Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her.
The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.
Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.
However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.
Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.
“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.
“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.
“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”
She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”
Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The new Order will come into force on the 18th February 2020, from when students who graduate with the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree will automatically be able to join the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and to practise veterinary medicine in the UK.
The university’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) degree will enter the College’s cyclical accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring for quality assurance.
Accreditation of the degree was a five-year process during which the RCVS worked with the University of Surrey to ensure that its curriculum and programme met the College’s quality standards, including two interim accreditation visitations in 2017 and 2018 and a final accreditation visit in 2019.
Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President, said: “We are very glad that the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree has now cleared the last hurdle and that, as of next month, it will join the roster as the UK’s eighth recognised veterinary degree. I commend the hard work that the faculty, students and the university’s clinical partners have put in to develop the course over the past five years and we look forward to continue to work with them to ensure that the high standards are maintained."
Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, said: "I am delighted that the University of Surrey’s School of Veterinary Medicine has become the UK’s eighth provider of veterinary education. The support and enthusiasm of our partner practice network has been essential in delivering our vision of competent, confident and compassionate veterinary graduates."
The full RCVS accreditation standards for veterinary degrees can be found here: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/accrediting-primary-qualifications/accrediting-veterinary-degrees/accreditation-standards/
Photo: (from l-r) Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, and Niall Connell, RCVS President.
The RCVS Trust has announced 34 grants totalling approximately £165,000, being made to veterinary surgeons, universities and higher education (HE) establishments, to fund high-quality research projects in the UK and overseas, and support veterinary education.
Harper Adams University College and Myerscough College will be the first veterinary nursing colleges to receive funding under the Spencer-Hill equipment grants programme; this was the first time that RCVS-approved HE veterinary nurse training providers were able to apply for this funding. Harper Adams will receive £2,350 to purchase a Humphrey ADE-circle system, and Myerscough, £1,395 for an 'Emily' canine positioning mannequin.
Severine Tasker MRCVS, from the University of Bristol, and Janet Patterson-Kane MRCVS, from the University of Glasgow each received Blue Sky Awards of £17,000. Severine will conduct research into constructing defined feline coronavirus strains for determination of the role of virus genetics in the development of feline infectious peritonitis. Janet Patterson-Kane's research will investigate whether a new therapy for treating wounds in humans can be translated for use in horses.
Janet said: "Limb wounds in horses are very common and are notorious for developing masses of exuberant scar tissue - proud flesh - and not healing properly. This can necessitate multiple operations. The findings of current research at University College London by our collaborator, Professor David Becker, suggest that in human patients a protein, connexin 43, is not downregulated at the edges of wounds that are difficult to heal. Use of therapy to reduce connexin 43 expression in human skin wounds in which healing has stalled has been remarkably successful in achieving wound closure. The aim of our research is to determine if connexin 43 plays a similar key role as a 'master switch' for wound healing in horses. I am extremely grateful to the RCVS Trust for their support."
Six veterinary undergraduates will also receive EMS vacation research scholarships of £700 each, which can be used to fund expenses relating to a research project undertaken in the UK or overseas as part of a UK veterinary school's extra-mural studies requirement.
Full details of the RCVS Trust grant awards may be found at www.rcvstrust.org.uk/awards
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Nottinghamshire veterinary surgeon, having found not proven the charge that he had caused, allowed or failed to prevent a potential breach of the Rules of Racing of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB).
