and commit to supporting their new graduate while they do so.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The ongoing pandemic restrictions, specifically changes made by the government to veterinary professionals’ key worker status on 13 January, means that there are now significant additional pressures on practice teams, particularly in terms of staffing, as many members of the profession will be balancing their work with caring responsibilities. We recognise this and, as such, we have updated the timeframe for the completion of our training for VetGDP Advisers.
“I would also like to personally thank the 850 vets who have already registered their interest in becoming VetGDP Advisers. It is very reassuring to see so many members of the profession committed to supporting new members of the profession, and wanting to engage with the training and with VetGDP to help nurture and develop our future vets through their first few years in practice.”
The College will be holding three VetGDP workshops in February. Each workshop will feature the same content, so there’s no need to attend more than one.
They take place on:
The workshops are open to anyone in the veterinary team including veterinary surgeons who may be considering becoming a VetGDP Adviser, practice managers and others involved in graduate recruitment and anyone else who would like to find out more about VetGDP.
The sessions will be interactive and there will be a significant portion of time given over to Q&As. The RCVS Chair of Education Committee, Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, and Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, will be available to answer any questions which can be submitted live during the event. You can also submit questions as you register for the workshop at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdpworkshops.
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdp
In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.
Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years.
At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.
The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.
The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."
The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.
She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.
However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.
In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.
In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.
Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.
"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession".
The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by Dr Janos Nemeth, who had previously been found to have fraudulently registered with the RCVS and struck off.
At the original hearing, in February 2009, Dr Nemeth - the holder of a veterinary science degree from the Szent István University in Budapest, who had practised in the Wokingham area of Berkshire - was found to have dishonestly entered his name in the RCVS Register using a forged document (a Certificate of Membership and Good Professional Behaviour from the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber). The Disciplinary Committee at that time found the evidence that the document was a forgery to be "overwhelming" and concluded that Dr Nemeth had been lying to them about his knowledge of the forgery. It directed that his name should be removed from the Register.
Dr Nemeth lodged an appeal against this decision with the Privy Council, but then took no further steps. Accordingly, the Privy Council dismissed Dr Nemeth's appeal and he was struck off in October 2009.
On lodging his application for restoration, Dr Nemeth had asserted he was not guilty of the original charge. The Committee was disappointed with this aspect of Dr Nemeth's application saying that he would be "well-advised to demonstrate some insight into the seriousness of the original findings."
The Committee emphasised that a finding of dishonesty against a member of the College is "one of great seriousness and never made lightly" and accepted that it may be considered "fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon."
Questioning Dr Nemeth, the Committee was further disappointed to learn that he had not made himself more familiar with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, or made a greater effort to keep up to date with veterinary practice in the UK, or provided documentary evidence of attendance at continuing professional development (CPD) meetings.
After considering all the facts presented to it, including the severe personal and financial impact on Dr Nemeth of his removal from the Register, the Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored and did not consider it in the public interest to grant his application.
Acknowledging she could not bind a future Committee as to any further application for restoration by Dr Nemeth, Committee Chairman Mrs Caroline Freedman advised: "Dr Nemeth should provide supporting evidence where possible, including records of CPD, testimonials from other veterinary surgeons or employers, or a more incisive knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. We would remind Dr Nemeth that the onus is on him to establish his fitness to be restored to the Register."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog.
At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince.
The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.
Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care.
Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.
When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.
The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession.
Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."
The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards. "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is calling for members to nominate veterinary surgeons and non-veterinary surgeons who merit the award of Honorary Associateship or Honorary Fellowship.
Honorary Associateships are awarded annually to people, not necessarily veterinary surgeons, by reason of their special eminence in, or special service to, the veterinary profession. Council has agreed that these should only be people ineligible for election as Honorary Fellows.
Honorary Fellowships can be awarded to up to three veterinary surgeons in any one year for their service to, or special eminence in, the cause of veterinary science.
Nominees for Honorary Fellowships must be members of the RCVS and have been a member, or held a registrable qualification, for at least 20 years.
All nominations need to include the particular reasons why the honour/award should be conferred, along with supporting statements from two referees, at least one of whom must not be a working colleague of the person nominated.
Nominations must be received by the President, Dr Jerry Davies, by Friday, 2 September 2011.
Members may download the nomination form, or request it from the RCVS Executive Office (0207 202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk).
Last year a cohort of 1,010 veterinary surgeons responded to the CPD audit, which took place in September 2019 and included a random sample of 658 vets sourced from across all UK postcode areas.
The audit found that 820 (or 81%) of respondents met the annual requirement – a 13% increase from the 2018 audit. This followed a decline in compliance rates from 82% in 2014 to just 68% in 2018.
Amongst veterinary nurses, 79% of respondents were compliant, a 7% increase on last year’s compliance rate and the highest compliance rate ever from a veterinary nursing CPD audit.
