View all veterinary jobs
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order and for a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on 20th May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s seventh application for restoration. Previous applications had been heard but refused in July 1995, June 2010, February 2015, March 2016, May 2017 and April 2018. However, as the Committee makes its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its current decision.
The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr Seymour-Hamilton and were shown clear bottles with liquid, a container with tablets and petri dishes with grown cultures as detailed documentary evidence. In respect of any concerns regarding keeping his veterinary practice up-to-date, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that “you never lose that skill” and explained that he kept up-to-date through extensive reading and conversations with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
However, the Committee had significant concerns as to his fitness to practise safely as a veterinary surgeon for a number of reasons, including that nearly 25 years had passed since he was last in practice and that there was little, if any, evidence of him keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills required to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The applicant worryingly did not accept that he was in any way deskilled by the passage of time. The evidence that the applicant has provided showed limited interaction with other veterinary surgeons and there is no documented evidence of the discussions or structure of the meetings he had with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
"There is no evidence of a prolonged and intense period of re-training by way of relevant study to demonstrate that a sufficient level of competence to return to practise has been achieved. In the absence of such evidence the Committee was of the view that there would be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if the applicant was restored to the Register.
"Further, it was a grave concern to this Committee that the applicant demonstrated worrying attitudinal issues towards individuals of a different religion and his attitude to employing a minor when he knew it to be against the law. Such attitudes are incompatible with professional standards the public would expect of a veterinary surgeon."
Finally, with no evidence of public support for the applicant, the Committee concluded that the application for restoration should be refused.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Co. Tyrone veterinary surgeon from the Register for ten months, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct relating to three convictions for contravening animal export regulations.
Whilst working as an Authorised Veterinary Inspector in Castlederg for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), William Manson had falsely certified that he had inspected three consignments of sheep presented for assembly at Plumbridge Export Assembly Centre on 16 and 23 August 2009. At this week's two-day hearing, Mr Manson admitted that the convictions he had received at the Strabane Magistrates Court on 26 November 2010 made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery, but said in mitigation that he had examined the sheep nearby at Landahussy, a site he considered more suitable for a large number of animals.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Manson believed the Landahussy site to be more suitable for large deliveries; the Committee also was satisfied that he did carry out a visual inspection of the sheep at the Landahussy site on 16 and 23 August 2009. However, the information Mr Manson provided on the three certificates was false and misleading. Mr Manson had also been reminded of the importance of complying with government regulations in a disciplinary case in 2004, following convictions for failing to notify DARD about changes in the number of sheep for which he was claiming a premium. The then Committee dismissed the case, deeming the convictions a result of his "genuine but regrettable oversight".
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman, Prof Peter Lees said: "Mr Manson's actions in certifying that he had examined the sheep at an approved assembly centre when he had not done so amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. If there had been a disease outbreak on either the Plumbridge or Landahussy site, such actions would have rendered contact tracings unreliable and inaccurate."
In mitigation, the Committee accepted medical evidence and Mr Manson's testimony that he was at that time under exceptional stress. He was working long hours in difficult circumstances without an assistant, and was under considerable personal pressure as a result of his wife's serious illness. It also took into account his age (66), exceptional testimonials produced on his behalf, and the impact on the community he served.
Prof Lees said: "The Committee has concluded that the removal of Mr Manson's name from the Register is neither proportionate nor necessary in the public interest nor to protect the welfare of animals. A proportionate sanction in this case is to suspend Mr Manson's name from the Register for a period of ten months."
The Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has approved an application for restoration to the Register from an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been struck off for false certification.
In November 2007, the Committee decided that Mr John Williams, of the Avonvale Veterinary Practice in Ratley, near Banbury, should have his name removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. Mr Williams had admitted signing export health certificates for three horses in October 2006 to state that they had received negative test results for the contagious equine metritis organism, before these results were actually available.
At the time, Mr Williams was working in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for DEFRA and he had previously been suspended from his official duties on three separate occasions, on the basis of export certification irregularities. It was accepted that Mr Williams had not been dishonest, but his approach to certification was described by the Disciplinary Committee as "either irresponsible or cavalier or both".