During the re-scheduled, three-day hearing, the Committee heard that Dr Gary Samuel was on duty on 10 October 2009 as the GBGB licensed track veterinary surgeon at Nottingham Greyhound Stadium. When the trainer came to collect her dog for the race, she discovered a biscuit in his kennel in the paddock area, in potential contravention of the rules of the GBGB, which do not allow greyhounds access to any food, drink or other substance after weighing in, prior to a race. She reported this discovery to the paddock steward. The dog was withdrawn from the race, so there was no prospect of prize money. The trainer, despite her unblemished record, was put at risk of disciplinary action by the GBGB, which could have resulted in the loss of her training licence and livelihood. Following the events of 10 October, the GBGB held a disciplinary hearing, at which Dr Samuel was disqualified indefinitely from holding a GBGB licence and fined £2,500, and the matter was referred to the College.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee confirmed that it should not be bound by the GBGB decision, and that the charges laid against Dr Samuel must be resolved on the basis of the evidence before it. Both Counsel for Dr Samuel and the College urged the Committee to have close regard of CCTV footage from 10 October, which showed Kennel 21 where the dog had been placed and the biscuit found. From evidence given by the paddock steward and the trainer, the Committee accepted that the kennel was clean when the dog entered at 5.30pm, so the biscuit must have been introduced between 5.30pm and 9pm, when the trainer collected him for the race.
The footage available to the Committee from Nottingham Race Track was only four-and-a-half minutes long. The Committee was concerned that there were almost three-and-a-half hours of footage that it had not been shown and that, in addition, witnesses were not able to state that they had viewed the remainder of the footage. In those circumstances, the Committee considered that the footage available must be of the best quality to allow it to reach a sure conclusion as to what exactly Dr Samuel may have been doing in his position close to Kennel 21. From the quality of the footage available, the Committee was not able to be sure.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Vice-Chairman Professor Sheila Crispin said: "The fact remains that the Committee cannot be sure that the Respondent caused the biscuit to enter Kennel 21, [so] finds the charge against the Respondent not proved."
Dr Samuel therefore remains on the RCVS Register and is entitled to practise.
The aim of the survey is to provide a better understanding of the views, experiences and challenges faced by disabled and chronically ill people within the veterinary profession and provide an insight into how the profession and educational institutions can be more inclusive.
You do not have to be disabled or chronically ill to complete the survey, which will take you around 20 minutes to complete.
Claire Hodgson, director and co-founder of BVCIS, said: “Working in the veterinary professions with a chronic illness or disability can be hugely challenging, but there is currently a knowledge gap in terms of understanding exactly where the problems lie.
“A 2019 RCVS survey of the professions found that around 6.7% of vets and 7.4% of RVNs have a disability or medical condition that limits work that they can do, but the true figures are likely to be much higher.
"No reliable data for veterinary students currently exists.
“The purpose of this survey is to close that knowledge gap and help us understand how we can better support disabled and chronically ill people in the workplace and education to create a more inclusive working culture.\
“Those living with disability and chronic illness are often hugely resourceful and fantastic problem solvers because of the day-to-day challenges they have had to learn to overcome.
"They have a great deal to contribute to the sector, and it is important that they feel valued and respected and have access to the tools they need to thrive.
“Diversity makes the workforce stronger, so we are calling on as many different people as possible from across the veterinary community to complete our survey so that, together, we can help create a more inclusive workplace for all.”
The survey will be circulated by email to all RCVS registered veterinary surgeons in the near future.
Details will be circulated to students via their educational institutions.
The RCVS says all survey responses will be completely confidential, and results will only be analysed and reported at a level that does not allow identification of individuals in any way.
Completed surveys will not be seen by anyone at the RCVS or BVCIS – the IES will send through a report with key research findings to both the RCVS and BVCIS after the survey has closed.
Veterinary surgeon Andrew Reeder, Director of the Stonehenge Veterinary Hospital, in Durrington, near Salisbury, was the lucky winner of a Sony Pocket e-Reader in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' prize draw at the London Vet Show in November.
The competition was mounted to launch an online quiz to test members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. All those who completed the quiz on the RCVS stand at the event were entered into a prize draw: the RCVS would like to stress that it was a random draw, in spite of the serendipity of Andrew's surname!
"This is brilliant, I so rarely win anything!" said Andrew. "I'd recommend that all RCVS members should have a go at the quiz - it's quick, easy to complete and certainly makes you think."