Dr. Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), said: "It is fantastic to see that this year’s results demonstrate a significant increase in CPD compliance rates after a number of years in decline for vets and a largely static rate for veterinary nurses and I hope that it is part of a long-term trend towards the professions recognising the value of keeping their clinical and non-clinical skills up-to-date.
"This year we have made a number of changes that should make CPD compliance even easier now, including a clearer and simpler annual CPD requirement of 35 hours for vets and 15 hours for vet nurses, and the 1CPD platform and app which can be signed into through the My Account area and provides the professions with the ability to record, plan and reflect on their CPD."
Further information about the changes to the College’s CPD policy and the 1CPD platform can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
The 1CPD app can be downloaded through the Apple App Store, Google Play and via the RCVS website at https://onecpd.rcvs.org.uk/accounts/login/
The symposium, which will be held on Tuesday 24 September 2019, at Church House in London, will bring together researchers interested in all aspects of veterinary professionals’ wellbeing and mental health. It will feature plenary speakers from mental health research, including:
Professor Neil Greenberg: Sustaining resilience at work – what does the evidence tell us works?, Professor of Defence Mental Health, Consultant Academic Psychiatrist at King’s College London, Chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ (RCP) Special Interest Group in Occupational Psychiatry.
Professor Alexandra Pitman: The impact of veterinarian suicide on colleagues, Associate Professor in Psychiatry in the UCL Division of Psychiatry and an Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust.
Professor Stuart Reid: The Mind Matters Initiative – what we’ve achieved so far, Principal, Royal Veterinary College, Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative.
Presentations should be in the format of a 15-minute oral presentation or an A1 poster.
Those wishing to apply should submit an abstract clearly marked ‘poster’ or ‘oral presentation’. The title should be 15 words or fewer. The abstract should include author(s) first name(s), followed by surname(s), institution of affiliation and country. The body of the text should be no longer than 250 words and include: background; clear and explicit aims and objectives, hypotheses or research questions; methods; results; discussion; and conclusion.
All abstracts should be submitted as Word documents to Rosie Allister on rosie.allister@gmail.com no later than 23:59 (GMT) on Friday 19 April 2019.
Applicants will be notified if they have been successful within 14 days of this date. Speakers whose applications are successful will receive complimentary registration for the symposium, not including travel and accommodations costs.
A small number of travel bursaries are available for students, people with lived experience of mental health problems, and people who are unwaged, who would not otherwise be able to attend. For further details, please contact Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk.
The deal includes an option for the College to lease the building for up to two years to give it time to consider its options for the future, and how they may have changed as a result of the pandemic.
The decision to sell the property was made back in November 2018, when Council decided that the building was rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and the College needed more up-to-date and modern facilities with more room for a growing workforce. The College’s Estates Strategy Project Board was tasked with managing the process, chaired by former RCVS President Barry Johnson.
RCVS Treasurer Susan Dawson said: “Council recognised that this deal realised maximum value for the building, especially considering the impact the pandemic has had on property prices in Central London.
“It also provides a very valuable opportunity to reflect on the changing needs of the organisation and the professions and public it serves, and to consider the requirements and different working patterns of the College staff going forwards.
“It is likely that many staff members will wish to continue to work at home more than they did pre-Covid, so the need for pure desk-space may not be as great as we had planned for the 10-15 years ahead. However, the importance of in-person meetings for collaboration, creativity and the maintenance of good corporate culture is not to be underestimated, so our new requirements are likely to be different to that anticipated back in 2018.”
The College says it expects to welcome limited numbers of staff back to the office in June, to work in a socially distanced way, including virtual or partly-virtual meetings.
Changes to working patterns over the coming months will also help inform decisions around future remote working policies and the type and size of building that will best suit the future needs of the College and its workforce.
The CertAVN was launched in May 2019 as a modular, advanced professional qualification allowing veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to develop their professional skills and knowledge.
The CertAVN framework sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of the higher education institutions responsible for providing the training and support for CertAVN students.
There are currently five accredited course providers in the UK:
The proposed standards for accreditation are set under three areas: curricula and assessment, educators and assessors, and learning culture.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “In order to make sure that the CertAVN remains up to date and fit for purpose, it is important that we consult on the accreditation standards at regular intervals.
"We welcome constructive and specific feedback from veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers – whether you have already undertaken the CertAVN or are perhaps considering doing so in the future – as well as the wider veterinary team, educators, and employers of current and potential CertAVN holders.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for CertAVN students."
The consultation runs until 5pm on Monday 3 March 2025.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/review-of-the-certavn-framework
Would-be candidates in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections are reminded that the nominations deadline is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Veterinary surgeons need two nominations from veterinary surgeons, and veterinary nurses two nominations from veterinary nurses, to stand in the respective elections.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses not presently on either Council can nominate one candidate each.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Six seats are due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is calling for comment on a draft Performance Protocol, which aims to manage proportionately any justified concerns about the professional performance of veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses.