In December 2007, Mr Williams appealed against this decision to the Privy Council but this was dismissed at a Hearing the following June. He was then removed from the Register in July 2008.
When the Committee met on Monday to consider Mr Williams' application, they heard oral and written supporting evidence from veterinary surgeons and equine clients, and oral evidence from Mr Williams himself. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams accepted its previous findings and fully understood their seriousness. He described his removal from the Register as a "salutary experience" which had been highly significant for him and his family, both financially and emotionally.
The Committee stated: "Although the decision of the Committee to remove [Mr Williams] from the Register sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of certification, it should be emphasised that his removal was the consequence of his actions in signing certificates which he could not verify. This followed three previous occasions on which he had similarly signed certificates when he should not have done so."
However, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams would not in future sign certificates when he should not do so, even under severe client pressure. It was impressed with the continuing professional development he had undertaken whilst off the Register and noted that no questions had been raised over his conduct during this time.
It concluded that Mr Williams fully understood the importance of accurate certification and that restoring his name to the Register therefore posed no risk to animal welfare. Neither the public nor the profession would benefit from Mr Williams staying off the Register for a further period.
Alison Bruce, Disciplinary Committee Chairman, said: "We would like to make it clear that we always find it distressing to remove clinically competent veterinary surgeons from the Register because of an irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards certification. This would not be necessary if veterinary surgeons were to follow the Twelve Principles of Certification annexed to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct."
The Committee then approved Mr Williams' application and directed that his name should be restored to the Register.
The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who is acting as witness.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.
“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.
“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.
“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”
David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.
“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.
“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."
This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:
RCVS Council
VN Council
*denotes existing Council member
For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.
Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).
To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.
There are 13 candidates standing in this year’s election for RCVS Council, the voting period for which will open on the week commencing Monday 14 March and close at 5pm on Friday 22 April 2022.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and manifesto statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote22.
To submit a question to the candidates, email: vetvote22@rcvs.org.uk or post it on the RCVS Twitter account (@theRCVS) using the hashtag #vetvote22.
Candidates will then be asked to record a short video of themselves answering two questions of their choice which will be published when the election starts.
You have until Monday 21 February 2022 to submit your question.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
Three members (one vet, one new grad and one nurse) are being sought to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for veterinary surgeons and nurses, supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.
The group will also oversee and update CPD and VetGDP guidance documents, as well as overseeing updates to the VetGDP Adviser and VetGDP Peer Reviewer training and guidance.
RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.
She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.
“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.
“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”
Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.
The RCVS is looking for two Advanced Practitioners working in practice who have completed a designated CertAVP qualification to join the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) Subcommittee to help actively advance the standards and policies of the RCVS CertAVP.
Applicants who are interested also have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members.
Applicants are invited to send an email to certavp@rcvs.org.uk with a summary of their experience and what skills and knowledge you feel that you can bring to this committee.
Finally, the College is also looking to recruit examiners for the Statutory Membership Examination, from 2025 onwards.
Examiners need to have been Members of the RCVS for a minimum of three years and be familiar with the day one competences for new registrants and the standards expected of final year students and new graduates. Experience as an assessor or examiner is preferred, although not essential as training will be provided. The College is looking for examiners with knowledge across a range of species domains including equine, veterinary public health, farm and small animal.
Contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Postgraduate Lead, on j.soreskog-turp@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon, having found him not guilty of charges relating to the measurement of horses and ponies.
At the ten-day hearing, Marc Auerbach of Oak Equine Veterinary Surgery, Ongar, answered charges relating to measuring the height of 29 horses/ponies presented for measurement by two agents in early 2009. Dr Auerbach had undertaken these measurements as an Official Measurer (OM) for the Joint Measuring Board (JMB), which provides a system for independently measuring and certifying the size of competition horses/ponies. An animal's financial value relates to its size, with larger animals being more likely to win in their competitive class.