Over 600 people have tackled the quiz so far. Those who fancy testing their knowledge of the Guide should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz. The quiz is anonymous, but the College will be collating data to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required. On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.
Fees will now be £340 for a UK-practising member, £170 for members practising outside the UK, £56 for non-practising vets under the age of 70, and free for non-practising vets over 70.
Restoration fees, charged in addition to retention fees, increase to £85 following voluntary removal, and £340 following removal for non-payment.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This year we asked Council to agree a fee increase to help us prepare for unknowns such as Brexit, as well as fortify our proactive work to help support the professions.
"Over the past few years we have put increased resources into projects such as: Mind Matters, our mental health initiative; Vet Futures, our joint project with the British Veterinary Association; Vivet, our innovation hub; and our recently launched Leadership Programme. Unfortunately there has also been a rise in Disciplinary Committee hearings and we are having to allocate further funds to making our building fit for purpose, and so a small increase has been necessary.
"This still places us at the lower end of fees for regulatory bodies while providing a secure financial foundation."
Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
On 9 April, the College published a flowchart to help veterinary professionals to decide whether or not to carry out a particular type of work, whilst ensuring the health of their teams and clients, and working to uphold animal health and welfare.
The flowchart has been updated as follows:
Firstly, the box that previously said:
‘Can you effectively support the case while maintaining social distancing for your team and the public?’
now says:
‘Can you effectively support the case while abiding by the appropriate social/physical distancing guidance for workplaces to protect your team and the public?’
The College says this new wording better reflects the different language and varying guidance in place across devolved nations. It also recognises that the new government guidance is not just about maintaining a 2m distance, for which ‘social distancing’ appears to become a shorthand, but accepts that other biosecurity measures might be appropriate if the 2m rule cannot be followed in the workplace.
Secondly, the box that previously said:
‘Could the planned intervention have animal health and welfare or public health implications if not carried out within two months?’
‘Could the planned intervention have animal health and welfare or public health implications if not carried out?’
This change recognises that this phase of lockdown-exit may carry on for longer than a two-month period; it therefore leaves it to the clinician’s professional judgement in terms of the implications versus the risk, rather than seeing it within a specific time-period.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: "I’m grateful to the members of our Covid-19 Taskforce for continuing to keep under review our key guidance to the profession during the ongoing pandemic. Whilst these latest changes do not represent any significant changes for vets and vet nurses as they continue to care for the nation’s animals, it is important that we continually keep our guidance in line with that of the UK’s governments."
The updated flowchart is available to view and download from www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected.
At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.
The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.
“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded
“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.
“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
NOAH's third Brexit Barometer found that where in the last report, 17% of its members reported feeling 'very' or 'somewhat pessimistic', that figure has now risen to 32%.
Meanwhile, the National Audit Office has revealed in its 'Progress in Implementing EU Exit' report that Defra has been prevented from consulting with the veterinary market by DExEU.
The report states that Defra is one of the government departments most affected by EU Exit and looks in detail at four of Defra’s main workstreams, including ‘import of animals and animal products’ and ‘exports of animals and animal products’.
In an accompanying press release, the National Audit Office notes that in a no-deal scenario there will be a significant increase in certificates needing to be processed by veterinary surgeons. It says: "Without enough vets, consignments of food could be delayed at the border or prevented from leaving the UK. Defra intended to start engaging with the veterinary industry in April 2018, but has not been permitted to do so and now plans to launch an emergency recruitment campaign in October to at least meet minimum levels of vets required. It plans to meet any remaining gaps through the use of non-veterinarians to check records and processes that do not require veterinary judgement."
The BVA says it has previously outlined concerns about the potential for diluting veterinary certification, and is calling on the Government to fully engage with the veterinary profession before making any changes that could impact the UK’s ability to trade animal products safely and in line with high animal welfare standards.
The RCVS has also weighed in. Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "We are glad to see the National Audit Office report recognises that a ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario would be likely to reduce the supply of EU veterinary surgeons to the UK and cause uncertainty regarding the status of those EU veterinary surgeons who are currently living and working in the UK and that this would have a particularly serious impact on necessary veterinary work in public health and certification.