The RCVS's Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees have been working together to develop a new protocol setting out the way in which the College will respond to ongoing performance-related concerns. There is an expectation that veterinary surgeons and RVNs are already regularly reviewing their clinical work in the workplace. This will be reinforced by the new principles-based Code of Professional Conduct, currently being finalised, which is likely to require clinical governance to be part of professional practice for veterinary surgeons and RVNs.
According to the College, the draft protocol is intended to formalise and build on the way it already manages ongoing serious performance-related concerns. It introduces new measures, including supervision and undertakings, to seek to ensure that veterinary surgeons and RVNs take reasonable steps to address any serious performance concerns. This will bring the RCVS into line with other professional regulators and enable a tailored and proportionate response to these cases to protect the welfare of animals and the public interest. The College's current system of offering advice to veterinary surgeons and RVNs will remain for complaints which are closed, because there is no indication of serious professional misconduct.
The College says that according to independent legal advice, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for it to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. The draft performance protocol follows similar legal advice that supported the implementation of the RCVS Health Protocol, and both protocols clarify the College's parallel jurisdiction relating to health and performance-related issues.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "When veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses are unable to deal with performance-related concerns, it is important that we are able to provide a supportive framework to oversee remedial steps that are designed to address those concerns and encourage professional development. This is best achieved outside a Disciplinary Committee hearing, if at all possible".
The approved draft protocol is now open for public consultation, and may be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/performance. All comments on the draft should be emailed to Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager at s.wiklund@rcvs.org.uk by 13 January 2012, with 'Performance Protocol' added to the subject heading.
The feedback received from the consultation will be considered by the Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees in January 2012, before being submitted to RCVS Council for approval in March.
The College says it hopes that a performance protocol will form part of the supporting guidance to the new RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct for both veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses.
Free veterinary careers materials are available from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for vets going back to school to give careers talks.
Freda Andrews, Head of Education said: "We know that, although veterinary surgeons are busy people, they often say yes when schools ask them to give careers talks. "Since September last year we've responded to around 500 requests for our 'Veterinary Science...for all Walks of Life' careers information. If you are giving a talk, these are well worth a look."
Comprising a printed booklet and a series of short videos available online, the careers materials were produced by the RCVS in collaboration with the vet schools and with government funding. They aim to show the variety both in veterinary work, and in vets themselves, to encourage teenagers from all backgrounds to consider aiming for a career in veterinary medicine. The videos can also be watched on the VetCareers channel on YouTube.
Each video features a vet working in a different field within veterinary medicine, and the brochure contains information about different types of veterinary careers, routes into the vet schools, and the entry requirements. Anyone who is in a position to advise aspiring vet students on the university entry requirements needs to be aware that there are now a variety of different routes into vet school, including options for students with vocational qualifications such as BTEC Diplomas, and pre-entry or foundation years aimed at increasing the diversity of the student population.
A new careers leaflet will also shortly be available from the RCVS to encourage would-be veterinary nurses, and will include the new RCVS Level 3 VN Diploma and the mixed-practice route to qualification newly introduced by the RCVS.
Freda said: "Veterinary surgeons can come from all walks of life - as our careers materials show. It's important that the profession reflects the population it serves and for teenagers to have good advice about veterinary careers and how to get into the profession. So, if you're going back to school to encourage the next generation, then get in touch!"
Free hard-copies of the brochure are available by contacting the RCVS Education Department (education@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0791). An interactive version of the booklet can be found at http://www.walksoflife.org.uk/, and individual videos viewed at http://www.youtube.com/vetcareers.
Mr Samuel had been removed from the Register in 2018 for causing unnecessary harm to numerous animals.
After being tried and convicted of several animal welfare offences alongside his former partner at Leeds Magistrates Court, Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12-months on the condition that he did 150 hours of unpaid work.
He was also ordered to pay a £100 fine and subjected to a disqualification order under the Animal Welfare Act for three years.
Mr Samuel’s application for restoration was based on the facts that he accepted the seriousness of his actions and that he did not challenge the DC’s 2018 decision.
The Committee also heard evidence that since his removal from the Register, Mr Samuel - who had run a first opinion veterinary practice for nine years prior to being struck off - has undertaken 340 hours of work experience with other veterinary surgeons and 20 hours of CPD.
Dr Samuel was represented by Counsel who outlined in his submissions to the Committee how Dr Samuel’s former partner had sole responsibility for the animals and that she was involved in rehoming dogs and cats and that their relationship was ‘stressful’, that this made Dr Samuel neglect his professional obligations, and that Dr Samuel was now in a different relationship and his life had been ‘transformed’ since his conviction.