The case centred on the expected accuracy of such measurements, whether Dr Auerbach was dishonest in colluding with the agents, or whether there had been signs of malpractice which a reasonably competent vet acting as an OM ought to detect.
From evidence submitted, the Committee determined a margin for measurement accuracy, and consequently dismissed from its consideration ten animals where the difference between the initial measurement and the re-measurement was 3 cm or less. However, the College submitted that the average difference was so great that, either, Dr Auerbach had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the correct measurements were recorded, or else he had been dishonest. Dr Auerbach's Counsel accepted the inference that presenting agents were dishonest, but denied that Dr Auerbach was dishonest or had failed to pick up signs of malpractice on the part of the agents.
The Committee was of the view that there may be unscrupulous presenters capable of materially interfering with the height of horses. While it was unable to determine with certainty the extent to which it could be done, the Committee formed the view that unscrupulous interference (together with intrinsic variables) could have caused the differences between measurement and re-measurement in the 19 horses.
The Committee noted there was no evidence of improper payments being received by anyone. It also accepted evidence that Dr Auerbach was not a dishonest man, taking into account his record of 23 years of honesty and excellence in the profession, unchallenged character references and the lack of any credible motive for him to act dishonestly.
Next, the Committee considered whether there had been signs of preparation malpractice which ought to have been picked up by any reasonably competent veterinary surgeon acting as an OM. The College submitted that Dr Auerbach had failed to take several steps including the amount of time and attention given to the animals he measured, and whether they might be drugged or sedated.
The Committee concluded from the evidence, including scientific papers, that mildly sedated animals may not be distinguishable from properly prepared animals; well-behaved horses were not an indication that something was amiss. The Committee accepted that Dr Auerbach took around 15-20 minutes to measure each of the horses presented on 9 January; and, in the absence of guidance from the JMB, it could not conclude this was rushed or unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee was unable to be satisfied, so that it was sure, that the allegation of failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the recording of correct measurements was proved.
"Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is that the facts set out in the Charge in relation to all the horses and ponies listed have not been proved to the necessary standard of proof," said Prof Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee as he directed the charges be dismissed.
Culture Change In Healthcare is presented by Simon Fleming, a trauma and orthopaedic registrar who has a special interest in combating bullying, undermining and harassment in human healthcare, and Sally Everitt MRCVS, the ex Head of Scientific Policy at BSAVA.
Simon will discuss the problem of bullying, the fallout from serious cases, and how you can work to eliminate bullying in your practice.
Sally will present the results of a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk in 2017, to investigate the incidence and impact of unpleasant behaviour in veterinary practice.
The webinar is hosted by The Webinar Vet and sponsored by RCVS Mind Matters. It counts as 1hr towards your annual CPD requirement.
Whether or not you think there is any bullying going on at your practice, I strongly urge you to watch this webinar. There can be few things as harmful to an effective practice team as bullying. Everyone needs to be able to spot it and stamp on it quickly.
Register for the webinar here: https://www.thewebinarvet.com/pages/culture-change-healthcare-2/
Mr Wood faced three charges, all relating to allegations of misconduct over a laboratory test for an alpaca while he was working at a practice in South Oxfordshire.
The charges alleged that in September 2023, Mr Wood told the alpaca’s owner that it had tested positive for Johne’s disease when in fact, the animal had not been tested.
He then allegedly sent a letter confirming a positive test result for the test that had not taken place, and then created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent it to another colleague by email.
He later told the alpaca's owner that he had given her the wrong result by mistake and that the test result was actually negative.
Then in October 2023, he emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report.
In November he told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it.
Finally, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.
Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors in Mr Woods' conduct, including his lack of honesty, probity and integrity, the fact the conduct was premeditated, that it involved a breach of the client’s trust, the abuse of his professional position, the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.
The mitigating factors included positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers, the fact that he had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and that he showed significant insight into his misconduct.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.
“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”
He added: “The Committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
"The Committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent.