"We continue to engage with Defra and, like the BVA, we want to emphasise the essential need for Government to consult with the profession to ensure their plans meet requirements, including maintenance of the high veterinary standards for which the UK is known. We also want to highlight the importance and value of the veterinary profession in other areas of society including caring for pets, horses and farm animals as well as research, education and industry, and emphasise the impact of workforce shortages on all sectors."
The RCVS has launched a new animated video to help promote Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) accredited practices to the public, and explain the benefits of the scheme.
Launched in 2005, almost 60% of practices are now part of the PSS, which requires them to submit to a rigorous inspection every four years and meet a stringent standards across a wide range of areas including cleanliness and hygiene, facilities and equipment, staff training and development and customer service. Practices may also be subject to spot-checks between inspections.
Jacqui Molyneux, who heads up the RCVS Practice Standards Group said: “Our new video is a light-hearted explanation of the Practice Standards Scheme, how it can help animal owners decide which practice to go to and reassure them about the standards they can expect to find at an RCVS-accredited practice.”
The College says a similar version of the video will soon be available for RCVS-accredited practices to show to their clients, either on their own websites and social media channels, or in the waiting room.
Jacqui said: “Not only do we want to spread the word about the benefits of the Practice Standards Scheme and suggest animal owners look for the RCVS-accredited practice logo, but we also want to give accredited practices an engaging way of telling their clients about their achievement.
“Gaining RCVS accreditation is not easy, so accredited practices deserve every opportunity to demonstrate to their clients their commitment to supporting high standards of veterinary care. This fun two-minute video should help them do just that.”
Animal owners can search for an RCVS-accredited practice in their area, or elsewhere in the UK, using Find A Vet – the College’s online search tool – at www.findavet.org.uk.
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.
The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.
The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.
In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.
Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.
In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."
In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both.
Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems.
In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.
Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The 2009 RCVS Continuing Professional Development Record Cards have been sent to all practising vets and Registered Veterinary Nurses.
Undertaking and recording Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is a mandatory professional requirement for these vets and RVNs. Vets must average at least 35 hours of CPD per year and RVNs 15 hours, although many will do far more.
The RCVS can ask to see CPD records - and they may be checked during practice inspections as part of the Practice Standards Scheme. For newly-qualified veterinary surgeons, completing the Professional Development Phase also fulfils the CPD requirements in their first year of practice.
Jill Nute, President of the RCVS, said: "CPD is about maintaining professional competence. Vets and RVNs are expected to make continuous improvements in their knowledge and skills, which will have benefits for their patients and clients, their own development and the profession at large. Undertaking CPD allows vets and RVNs to demonstrate their commitment to maintaining the highest professional standards."
As professionals, vets and RVNs are expected to evaluate what knowledge and skills they need to develop, and how they will do this. This may include activities such as going to particular case-conferences or asking for some in-house training. Getting together with other practices to organise training sessions or secondments or finding a mentor can also be useful.
Personal study - documented in a learning diary detailing the aims of the study, what was studied and the outcomes, for example, a change made to a practice protocol - can also be used. There is no limit on properly documented study, but vets cannot count more than 10 hours, and veterinary nurses five hours, each year of undocumented study.
All CPD activity should be systematically planned to meet identified professional needs, and clear records must be kept of what has been done.
Further information about CPD requirements for veterinary surgeons and Registered Veterinary Nurses can be found on the back of the CPD Record Card, and at RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk).
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for six months, having found that her falsification of clinical records amounted to serious professional misconduct.
At the two-day hearing, Dr Nicola Ersilova was charged with, and admitted to, three separate incidences of false and dishonest clinical record keeping following her treatment of a collapsed cat, whilst working at Vets Now in Thamesmead, London.