The College opposed Dr Samuel being restored to the Register.
Ms Curtis, Counsel on behalf of the College, submitted to the Committee that Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to the welfare of animals and that to allow him to be restored to the Register would undermine public confidence in the profession.
She explained that even though his sentence and Animal Welfare Act Disqualification Order had come to an end, and he was now legally able to own animals, this should not be equated with him now being fit to return to the Register.
Dr Austin Kirwan MRCVS, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Where a veterinary surgeon has shown himself to be capable of such indifference to the welfare of multiple animals, there remained, in the Committee’s view, a real risk of that indifference manifesting itself again.
"A registered veterinary surgeon is entrusted with the care of animals, often when they are at their most vulnerable, and sometimes for prolonged periods of time.
"Given the nature of the animal welfare offences committed by Dr Samuel, the Committee considered there would be a real and significant risk to animals if the high level of responsibility and trust that comes with registration were returned to him.
“For a veterinary surgeon, conduct involving neglect of animals is at the highest end of the spectrum of serious professional misconduct.
"For the reasons outlined above, the Committee considered Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to animal welfare and thus allowing him to be restored to the Register would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession.
"For all these reasons the application to restore Dr Samuel to the Register is refused.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS has announced that its Professional Standards Advice Team, which offers advice about the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, is now trialling extended hours and remaining open until 7pm Monday to Friday.
The trial will last for three months.
The closing time of 7pm was decided by the RCVS Standards Committee because research conducted by both the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the RCVS determined that this is the average closing time for veterinary practices in the UK.
On average the Professional Conduct Department deals with 7,500 calls a year (which includes calls from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses looking for advice about professional responsibilities and standards) as well as around 2,000 written requests which are dealt with exclusively by the Professional Standards Advice Team.
Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager, said: "The aim of the trial is to determine if the profession would take advantage of these extended hours and, therefore, if our team should permanently extend its operating hours to provide a better service to the profession.
"However, it must be remembered that this is not an emergency service but an extension to our standard service and advice during the extended hours will not necessarily be any more immediate than at any other time during the day because it may need further research or input from members of the Standards Committee.
"Prior to launching the trial we also liaised with 10 other UK healthcare and professional regulators and found that our current professional advice service compared favourably to others and that we were providing a more extensive service than many."
The team aims to provide clear, concise and consistent advice to help veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses understand their professional responsibilities and support compliance with the Code. It also distinguishes between professional requirements, legal requirements and suggested good practice and may offer suggestions about how professional responsibilities can be applied in practice.
However, there are some areas on which the team is unable to offer guidance. For example, it cannot offer clinical advice or advice on legal matters such as employment law, maternity rights, or contractual or civil disputes.
Advice is also available for members of the public, for example, to help animal owners understand what they can expect from their veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
To contact the team call 020 7202 0789 or, alternatively, email profcon@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS and the BVA have announced the launch of Vet Futures, a jointly funded initiative designed to stimulate discussion about the future of the profession, and help its members prepare for and shape it.
The initiative will draw on the experience and insight of a wide range of individuals and organisations, including veterinary surgeons and nurses, veterinary bodies, farmers, pet owners and other key stakeholders.
The objective is to understand where the provision of veterinary services is currently heading, whether this is in the best interests of the profession, animal owners and the public at large, and what might be done to shape an optimal future for the veterinary team, keeping animal health and welfare at its heart.
In the project's first phase, independent researchers will gather evidence via focus groups, phone interviews and desk-based research, in addition to the gauging of opinion through events, the internet and social media.
This evidence gathering will be followed by an engagement phase, where the profession will be asked for their feedback on initial thoughts; a period of analysis, where a report will be written by the independent researchers; and, finally, there will be an action phase, where key strategic issues will be identified, together with a clear plan for action from the BVA and the RCVS, as well as other organisations and individuals.
Professor Stuart Reid, RCVS President. said: "The RCVS is implementing a programme of reform to make it a first-rate regulator, but how do we also make ours a first-rate profession, that is resilient and agile enough to meet future demands?
"The Vet Futures project will not just be about horizon-scanning, but getting a fix on those issues over the horizon that we may not yet have considered, such as the use of emerging technologies.
"It's an exciting challenge and I am looking forward to members of the veterinary team getting involved so that, together, we can develop an action plan that will deliver a sustainable future for the profession."
John Blackwell, BVA President, said: "It is no secret that the veterinary profession is changing rapidly and that is why the theme for my presidential year is 'driving change and shaping the future'. It is essential that we come together to map out where we want to be as a strong and trusted profession and identify how we can make that happen.
"On such cross-cutting issues it is appropriate that the two leading professional bodies come together to provide joint leadership for the profession, but we are keen to engage as many individuals and stakeholders as possible. It is designed to be a hugely collaborative project and we want to hear voices from across the whole profession and the whole veterinary team."