"In determining this length, the Committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”
At the hearing, Dr Crawford made no admissions to the charges against him which involved allegations of: failing to provide adequate and appropriate care; failing to provide adequate clinical histories to another practice in respect of several animals; failing to treat fellow veterinary professionals and other members of staff from another practice with courtesy and respect; failing to maintain adequate clinical records; failing to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance or equivalent arrangements; and, failing to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS.
Dr Crawford’s representative drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Crawford was 71 years old, had no previous disciplinary findings against him and had now ceased practising, including closing his practice premises and notifying his previous clients of the closure.
His representative confirmed that Mr Crawford was fully aware that if his application was accepted, he would no longer be able to practise as a veterinary surgeon or identify as a veterinary surgeon. The Committee also noted that the RCVS had consulted with the complainants who were satisfied with the case being disposed of in this way.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having weighed the public interest in a hearing with the registrant’s interests, the Committee determined that this is not a case in which the public interest required there to be a full hearing. Protection of the welfare of animals would also not be further served by a full hearing. The Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.
"The Committee considered that the adjournment on undertakings served to protect the public interest, confidence in the profession and the welfare of animals.
"The Committee carefully considered the detail of the undertakings. It decided, after due consideration that it would accept the respondent’s undertakings in the terms offered and signed."
The Committee also heard that if Dr Crawford were to apply to re-join the Register at a future point, then the adjourned case would be re-opened and a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing would be held.
The full documentation for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
There are 14 candidates standing in this year’s election, including one current RCVS Council member eligible for re-election and 13 candidates not currently on Council. They are:
In 2018 changes were made to the governance arrangements of the RCVS after a Legislative Reform Order changing the size and composition of Council was passed by Parliament. The changes mean that, in most years, there will be three elected places available for the candidates. However, this year the four candidates with the most votes will be starting their four-year terms on Council. This is to ensure that elected RCVS Council members remain in the majority.
Emails containing links to the secure election voting websites which are unique to each member of the electorate, were sent on 17 March 2021 by Civica Election Services (CES) (formerly Electoral Reform Services) which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast online by 5pm on Friday 23 April 2021. The small numbers of veterinary surgeons for whom the RCVS does not hold email addresses have been sent letters in the post containing instructions on how they can vote online, including contact details for CES to provide further advice.
The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote21.
This year the College invited RCVS Council candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. The videos have been published on the RCVS website as well as on the RCVS YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
The Queen's Medal is the highest honour the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon.
Dr Johnson is the Chairman of World Horse Welfare, travelling internationally and lecturing on behalf of the charity with a particular involvement in fundraising, profile-enhancing and education. He is also the Chairman of the World Horse Welfare International Committee, and a regional representative for the Veterinary Benevolent Fund as well as being Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Lancashire.
After graduating from the University of Liverpool in 1969 he established an equine and farm animal practice in 1974 on the Fylde Coast. He then quickly became involved in many other lines of work, lecturing at the Myerscough College for thirty years, acting on the Agricultural Training Board, and serving as RCVS President from 1993-1994. He was also an RCVS Council Member for 28 years (1986-1998; 2000-2016) and served on many RCVS Committees.
Barry said: "This is an enormous honour for a practitioner from Lancashire. I have always enjoyed being a veterinary surgeon and am grateful to my colleagues and clients for making my career so fulfilling rewarding and fun."
He was nominated by fellow veterinary surgeon, Dr Peter Jinman, a current member of RCVS Council. In his nomination Dr Jinman said: "There are few members who have contributed so much of their personal time for the benefit of the veterinary profession both locally and nationally… That this has been done often without the knowledge of the public or the rest of the profession and at no little personal expense, demands recognition… Barry represents the very best of what a veterinary practitioner can achieve both in terms of his profession and in wider society."
The College has also announced that Kathy Kissick has won this year's Golden Jubilee Award, the highest honour that can be bestowed on a veterinary nurse.
Kathy is a trustee of the Alderney Animal Welfare Society and has previously acted as the Head of School for Veterinary Nursing and Farriery Science at Mysercough College in Lancashire. She qualified as a veterinary nurse in 1983 and, since then, has acted as an external examiner and adviser for a number of veterinary nursing course providers over the years and is currently on the editorial board for The Veterinary Nurse.