The Committee heard how Dr Ersilova had suspected that Lafite the cat, belonging to Mr Yingzhan Xiao, had been poisoned, so administered fluids and treated her with Lidocaine. A lay colleague, who was assisting with the treatment, subsequently observed Dr Ersilova standing staring at the cat, which had stopped breathing, then leaving the room to go and speak to Mr Xiao. The lay colleague's evidence confirmed to the Committee that Lafite's heart was still beating at this point, and that Dr Ersilova was then heard telling Mr Xiao that Lafite had died while being treated. The lay colleague later discovered that Dr Ersilova had listed calcium gluconate on Mr Xiao's bill and not Lidocaine and, when she questioned the entry, Dr Ersilova told her she was worried about getting into trouble if she had listed Lidocaine.
Whilst reporting these irregularities to the senior veterinary surgeon at Vets Now, the lay colleague noticed that Dr Ersilova had also written "CPR unsuccessful" in the notes, although she was certain CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) had not been attempted.
During a subsequent Vets Now investigation, Dr Ersilova admitted adding this false information concerning Lidocaine, calcium gluconate and CPR, saying during interview that she was aware it was serious professional misconduct and that she was prepared to take the consequences. Vets Now reported the matter to the RCVS.
The Committee considered that all evidence before it fully supported the charges against Dr Ersilova, that her conduct was clearly dishonest, and that her actions were inexcusable, especially for someone as experienced as she was. It stated that a veterinary surgeon's duty to make only truthful and accurate records was so manifest and well known to veterinary surgeons that there could be no real excuse to make such false, misleading and dishonest entries.
The Committee highlighted the comment by Dr Ersilova that she knew she had done something wrong but did not expect her colleague to report her, as providing no explanation, or excuse, for doing something which she knew to be wrong.
A number of submissions were made to the Committee in mitigation, including that Dr Ersilova had admitted her dishonesty to both her employers and the Committee; had an otherwise unblemished record over 22 years of practice; had received no immediate financial gain by her actions; and, did not cause any animal suffering.
Accepting these submissions, the Committee nevertheless felt it needed to balance them against other factors. Dr Ersilova's decision to falsify the records was premeditated and had not been taken without an opportunity for full reflection. There were numerous entries in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct that highlighted the importance of professional integrity and accuracy, and, given the importance which the Code attached to the duty of veterinary surgeons to be truthful and honest in all their dealings with their clients, the Committee found Dr Ersilova's conduct to be "most reprehensible".
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Professor Sheila Crispin, said: "It is of great importance that the public should be able to retain confidence in the honesty and integrity of members of the profession. Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated.
"It is [our] decision that the sanction of suspension adequately reflects the seriousness of the [Dr Ersilova's] conduct. The sanction imposed is ... the most appropriate to inform the profession how seriously such dishonest conduct will be taken, because such conduct clearly brings the profession into disrepute and ... cannot and will not be tolerated."
The Committee then concluded that the least period of suspension that could be justified was one of six months.
There will now be significant changes to the RCVS Council, as follows:
A gradual reduction in the number of elected members of RCVS Council from the current 24 to 13 by the year 2021.
A change of composition to include six lay members and two veterinary nurse members. Furthermore, the number of Council members appointed by each university whose veterinary degree is recognised by the RCVS will be reduced from two to one and Privy Council will no longer be required to appoint members. From 1 July 2020 university membership will undergo further changes as, from then on, veterinary schools will collectively appoint three members in total to serve on Council.
Members of Council will no longer be able to serve more than three consecutive four-year terms of office and, after serving three consecutive terms, they will not be eligible to re-stand as a candidate for two years.
Members of Council may be removed from office if they fail to satisfy any conditions about fitness to be a member, as determined by their peers on Council. If removed from office they will not be eligible to re-stand as a candidate for two years.
Introducing the LRO before the House of Lords last Tuesday, Lord Gardiner of Kimble said: "The proposed changes… reduce the size of Council and revise the balance of membership between vets and non-vets, including veterinary nurses and lay persons. They will bring the RCVS in-line with many other modern-day regulatory bodies and allow for greater efficiency, transparency and accountability to both members and the general public. For all the reasons I have outlined today, I commend the use of Legislative Reform Order to make changes that will benefit the veterinary profession."