The project has a dedicated website www.vetfutures.org.uk where the latest events, reports and publications will be found. There will also be a 'topic of the month' for the duration of the project, with controversial opinion-pieces being posted to stimulate debate from within the profession and amongst animal owners and other stakeholders.
In June the College held a six-week consultation with the profession, asking for opinions on its proposal for an outcomes-based approach to CPD which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
The proposed model for CPD had four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others. The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
The RCVS Education Committee therefore decided that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 with a group of volunteers, before making a recommendation to Council.
Professor Stephen May, who chaired the Working Group that developed the CPD proposals, said: "Because of the concern voiced by members of the profession responding to the consultation we decided that, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for the RCVS to move straight into this new way of doing CPD but that it would be more appropriate to hold a pilot. The idea is that we will explore some of the concerns around reflection and around the extra time and paperwork that people felt that a more reflective approach may lead to.
"We have taken all these comments into account and are now seeking to work with individual volunteers on this pilot. It is important to note that we are not only looking for volunteers who agree with what we are doing but also those who are apprehensive about it or even some who see it as something they do not support. We want to explore the full range of views and how we can move forward in changing our approach to CPD."
The pilot is expected to be launched in February next year and the College is now looking for volunteers who both support the proposals and have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them. Volunteers will receive help and support throughout the trial and will also be invited to attend an introductory CPD meeting at the RCVS offices in February.
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation and the full interview with Stephen May, is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/CPDpilot.
The RCVS Council has announced its agreement with wholesale reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
The changes agreed by Council included almost halving the number of Council members and formalising lay and veterinary membership.
Under the proposals approved by Council it would be reduced to 24 members – comprising 13 elected veterinary surgeons (constituting a majority of Council), six appointed laypeople, three members appointed on behalf of the UK veterinary schools and two veterinary nurses. There would also be the option to appoint an additional member on behalf of any allied professions that RCVS Council may choose to regulate as associates of the College.
Professor Stuart Reid, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS and Chair of the Governance Panel that developed the recommendations, said: "I am delighted that Council so fully supported our proposals for a new structure. The new composition will ensure that both veterinary nurses and laypeople have a guaranteed place at the Council table, as well as maintaining a majority of elected veterinary surgeons and important input from the veterinary schools.
"The proposal recognises the unique nature of the RCVS and will allow us to expedite our decision-making process, making us more fleet of foot and better able to respond to the needs of the profession and the public. It has also been constructed to allow Council to evolve its position, ensuring it remains relevant into the future. If all goes well we hope that the changes could come into force as soon as March 2017."
Liz Cox, the Chair of VN Council, particularly welcomed the changes in respect of veterinary nursing representation on RCVS Council, adding: "It is an historic decision for veterinary nurses and one that has been long awaited. It is only right that those who work so closely alongside veterinary surgeons in practice should have a direct input into regulation that affects us all."
Council’s approval of the recommendations was the culmination of two years of debate and consultation with the profession and other stakeholders. This included a formal consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year which garnered 52 responses – including from the British Veterinary Association - most of which were supportive. Different options for reform had, in turn, been developed by a Governance Panel, chaired by Professor Reid, which was set up by Council in March 2015 to consider various options.
Defra will now run a short informal consultation to provide those who responded to the initial consultation the opportunity to comment on the proposed reforms. If no issues are raised Defra officials will seek approval from the Government to proceed with a legislative reform order (LRO) to make the necessary changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
This LRO will be scrutinised by parliamentary committee and voted on in both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Once this has been passed there will be a three-year transitional period, agreed by Council members, during which Council’s numbers would be gradually reduced.
In her opening address, Mandisa said: "When the College was founded in 1844, it would have been unthinkable that a woman, let alone a black woman, would become President of the institution one day. I am immensely proud of this achievement and, while it clearly demonstrates progress, there is still plenty to do in widening access to our professions.”
She said she hoped to use her position as President to act as a role model to young people from under-represented groups, to encourage them to consider careers in veterinary surgery, and to support those already in the profession.
Mandisa, a graduate of the University of Edinburgh in 2008 and an elected member of RCVS Council since 2014, added: “I also take the Presidential baton from Niall to champion a more diverse and inclusive profession with renewed intention, and look forward to playing my part in our upcoming Diversity & Inclusion Action Plan.
“As recent weeks and the Black Lives Matter movement have highlighted, there is more to be done, and we are committed to doing the work necessary. It is essential that we support all members of the veterinary team to work in an environment that is free from discrimination and racism.”
In another first at the RCVS AGM, Matthew Rendle became the first male veterinary nurse to chair VN Council.