She has also been very active within the RCVS, initially as a nursing examiner and then as both a Member and then Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
Kathy said: "I am delighted, honoured and humbled to accept the Golden Jubilee award and hope that I can continue to inspire veterinary nurses, throughout their careers, to always do the very best for their patients, clients and colleagues but not to forget to follow their dreams."
The winners will receive their accolade at this year’s RCVS Day, which takes place on Friday 7 July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.
At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.
The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.
"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."
The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.
In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."
Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."
Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.
The RCVS has published a list of 369 veterinary surgeons who missed the 31st May deadline for retention fee payments, were removed from the Register and not restored by 24 June, on its website.
The College says it publishes the list to alert those vets who have not replied to its communications to check their Register status, and to remind veterinary employers to check the registration status of their employees. The registration status of any vet or VN can be checked online at www.rcvs.org.uk/check-the-register.
Information about restoration, and an application form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration, or by contacting the RCVS Registration Department: membership@rcvs.org.uk.
For a veterinary surgeon to be restored, a restoration fee needs to be paid, as well as the annual retention fee. The restoration fee is at least £299, and multiplies each successive year a removed member remains off the Register.
A veterinary surgeon's registration acts as a licence to practise and those removed from the Register may not practise unless and until they have been restored.
The article, which is available open-access, comprises a literature search of both medical and veterinary medical journals for evidence of the effectiveness of input-based and outcomes-based CPD.
Its conclusion is that outcomes-based CPD, which concentrates less on hours logged and more on interactive and reflective learning, is the most effective at improving practice and patient health outcomes.
The paper was originally presented to the RCVS CPD Policy Working Group on 4 December 2015 to inform its discussions. A six-week consultation with the profession was held over the summer asking for their views on the resulting proposals for an outcomes-based approach to CPD.
The proposed model for CPD has 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, 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.
With this in mind the RCVS Education Committee and VN Council decided that a pilot of a new outcomes-based approach should be held during 2017 with a group of volunteers, and made this recommendation to RCVS Council. RCVS Council approved this pilot at its meeting on 10 November.
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 those who 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 College’s offices on 28 February.
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk.
To access the article for free, visit the Veterinary Record: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/179/20/515.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=bwDIVYMY8Vwd0su.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/CPDpilot.
The nomination period runs until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2018. In order to stand, candidates will need to submit a nomination form along with contact details, a short biography and a statement, and supply a high-resolution digital photograph.
Each candidate also needs two nominators, who should be veterinary surgeons who are on the College’s Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "I myself have been an elected Council member since 2012, and it has given me tremendous opportunity to get involved with a whole range of subjects, including my particular interests, undergraduate education and lifelong learning. It’s incredibly rewarding to see how the decisions you make during your time on Council can really benefit the profession, and I would encourage anyone who shares an interest in the future of our profession, whether that be about graduate outcomes, practice standards, the wider veterinary team or the effects of Brexit, for example, to stand for election."
Although the RCVS is planning the elections as usual, it is concurrently preparing for a change to its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of the Council, as agreed in March 2016.
Commenting on the Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that will be required to amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: "This is a complex matter and, unfortunately, due to unavoidable delays associated with the 2017 General Election and the impact of preparing for the UK’s departure from the European Union, the LRO has not yet completed the legislative process.
"This means that whilst we will be running the elections on the basis that there will be six elected places available, as per the old size and structure, it should be expected that under the new size and structure, only three places will ultimately be available."
Meanwhile, due to comparable changes to the governance of the Veterinary Nurses Council, including a reduction in its number, there will be no 2018 VN Council elections as the outgoing members will not need to be replaced.
The RCVS Council election period will start around mid-March and voting will close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions are available for prospective RCVS Council candidates at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is warning practices and would be veterinary nurse students to check that VN training courses are approved by the College, or they will not lead to qualification as a veterinary nurse.