The full text of the Legislative Reform Order can be found on www.legislation.gov.uk and the full transcript of the debate in the House of Lords can be found in Hansard Online (https://hansard.parliament.uk).
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "We have been looking at reform of Council as an issue of some urgency since 2013, in recognition of the fact that, with the formula-driven growth of Council, it was becoming unwieldy, which has an impact on the cost of each meeting and the frequency with which it could reasonably meet.
"This reform has been long in gestation and so we are glad that this has now been approved and that we can look forward to a more modern, agile and efficient governance structure, aimed as always at benefitting the professions, animal owners and animal health and welfare."
One immediate impact of the LRO relates to the results of this year’s RCVS Council election as the Ministerial sign-off now confirms that only the first three candidates (in order of number of votes) will take up their four-year terms at RCVS Day on Friday 13 July 2018. These are Susan Paterson, Mandisa Greene and Neil Smith, all of whom are current members who were re-elected.
The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council agreed reforms to its own governance last year, including shortening the term of office from four years to three years; introducing a consecutive three-term limit for elected members; and, reducing the size and changing the composition of VN Council to six elected veterinary nurses, two appointed veterinary nurse members, two appointed veterinary surgeon members from RCVS Council, and four appointed lay members.
Over 1,200 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, including around 800 UK-practising veterinary surgeons, have not yet paid their retention fees, and face being removed from the Register if they do not pay before 29 May 2010.
Veterinary surgeons must be registered with the College in order to practise legally in the UK. Retention fees are due by the end of March each year, and the College allows a further two-month period before removing veterinary surgeons from the Register, during which time reminders are issued.
There is still just time for payment to be made by credit card, bank transfer or cheque. Payments cannot be made over the telephone.
Those who have recently changed address, practice address or bank details are urged to check that payments have been properly processed. It is the responsibility of individual members to ensure payment has been made, even if an employer pays the fee. Those whose names are removed for non-payment after 29 May will no longer be able to practise legally in the UK, and would need to pay an additional fee if they wished to be restored to the Register.
Bill Mavir, VDS Chairman said: "Registration with the RCVS is a prerequisite for membership of the Veterinary Defence Society and the provision of professional indemnity insurance."
The RCVS played a proactive role in Mr Keniry’s arrest and trial after its Chief Investigator, Michael Hepper, was alerted to the fact that he was working at a veterinary practice in Taunton, Somerset.
Within 24 hours Mr Hepper reported this to Avon & Somerset Police and attended the practice with officers to assist in Mr Keniry’s identification and arrest. Mr Hepper continued to assist with police investigations and gave a witness statement.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are grateful to the veterinary professional who voiced her suspicions to us, to our Chief Investigator who reacted quickly to confirm his identity and report the matter to the police and to Avon & Somerset Police for taking matters forward so quickly.
"Mr Keniry was known to the RCVS as we have assisted in previous police investigations into him for similar offences. As with recent cases Mr Keniry impersonated a legitimate member of the veterinary profession using fraudulent documentation and this is why we have previously published photographs of him to raise awareness with veterinary practices and to try and stop him being employed in the future.
"We believe that Mr Keniry is a threat to animal health and welfare. He is a repeat offender and so we are glad that he has been handed a significant custodial sentence.
"While sophisticated and convincing fraudsters like Mr Keniry can be very difficult to prevent, we would urge veterinary practices to be vigilant. For example, we recommend that potential employers contact our Registration Department to make checks, always interview a potential employee face-to-face, ask to see supporting identity documents, prepare questions which confirm where and when they studied, obtain references and, if they are employed, mentor the new member of staff to oversee their performance.