Council members voted in favour of becoming a fully-appointed governing Council and to explore retaining elected representation on a future council or committee focussed on 'upstream regulation' and development of the profession
Council also voted to move towards greater parity between professional and lay RCVS Council members, but delayed a decision on the precise balance until it has the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.
Council voted to remove veterinary school appointees from Council, agreeing to discuss the future composition of the RCVS Education Committee at a later date.
Council then voted to further investigate a number of alternative governance arrangement suggestions, including independent oversight of the College, and to review term limits across all appointed positions.
RCVS President Linda Belton said: “Thank you to all who took part in the consultation and made suggestions on alternative and additional arrangements that might be made regarding our governance.
"Thank you also to Council members for a robust discussion of these proposals.
“We still have a number of important governance issues to discuss at a future date and the proposals that Council members have voted to approve today will not be brought into immediate effect, but will be included in our proposals to government for new veterinary legislation.
“As we seek reform of veterinary regulation via new primary legislation, it is important that our governance arrangements not only inspire public confidence and trust but also allow us, as a Royal College that regulates, to work with the professions on our upstream regulatory activities, not only to ensure that individuals are fit for practice, but also that we maintain a profession fit for purpose.
“The decision to explore retaining an elected element on a future veterinary council or committee, responsible for work dedicated to the development of the professions, gives a clear indication of the value of our ‘Royal College that regulates’ model.
"We have also made a further commitment to public assurance by agreeing to explore independent oversight of the RCVS.
“Any future appointments process developed by the RCVS will be committed to adhering to the Public Standards Authority’s principles on appointments; these are merit; fairness; transparency and openness; and inspiring confidence.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil-nov24
The original deadline for nominations for the three honours (the Queen’s Medal, Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship) was Friday 16 September – this has now been moved to Friday 21 October 2016.
Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Do you know someone who goes above-and-beyond the call of duty? Whose achievements have had a tangible impact on their profession or the veterinary and animal health and welfare sector at large? Then we would strongly encourage you to nominate them for an RCVS Honour. Those who are successful will receive their award at our Annual General Meeting and Awards Day where their achievements will be described and recognised in front of their peers."
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Finally, nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have had a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours. All awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk
Dr Dyson was removed from the Register after she was found to have fabricated a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector in support of a paper she had submitted to a journal, explaining why conducting her research had not required a Home Office Licence.
The original Committee made its decision on the basis that her conduct was knowingly dishonest, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in it, and, furthermore, risked undermining the Government’s system designed to promote animal welfare and research ethics.
In considering Dr Dyson’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors: her acceptance of the findings of the Committee at the original hearing; the seriousness of the original findings; public protection; risks to animal welfare if she were to be allowed to practise again; the length of time off the Register; her conduct since being removed; her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice; the impact of the sanction on her; and public support for her.
The Committee found that while Dr Dyson had demonstrated some insight into her misconduct, had expressed remorse and admitted dishonesty, it was undermined by her continuing denial that she had been knowingly dishonest in her conduct, having attributed her actions to being in a dissociative state at the time.
In terms of seriousness, the Committee considered that Dr Dyson’s misconduct was at the highest end of the spectrum, having involved being dishonest with multiple people on multiple occasions, and then inventing a fictitious Home Office Inspector to continue the deceit.
The Committee also considered that public confidence in the profession and the RCVS as the regulator would be undermined were Dr Dyson to be allowed to be restored to the Register without genuinely accepting full responsibility for her actions.
In her favour, the Committee considered that there was no risk to the health and welfare of animals and that she had provided ample evidence of her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice should she be allowed to practise again.
In addition, she had made some progress, for example she was able to show some insight by the steps she had taken to avoid finding herself in such a stressful environment in the future. The Committee also considered the many positive testimonials it received from professional colleagues and clients.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided to refuse Dr Dyson’s application.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession will not be maintained if a veterinary surgeon who has been found to have committed very serious acts of dishonesty refuses to genuinely accept that that is the case.
“Dr Dyson says that she accepts the original Disciplinary Committee’s finding that she acted dishonestly, but that acceptance carries little weight in light of what she said in her application and has said in her evidence to this Committee, because it involves a theoretical or objective concept of dishonesty which has no bearing upon her actual state of mind at the time of the actions in question.
“By not being truly accountable for her dishonest actions, Dr Dyson has thus far been unable to demonstrate anything other than limited insight into her disgraceful conduct.
“In such circumstances, the Committee considered there would be a real and continuing risk to the reputation of the profession and to public confidence in the profession if Dr Dyson were restored to the Register.
"Conduct of this kind is of a particularly egregious nature for a member of this profession and particularly so of one so eminent in her field and looked up to by so many.