The RCVS has reported one such course, run by Direct Veterinary Services of Oxford (http://www.direct-vets.com/), to Trading Standards: it advertises 'accredited training for veterinary nurses' leading to 'an honours degree in veterinary nursing' without being an RCVS-approved training provider or awarding organisation.
RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing, Libby Earle said: "Would-be veterinary nurse students should always check that the course they are embarking upon will lead to a qualification that is recognised by the RCVS for the purposes of registration, or they may be in for a disappointment.
"Only those courses approved by the RCVS will lead to registration, and without registration (or listing), individuals should not call themselves veterinary nurses and cannot legally carry out medical procedures and minor surgery under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act."
The College says candidates should also be wary of training providers who demand money upfront online.
All new veterinary nursing courses and qualifications must be approved by the RCVS and this process can take some time. The list of approved centres providing VN training courses, together with details of approved qualifications, are available at: http://awardingbody.rcvs.org.uk/,
Tim, who is Managing Partner of Larkmead Vets and also a Director at the independent veterinary community XLVets, graduated from Liverpool Vet School in 1994 and joined Larkmead Vets in 1998.
He said: “I grew up in the South Yorkshire coalfields and worked in a city centre small animal practice in Wakefield before relocating to Oxfordshire to develop the small animal department of a mixed practice.
"First-opinion veterinary practice has been my life since starting cleaning kennels aged 12.
“I am passionate that whilst what we do is work with animals, how we do it is by working with people: our colleagues and the owners who entrust their animals to our care.
"As a first-opinion vet and practice owner I have had the privilege of growing and developing my practice (team and facilities) to meet the changing needs of our local community.
“At a time of great change for the veterinary profession, with the tantalising hope for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act set against the backdrop of the Competition and Markets Authority’s market investigation of the veterinary sector, it is an opportunity to bring this experience to the heart of our College.
“It was an unexpected honour to be elected to the position of JVP and I thank my colleagues on Council for entrusting the role to me.
"I also reflect on my initial university application which saw a clean sweep of rejections and hope that this can inspire others from the grass roots of our profession to get involved in shaping the future.”
Council also voted to confirm Professor Tim Parkin as RCVS President, Linda Belton as Senior Vice-President and reconfirmed Tshidi Gardiner as Treasurer (subject to her re-election), all effective from July.
Tim will take up his post at the College's AGM in July.
RCVS Day - the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Annual General Meeting and Presentation of Awards - will be held on Friday 1 July 2011 at One Great George Street, London.
All members and listed/registered veterinary nurses are invited to attend the day, which will start at 10am with AGM business, followed by the celebration of veterinary and veterinary nursing achievements. Professor Soraya Shirazi-Beechey will be receiving her Honorary Associateship and Dr James Kirkwood and Des Thompson will be accepting their Honorary Fellowships.
A new award to mark the 50th anniversary of veterinary nursing will also be presented, as well as a Lifetime Contribution Award from the RCVS Charitable Trust.
In his last official engagement as President, Peter Jinman will give a review of his year before formally welcoming new Council and VN Council Members, and Dr Jerry Davies to the role of President for 2011-2012.
To celebrate Vet2011, the RCVS is honoured to announce that there will be two guest speakers this year - Dr Christophe Buhot DVM and Professor Gary England FRCVS, who will deliver a talk about the history and future direction of veterinary education.
For tickets, which are free and allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, please contact Fiona Harcourt at the RCVS on f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.
At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.
He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.
Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.
The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.
The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.
However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.
Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.
This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed.
The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".
The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.
In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.
It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.
In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking. In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.
It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act.
"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.
It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short."
After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the Register for nine months for convictions regarding docking puppies' tails and driving offences, and for failing to obtain a client's consent to treatment or explore other treatment options.
At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Leicester, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute.
They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained. Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent. Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008.
Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery. It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass."
On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over £3,000. During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children. He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues. He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008. He also drew to the Committee's attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.
The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife's death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.
It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog's tails unless for "truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons." In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.
Mrs Freedman said: "The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
She added: "Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension. However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College's Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register."