"For members of the public we recommend that, if they have concerns about the legitimacy of their veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurses, they talk to someone else in the practice about their concerns or contact us so that we can make further enquiries. Members of the public can also check on the status of veterinary professionals using our Find a Vet search tool: www.findavet.org.uk.
"We would like to emphasise that cases such as that of Peter Keniry are, in our experience, extremely rare. There are around 23,000 veterinary surgeons registered to practise in the UK who are fully trained professionals dedicated to upholding and improving the health and welfare of animals under their care. We don’t believe that the unprecedented actions of this one fraudulent individual should in any way undermine the confidence and trust that animal owners place in their veterinary team."
Dr Briggs faced four charges and admitted to her conduct in the first three at the outset.
They related to three official Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) clinical investigation report forms she submitted following three official avian flu surveillance visits she'd undertaken as an Official Veterinarian (OV).
The three surveillance visits all took place during an outbreak of avian influenza in North Yorkshire and were on behalf of the APHA.
Dr Briggs admitted that she'd certified on each of the three forms that she had inspected specific poultry, that she had seen no clinical signs of avian influenza in the poultry and that in her opinion avian influenza did not exist and had not existed in the previous 56 days.
Dr Briggs also admitted that that she had subsequently submitted the three forms to the APHA.
The fourth charge alleged Dr Briggs conduct in certifying the three forms had been dishonest and that her actions risked undermining procedures, regulations and rules designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs denied that she had been dishonest in any of her actions but admitted that her conduct had risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs explained that in two cases she had relied on information given to her by the keepers of the poultry and in the remaining case it was possible that she had not visited the correct location of the poultry, had posted a letter through the wrong door and had then accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form to APHA.
Having heard evidence from the relevant poultry keepers, fellow Official Veterinarians, officials from the APHA and Dr Briggs herself, the Committee gave its determinations on dishonesty.
In relation to the first two charges, which concerned the visits that did take place, the Committee found Dr Briggs had been dishonest both in submitting the inspection forms to the APHA and also in certifying that she had seen no clinical signs or history of avian influenza in both cases.
The Committee concluded that an ordinary decent person would regard the submission of a signed form which contained false information as dishonest.
It also concluded that Dr Briggs had deliberately signed an official form which contained information which she knew to be untrue.
However, the Committee found that Dr Briggs was not dishonest in asserting on these forms that she was of the opinion that disease did not exist based upon the information provided to her by the poultry keepers.
In relation to the third charge, where Dr Briggs did not visit the property concerned, the Committee did not find it proven that she had been dishonest, having heard her evidence that, in this case, she had accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form.
The Committee next considered whether the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “In considering the seriousness of the misconduct, the Committee took into account the fact that the misconduct had involved dishonesty, that there had been a risk of injury to animals and humans (though this risk had not materialised), and that the misconduct had occurred when the respondent, as an Official Veterinarian, occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility.”
He added: “The Committee considered that honest, accurate and careful veterinary certification was a fundamental component of the responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon.
"The matters which the Committee had found to be proved fell far short of the standards expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and amounted, in the Committee’s judgment, to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Briggs the Committee heard positive character testimonials from former employers and clients, as well as a representative from the APHA who said that Dr Briggs had shown contrition for the breaches while recognising that there was unlikely to be a repetition of the conduct and that Dr Briggs was a relatively new and inexperienced vet at the time of her actions.
Mr Morris said: “In the Committee’s judgement the circumstances of the incident were a mitigating factor in the sense that the respondent was working in a pressurised environment, and in a field of practice which was unfamiliar to her.
"The Committee had heard a considerable amount of evidence from various witnesses that the surveillance system created, to monitor the prevalence of avian influenza was one which placed considerable pressure on OVs and, perhaps inevitably, had some shortcomings.
"The respondent had not worked with poultry before so her inexperience in this area fed into this situation.
“The Committee took into account the fact that no actual harm had occurred and there was no financial gain to the respondent.
"The matters with which the Committee was concerned formed a highly unusual, and short-lived, episode in the respondent’s career.”