"The Committee was of the view that if a veterinary surgeon, who has committed such serious offences and shown so little insight were nonetheless now allowed to practise, the public’s trust in the profession was liable to be seriously undermined.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
On Tuesday 15 January the RCVS will hold a 'Meet the RCVS Day' for those standing or considering standing for election to RCVS Council or the Veterinary Nurses Council.
The event offers prospective candidates an opportunity to find out more about what the role of a Council member involves, and what would be expected of them, if elected.
Candidates and prospective candidates will have the chance to meet the RCVS Officers and senior staff, and to find out what goes on behind the scenes. The day will start at 10.30am, and finish at approximately 3.30pm, to allow plenty of time for questions. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.
For further information, or to book a place, prospective candidates can contact Fiona Harcourt, Communications Officer (f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773).
Nomination forms for RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Council and VN Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week issued a reprimand to a veterinary surgeon for reckless certification of an equine passport, having found her to have been "wholly indifferent" as to whether the horse had been vaccinated properly against equine influenza.
Eleri Wyn Jones graduated from the University of Liverpool and qualified as a veterinary surgeon in 2006, before joining The Veterinary Practice on Bala Road in Dolgellau, Gwynedd, where she was also an authorised Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI). The principal of that practice is Iwan Parry, who himself was the subject of a DC hearing involving false certification earlier this year, for which he received a one-month suspension from the Register.
The Committee heard how, in late 2007, as Ms Jones was leaving the practice to begin her rounds, she was asked by a non-veterinary colleague to certify in a horse passport that two vaccinations for equine influenza had been administered. The horse in question was being liveried by a regular client of the practice, to whom the practice regularly dispensed veterinary vaccines (although Ms Jones was unaware of this), but had been recently purchased by someone who was not a registered client.
In evidence, Ms Jones admitted the certification process took her only 30 seconds and that she did not obtain any further information about the certification, either from clinical or non-clinical colleagues; nor did she check any other documentation before signing the passport, but assumed the vaccinations had been administered by a veterinary colleague. The Committee had to decide whether Ms Jones had acted recklessly, and to do so, Ms Jones' Counsel suggested the Committee would need to be satisfied that she "did not care less" whether or not the vaccinations had been given by a veterinary surgeon before signing the passport.
In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account the fact Ms Jones, on her own evidence, was generally familiar with RCVS guidance on certification and, as an authorised Local Veterinary Inspector, had certification training. It stated: "Whilst we recognise that Ms Jones received little or no mentoring from Mr Parry, we are satisfied that she would have been aware of the importance of veterinary certification. She was also aware that Mr Parry had been suspended as an LVI, due to certification issues, which had affected her own authorisation."
In view of these facts, and that Ms Jones made no attempt to obtain verification from any other source despite knowing she had not performed the vaccinations herself, the Committee decided that Ms Jones had been "wholly indifferent" to proper vaccination procedures and was therefore guilty of disgraceful professional conduct for reckless certification.
In reaching its decision on sanction, the Committee wished to remind members that cases involving improper certification would ordinarily result in suspension or removal from the Register. "We strongly disapprove of the circumstances in which Ms Jones certified this horse.
Clients, and external bodies, are entitled to rely upon the integrity of the veterinary surgeon in not certifying that horses have been vaccinated unless they have carried out the vaccinations themselves or have obtained full and proper evidence that vaccination has been carried out by another veterinary surgeon," it said.
In mitigation, however, the Committee took into account Ms Jones' age and inexperience, her previously good record, her good character and the significant number of supporting references from colleagues and clients alike. It was also mindful that any sanction's main purpose was to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession, rather than to punish.
Nigel Swayne, chairing the Committee, concluded: "This is not a case where undertakings for training or monitoring are required. This isolated incident was a fateful misjudgement on a single occasion. We consider that the sanction most proportionate to the nature and extent of the charge, the public interest and the interests of Ms Jones is a reprimand."
The Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) is co-chaired by the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer Nigel Gibbens, RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Chris Tufnell, and BVA Senior Vice-President Gudrun Ravetz. The project board also comprises the CVOs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Sheila Voas, Christianne Glossop and Robert Huey, as well as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
The project’s objective is to work with the veterinary sector to better understand the UK’s workforce needs and ensure that both the Government and veterinary businesses can continue to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard the food chain and maintain levels of public health and public services, and enable trade in animals and animal products.
The project will include a joint BVA-RCVS submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on workforce issues post-Brexit. Three working groups have been set up within the project to look specifically at issues of veterinary resources, recruitment and retention.
The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Nigel Gibbens, said: "Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity to develop gold standard policies on animal welfare. The UK Government is determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain and Ministers have been absolutely clear we will maintain our world-leading animal welfare standards.
"The VCCP is a great example of collaborative working between government, professional bodies and regulators to prepare for our exit from the European Union.