The Committee also considered that Dr Briggs had made open and frank admissions regarding most of the charges against her and had also shown genuine contrition over her failings.
In light of this, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction.
Mr Morris added: “False certification can never be acceptable.
"Veterinary surgeons should never certify any matter which they know, or ought to know, not to be true.
"However, the Committee considered that this case was at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity of false certification cases, that there is no future risk to animals and that the respondent has demonstrated insight.
"In relation to the public interest, the Committee considered that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would recognise that, in all the circumstances of this particular case, a reprimand and warning as to future conduct would be sufficient to satisfy the public interest.”
The Clinical Supervisor course is designed to help veterinary surgeons to guide their students in developing the professional behaviours and Day One Skills they need to join the Register.
The course is also designed to complement any existing training that a vet who is a Clinical Supervisor has received from the college or university for which they are supervising the SVN.
RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing Julie Dugmore said: “This course will help you undertake your role as a coach and assessor, ensuring your student has achieved the RCVS requirements by the time they have completed the practical elements of their training.
“It comprises modules that include the role and functions of a Clinical Supervisor, the types of professional behaviours SVNs need to develop and understanding of the Day One Skills in which they need to become competent.
"In addition, it will enhance the training Clinical Supervisors will receive from the relevant educational institution by promoting understanding of the RCVS requirements.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/vndayonecompetences
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “It’s clear that there are a number of workforce issues affecting the professions, such as high vacancy rates that employers are struggling to fill and a resultant increase in pressure on the professions in terms of caseload and hours worked, together with an increase in the number of people choosing to leave the professions.
“While many of these issues are long-standing, and due to complex and multifactorial reasons, the scale of the problem has been exacerbated by three things: the UK’s exit from the EU and the impact this has had on overseas registrants; the ongoing impact of the pandemic in areas such as staff absence and burnout; and an increase in demand for veterinary services.
The reports were published in advance of the College's Workforce Summit, held at the end of November to discuss potential solutions to the problems.
They can be downloaded here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/workforce-summit-2021/
A further report of the Workforce Summit is expected in due course, which the College says will include an action plan with commitments from a range of stakeholders.
The RCVS has launched a mobile version of the Code of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses: an app for Android devices and a web app for Apple users.
Once installed, the app provides smartphone and tablet users with a mobile-friendly version of the Code and all 27 chapters of supporting guidance in their pockets, even when there is no network connection. Whenever the Code is updated, the latest version will be available to download the next time the device is online.
Head of Communications, Lizzie Lockett, said: "Our new app provides easy access to the Code, so busy veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can now keep our guidance to hand, even when out and about. It's never been easier to ensure that you're always working to the Code's principles of veterinary practice and professional responsibilities."
The app also offers a keyword search of the whole Code and supporting guidance, links to other sources of information and contact details for further advice over the phone or email.
To install the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct app on your android device, visit Google Play and search for 'RCVS code'. To install it on an Apple device, visit the RCVS Code web pages in the device's internet browser, click on the app link in the Code tool box on the right hand side, and follow the instructions.
Alternatively, a copy of the full Code and all supporting guidance can now be downloaded in PDF format from the RCVS website, date-stamped so that you know when it was last amended.
Visit www.rcvs.org.uk/code or www.rcvs.org.uk/vncode and see the 'Code tools' box for both the PDF and the web app.
The College says it would very much like feedback about the app, or suggestions for future apps - email Christine James in the Communications Department, on christinej@rcvs.org.uk.
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s elections, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
Mr John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
Ballot papers and candidates' details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a link to a secure voting site unique to each member of the electorate has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
This year the College invited all election candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. All videos have been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18) and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
Key question themes this year included recruitment and retention, the College’s concerns investigation process and veterinary education. The list of accepted questions has also been published on the RCVS website.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we had a record number and proportion of the electorate vote in an RCVS Council election and we would once again stress the importance of voting to ensure that you have a say in the future direction of travel for the College and its policies."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.