"I am pleased the Prime Minister has set out the government’s aim to secure the status of the veterinary workforce as a top priority as we leave the EU. The UK’s vets - both Official Veterinarians and those in the private sector - play a key role in protecting our country from endemic and exotic diseases, tackling outbreaks when they occur, safeguarding our animals and tackling global challenges like antibiotic resistance."
Chris Tufnell said: "Since the vote to leave the European Union last year the RCVS has been working in partnership with BVA to highlight to Government and others the potential workforce shortages that could arise from a loss of non-UK EU-qualified vets, particularly in public health work where they tend to predominate. Our position was highlighted in our Brexit Principles published earlier this year and at an event organised by us and the BVA at the Palace of Westminster for MPs and Peers.
"We are very glad that Defra is working proactively with us and BVA to understand the scale of the issues and map out the risks and opportunities and to help us plan for a number of different scenarios in advance so that we do not find ourselves in a position whereby animal health and welfare or public health might be compromised by workforce shortages."
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Vets provide the foundation for the UK’s high animal health and welfare, and make an essential contribution to the UK economy and wider society. Veterinary teams up and down the country support the UK’s 11 million pet-owning households; not a penny of the UK’s £12.7 billion livestock industry could be realised without vets; and vets are vital to facilitating UK trade, through health certification and controls, so that consumers have confidence in the food safety and welfare of the products they buy.
"Non-UK EU vets make up around 50% of our new workforce each year yet, since the EU referendum; we are facing increasing problems in recruiting and retaining EU colleagues to the UK. The impact of the loss of even a small percentage of the veterinary workforce could have serious repercussions on the practices, communities and industries that vets serve. This profession-wide project is pivotal to ensuring we have a veterinary workforce that can serve the UK’s needs post-Brexit."
The BVA’s Brexit and the veterinary profession report can be found at www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/policy/future-of-the-profession/brexit/
To read the College’s Brexit Principles in full visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The Prime Minister has set out the government’s offer for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU on their rights and status after the UK leaves the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu
The government’s response to House of Lord’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry into Brexit: Farm Animal Welfare also addresses veterinary capability post-Brexit:https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-energy-environment-subcommittee/Brexit-farm-animal-welfare/Gov-Brexit-farm-anim.pdf
Dr Kalisz faced a total of nine charges (including 41 sub-charges).
The first was that in July 2020, she failed to carry out a clinical examination of the dog, failed to adequately interpret test results, failed to ask for help interpreting the results, and undertook an emergency Caesarean section without sufficient need to do so.
The other charges related to undertaking a colotomy without sufficient justification and without exercising sufficient clinical judgment throughout the procedure.
For both the Caesarean section and the colotomy, Dr Kalisz faced charges that she failed to obtain informed consent from the owners and failed to inform them that the colotomy had been carried out, or of the potential risks of the procedure, and also failed to provide enough information about aftercare.
It was also alleged that Dr Kalisz had demonstrated continual lapses in professional judgement, including failing to appropriately manage the spaniel’s worsening condition when it was presented to the practice again later, and that the clinical records in relation to the surgery were dishonest and/or misleading.
Dr Kalisz admitted serious professional misconduct, admitting to 29 of the sub-charges, while the remaining 12 sub-charges were denied.
The Committee found 30 of the sub-charges proven, with the remaining 11 not proven.
The Committee the considered aggravating factors, including the fact that Dr Kalisz's conduct led to the spaniel’s death, the colotomy was reckless and Dr Kalisz did not take steps to inform anybody or make a clinical record for the colotomy.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that it was single and isolated incident (albeit one that spanned a number of days), that no other members of the clinical team involved raised concerns during the procedure, and the effect Covid had upon the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that of those charges proven, the ones relating to performing the colotomy, failing to manage the spaniel’s subsequent care and failing to mention the colotomy amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding the sanction, the Committee took into account the mitigation submitted on behalf of Dr Kalisz and the written testimonials produced including the fact that she was young and inexperienced, had admitted her failings at an early stage, had made subsequent efforts to avoid a repetition of such behaviour and that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident.
The Committee also considered that Dr Kalisz had shown an exemplary level of insight, showing remorse for her actions, undertaking substantial continuing professional development, and finding appropriate ongoing professional mentorship.
The Committee was impressed by the character testimonials from veterinary co-workers, both current and at the time of these events, as well as from clients.
It was, the Committee said, apparent from those testimonials that Dr Kalisz had been open and honest with them about the charges and was considered to be an excellent, committed veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved serious lapses of clinical judgement.
"It was therefore concluded that, despite Dr Kalisz’s actions being reckless, the extensive mitigation and the high level of insight, coupled with steps taken to avoid repetition, meant that there was negligible future risk to animal welfare.
“The Committee did not consider it necessary to issue a warning to Dr Kalisz about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is little risk of repetition, so considered that a reprimand would be an appropriate sanction in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings