The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by James Main, who was struck off in 2011, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a Disciplinary Committee hearing held on 22 February 2011, Mr Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and his name was removed from the Register. The then-Committee established that, contrary to the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) rules of racing, Mr Main had injected tranexamic acid into the racehorse 'Moonlit Path' on 19 February 2009, knowing that the horse was to race later that day. He was also found guilty of dishonestly concealing this injection in his practice records as a "pre-race check".
At yesterday's hearing, the Committee noted that the decision to remove Mr Main from the Register had sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of strict compliance with the BHA's Rules of Racing; it was the inevitable consequence of his breaches of those rules and his dishonesty in concealing the administration of the injection. In oral evidence, Mr Main said he accepted the findings and decision of the previous Committee, and he apologised.
The Committee also noted a number of changes since implemented at Mr Main's practice, including a pharmacy review to improve traceability of drugs; withdrawal of the use of tranexamic acid in the management of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage; and a cautious approach to drug withdrawal times. Mr Main's practice had also reviewed its processes to ensure its veterinary surgeons complied with all relevant rules, regulations and guidance, and that any requests by clients to breach these rules would be refused.
The Committee accepted evidence that Mr Main had worked in a management capacity in his practice since 26 March 2011, performing no clinical role, and had undertaken appropriate continuing professional development since being removed from the Register. It also noted the large volume of testimonials and public support presented at the hearing from both veterinary surgeons and clients in the horse world.
Furthermore, it noted that removal had been financially and emotionally detrimental to Mr Main, his family and practice and, if his name were not restored to the Register, there would be a continuing detrimental effect on his family finances and the practice.
Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee accepts that Mr Main has found the removal of his name from the Register a humbling and salutary experience and accepts his apologies. It is satisfied that he is very unlikely to breach the rules of racing in the future and does not consider that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals by restoring his name to the Register.
"The Committee does not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession."
The Committee directed that Mr Main's name be restored to the Register.
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
Every year, the RCVS invites members of the veterinary profession to apply to join the RCVS Fellowship.
Becoming a member of the Fellowship is a recognition of an individual’s contribution to the professions and their commitment to advancing the scientific achievements of the veterinary sector.
Everyone that applies to join the Fellowship needs to demonstrate the impact they have had throughout their career on the veterinary professions.
The Fellowship Credentials Panel is responsible for reviewing and scoring Fellowship applications and making recommendations for who should be approved.
Angharad Belcher, Director for Advancement of the Professions, said: “Being part of our Fellowship Credentials Panel is a great opportunity to see the huge amount of dedication to the profession that prospective Fellows have shown throughout their careers, and to then celebrate their achievements when they are successfully welcomed to the Fellowship later in the year”.
To apply to join the Fellowship Credentials Panel, download and complete the application form (https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/credentials-panel-recruitment-2022/), then email it to Ceri Chick, Senior Leadership Officer at c.chick@rcvs.org.uk with a CV by 5pm on 28 February 2022.
Following a five-year review of the Practice Standards Scheme, new standards will take effect from 1 April 2010, and be formally launched at the British Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress in Birmingham (8-11 April).
The Scheme, to which around 50% of practice premises are now signed up, exists to raise standards for the benefit of the public, as well as employees. The review was undertaken by the Practice Standards Group, which includes representatives from all of the key veterinary and veterinary nursing organisations. Its objective was to ensure that standards remain relevant and achievable, while representing better practice. The Group took on board improvements in practice over the last five years, and feedback from inspectors and practices.
Practice Standards Group Chairman, Jill Nute said: "It was important that the Group took account of what the public might reasonably expect of a well-equipped, professional practice. We have made some adjustments to the original standards, placing greater emphasis on clinical outcomes and training."
She added: "To ensure the Scheme goes beyond a 'box-ticking exercise', the emphasis for inspectors has moved towards assessing how standards are applied. For example, not just noting whether a protocol exists for the servicing of anaesthetic equipment, but asking staff involved how this is carried out and what checks are made on a daily basis to ensure the equipment is satisfactory."
The numbered 'tiers' have gone, as these were shown to be confusing. The descriptive categories (Core, GP, Hospital), together with differentiations (equine, small animal, farm animal, emergency services clinic), remain. In addition, to encourage more farm animal practices into the Scheme at GP level, 'where applicable' has been added to certain GP standards, so that those without small animal or equine facilities can comply.
There are some new standards - such as the requirement for annual appraisal systems for all clinical staff. In other cases, as expectations of better practice increase, standards that were previously for Hospitals must now be met by General Practices, and some of those for GPs now apply across the board.
Another change has been in the Manual (see www.rcvs.org.uk/newPSSmanual), which now incorporates guidance alongside the standards rather than in a separate document. The new format clarifies the derivation of each standard, so that legislative requirements are distinguished from those required under the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and those indicated by better practice.
Practices already on the Scheme will be given plenty of time to comply.
Visit stand 911 at BSAVA Congress for more information, or attend Hall 6 at 3.30pm on Saturday 10 April for a presentation on the changes.
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS has announced that its former President, Professor Sandy Trees, will be appointed to the House of Lords as a non-party-political (cross-bench) peer, following recommendation by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Professor Trees, who was President of the RCVS in 2009-2010, has served on the College Council for 12 years. He becomes only the second veterinary surgeon to take a seat in the House of Lords, joining Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.
Professor Trees said: "This is a great honour, and a wonderful opportunity. I look forward to the prospect of ensuring that legislation relating to animal health and welfare is fit for purpose, but I also feel that veterinary surgeons have a great deal to offer society more broadly, and I will relish the opportunity of raising the profile of the profession and what it can contribute.
"Beyond the immediate veterinary sphere, my areas of experience include science, the environment, education, middle eastern politics and tropical medicine, so I hope to be able to contribute to the work of the House of Lords on many fronts."
Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted to hear that Professor Sandy Trees has been appointed to the House of Lords. I know that he will not only represent the profession on all matters of veterinary science, veterinary education, animal welfare and public health, but as a cross-bencher, he will also bring a breadth of experience to bear on issues outside the immediate interests of our profession. He is a well informed and articulate advocate of whom the profession can be rightly proud."
The BVA also welcomed the appointment. BVA President Carl Padgett said: "The British Veterinary Association is absolutely delighted at Professor Trees' appointment to the House of Lords. He will bring a wealth of experience and scientific expertise into the political arena, not only in the fields of animal health and welfare but also public health, where he has particular knowledge and experience.
"We are pleased that the value of veterinary input in legislative debate has been recognised by the Appointments Commission.
"We are also proud that Professor Trees will be formally opening this September's BVA Congress in Liverpool where he inspired two generations of vets through his teaching and research, and we look forward to working with him to deliver a healthy future for animals, vets and the country."
22% (6,785) of veterinary surgeons eligible to vote did so, compared to the previous record of 18.8%.
The votes were as follows:
For the two places available on VN Council one new member was elected and one existing member re-elected for four year terms. Andrea Jeffery was re-elected with 1,293 votes, while Susan Howarth was elected with 1,064 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Congratulations to all those elected to RCVS Council and VN Council and thank you to all those who stood as candidates in both elections.
"We would especially like to thank Jerry Davies, Peter Jinman and Bradley Viner who are standing down from RCVS Council this year after deciding not to seek re-election, in addition to Chris Gray and Tom Witte for their contributions to RCVS Council and Marie Rippingale for her contribution to VN Council.
"Thank you also to all those who took the time to ask questions of our candidates and cast a vote. This year we made a concerted attempt to make it even easier for the electorate to vote, with secure links to the voting websites sent by email and regular email reminders to those who hadn’t yet voted. The fact that both record numbers and proportions of the professions voted this year is testament to our efforts to further increase engagement with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
"However, while we welcome these significant increases, we recognise that it is still a relatively small proportion of the profession voting in these elections and so will continue to think of new ways to engage with the professions not just at election time, but across our many activities."
All the successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 7 July 2017 at the Royal Institute of British Architects where the formal declaration of both election results will also take place.
A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons audit panel is to visit UK veterinary schools to assess how Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) is being carried out, identify good practice and make recommendations for improvement. The exercise is part of a package of measures which aims to improve the way that EMS helps veterinary undergraduates to gain skills and knowledge in a practice environment.
RCVS Council agreed to the implementation of proposals made by a Working Party set up to review the whole EMS process in November 2009. While the EMS system was largely agreed to be valuable and working well, some areas were identified for improvement. Many of the recommendations centred on a better understanding amongst all parties involved - students, practices and vet schools - of the aims and objectives of EMS for the student, and improved communication about expectations and outcomes.
As a first step, the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee has put in place an audit of EMS at the veterinary schools. It has commissioned Dr Barry Johnson, who led the original Working Party, together with practitioners David Black, David Wadsworth and Dr Chris Chesney, to follow through individual cases, talking to the students, practitioners and clinical tutors and EMS co-ordinators at the vet schools, to build a picture of how administration, communication and follow-up is managed.
Barry said: "The objective of the audit is to identify areas of good practice that can be shared, and identify where improvements could be made - it will also promote dialogue between practices and the schools. The exercise will be repeated over the next couple of years to track changes."
The first audit took place at the Royal Veterinary College in February, as part of the full RCVS visitation of the undergraduate degree programme. The EMS audit panel will report its initial findings in June.
The full report and recommendations from the EMS Working Party can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/EMS.
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.
Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:
Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.
She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.
She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.
In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.
In 2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.
Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months.
Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.
The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.
The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.
In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.
The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.
"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.
"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.
"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.
“This is a case involving serious malpractice.
"It was sustained over a period of time.
"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.
"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.
"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.
“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
It's the final call for comments on the draft new RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, as the consultation closes on Friday, 24 June 2011.
The new draft Code, which is intended to replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, was produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee.
The new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.
New requirements in the Code include compulsory continuing professional development, the RCVS Health Protocol and more on clinical competence. It also contains an updated declaration to be made by veterinary surgeons, which gives increased emphasis to animal welfare.
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation.
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate consultation will open shortly on a draft RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.
"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.
"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”
Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.
The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487
More meetings are planned for later in the year:
If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk
The RCVS President and Principal of the RVC, Professor Stuart Reid, has announced that he is to run the London Marathon on 26 April, in aid of the RVC Animal Care Trust, the Veterinary Benevolent Fund (VBF) and Mind.
The RVC Animal Care Trust will use the funds to assist the student bodies at all of the UK veterinary schools. The VBF, through Vetlife, the Vet Helpline and the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme, offers specific assistance to members of the veterinary team. Mind has been working with the profession and the veterinary schools at all levels in developing approaches to mental health and wellbeing.
Stuart said: "As President of the RCVS and Principal of the RVC I feel that I am in a privileged position and I would like to take every opportunity to help break down the stigma associated with mental health and wellbeing, and to raise what I can to assist these three excellent charities in dealing with what is, sadly, a major issue for us.
"Most of all, I am doing it for the nine people I know personally who are no longer with us, and the many more who have found, and will find, help in time."
If you'd like to help Stuart meet his sponsorship target of £10,000, you can sponsor him at: uk.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartReid.
Ms Padron Vega had also been found to have failed in her duties as an OV by being unprepared for, and unaware of, new regulations. She also did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
Ms Padron Vega originally applied for restoration in December last year, at which time the Disciplinary Committee had concerns about her keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills needed to return to practice, and decided to adjourn for six months to allow her to prove that it was appropriate to restore her name to the Register.
At the latest hearing, Ms Padron Vega sought to address the concerns that the Committee had raised about her professional development. In addition to the documentation she provided in her original restoration hearing, which included positive testimonials from colleagues, she provided evidence of her continuing professional development (CPD).
This included a letter from her previous employer, who confirmed she had more recently worked for them as a Certification Support Officer from February to March 2021, where they received positive feedback on her conduct.
The documentation also included a letter from another practice confirming that Ms Padron Vega had been offered a position of employment with them, and a separate letter from practice veterinary surgeon, Dr Khan MRCVS, confirming that he would be her mentor. Dr Khan also confirmed that she had been coming to the practice for work experience and he considered her to have good working knowledge of current medicines used within the practice. He further outlined in his letter what CPD support the practice would be providing for Ms Padron Vega as part of her employment with them.
An additional piece of evidence was a testimonial from Dr Max Rutana MRCVS who confirmed that Ms Padron Vega had worked unsupervised for a period of three weeks, and that he found her clinical notes during this period to be satisfactory and they received no complaints about her conduct from clients.
Ms Padron Vega also submitted CPD documentation which confirmed she has taken a Certification Support Officers’ course and examination in mid-December 2020.
In response to questions from the Committee about her small animal practice experience and how long she had been shadowing Dr Khan for, Ms Padron Vega explained that she had completed 80 hours of shadowing with Dr Khan and that in her future employment under his mentorship, he would be available to support her. She also explained that her job offer was evidence that she would continue to be trained in the relevant area of veterinary work.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “During the hearing, we heard evidence from Dr Khan who provided reassurance of Ms Padron Vega’s continued professional development with his practice and the ongoing supervision that she would be under. He explained that the supervision would last at least three months.
“The Committee’s view is that Ms Padron Vega accepts the findings of dishonesty that were made against her at the original Inquiry hearing. In her Reflective Statement, she acknowledges that veterinarians have a professional responsibility to ensure the integrity of veterinary certification, that she is now aware that when signing documents as a veterinary surgeon they need to be approached with care and accuracy. Further she has undertaken a CPD course on this very ethical issue and has passed the examination set at the end of that course. The Committee is confident that Ms Padron Vega is unlikely to repeat the conduct which resulted in her being removed from the Register. It is the Committee’s decision that she should be restored to the Register.”
The RCVS has brought out a new publication to help members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions understand their legal and professional obligations regarding controlled drugs.
Controlled Drugs Guidance is a consolidation of existing advice and guidance on controlled drugs from a number of organisations including the RCVS itself, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the Home Office. The guide also gives details of the existing legislation concerning controlled drugs, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated regulations.
The guidance provides advice on a variety of topics to reflect the common queries the RCVS Advice Team receives, such as storage, destruction and disposal; keys and keyholders for controlled drugs cabinets; controlled drugs in vehicles; and veterinary nurses administering controlled drugs.
The publication also deals with specific controlled drugs such as ketamine which, on 30 November 2015, was rescheduled to a Schedule 2 controlled drug, meaning that it is now subject to the same strict storage, prescription, dispending, destruction and record-keeping requirements as other medicines in this Schedule.
Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: “We hope that this publication will help members of the profession navigate the often complex legislative and professional requirements regarding controlled drugs, as well as imparting best practice advice on how they should be stored and disposed and so on.
"This publication has also been endorsed by our colleagues in the Home Office, VMD and BSAVA and, because this is an area that is subject to regular change, we will make sure to keep it up-to-date as and when the regulations change."
The publication is available to download from the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS Charitable Trust is offering two 'Blue Sky' grants of between £10,000 and £20,000 for basic or pure research intended to advance veterinary science.
Applications may be made for either an 'open' grant or a Robert Daubney Fellowship. Both are open to academic staff and students within UK veterinary schools. However, the Robert Daubney Fellowship is granted specifically for research within the fields of virology and helminthology, and has additional criteria including that applicants must be on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons, and hold a postgraduate veterinary qualification.
Cherry Bushell, the Trust's Director said: "This funding is offered for veterinary scientific research projects which meet our interests in innovation and development. In particular, pilot projects aiming to show a 'proof of concept' as a first stage of a more substantial project will be looked on favourably - if the project can then attract support from major funders this is likely to have more impact over the longer term."
The Trust aims to develop mutually beneficial partnerships with grant recipients, and innovative and exciting projects which can respond to these objectives through the grant-giving process and beyond are also preferred.
Further information, including full application criteria, is available from www.trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants. Preliminary applications should be made via the head of a UK veterinary school, and submitted to the Trust by 20 May 2011.
Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so.
The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement.
Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.
Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.
They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.
Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation.
In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends.
"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner.
"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."
Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.
During the webinar, which took place earlier this month, senior officers and staff from the College explained the new guidance, what it will mean for the profession, and answered questions submitted by delegates.
The webinar was chaired by RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS with a panel comprising Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and RCVS Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The webinar included an overview of the main changes, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “We have also now published a range of practice-based scenarios to help explain how the new guidance should be followed in various circumstances, and in relation to different species.
"These scenarios cover a variety of different situations, including how the guidance applies to two or more practices with mutual clients, consultancy services and the prescription of long-term controlled drugs.”
A second webinar will be held on Monday 17th July, with priority for those who wanted to attend the June webinar but were not able to do because it was over-subscribed.
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.
She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.
There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.
Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.
The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.
Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.
Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.
Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).
Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.
Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.
At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.
Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.
After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.
Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.
In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.
Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.
In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:
The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.
The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.
When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:
The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”
She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.
"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.
“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.
"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”
What is 'quality improvement', you ask? Good question. Sure, it's an improvement in, er, quality. But of what?
'Quality improvement' is a term adopted from the human healthcare sector, variously defined as anything which makes: "healthcare safer, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable (NHS)", or "the combined and unceasing efforts of everyone—healthcare professionals, patients and their families, researchers, payers, planners and educators—to make the changes that will lead to better patient outcomes (health), better system performance (care) and better professional development (BMJ)."
The RCVS research project, which is being conducted by RAND EUROPE, will assess current perceptions and adoption of quality improvement in the veterinary profession.
Specifically, it'll look at the drivers, barriers and expectations associated with QI, with the ultimate goal of strengthening the support provided to the profession.
Chris Gush, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge, said: "We are delighted to be launching this research project with RAND Europe.
"We know that many of our colleagues across the profession have embedded quality improvement into their practice to great benefit, while we are also aware that it can be a challenge to do so all of the time.
"This research will provide an unprecedented body of evidence on the experiences and perceptions of QI, which will be critical to how we work to support the sector in this area going forward."
Integral to the research is a survey which all members of the profession are invited to take part in, here: bit.ly/QIvetsurvey.
The survey will be live for six weeks, closing early April. It takes around ten minutes to complete, with a prize of one £150 Amazon voucher on offer. Responses will be anonymised.
You can read more about Quality Improvement on the RCVS Knowledge website, here: https://knowledge.rcvs.org.uk/quality-improvement/
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has launched its new website, which also marks the first public outing for its new livery.
The College highlights the following key changes:
The RCVS says the new corporate look is designed to be fresh, uncluttered and professional, and the new RCVS logo and strapline - "setting veterinary standards" - should leave visitors in no doubt as to the key purpose of the RCVS as a regulatory body. And whilst the new identity is modern in feel, the use of a shield device aims to maintain the link with the College's long history.
According to the College, the new brand was described by the veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who helped to develop it as "simple, clear and clean, with a strong message" and "modern and approachable".
President Peter Jinman said: "The College has been accused of being 'confused and confusing' in the past. With the new identity we have endeavoured to clarify that the College is a forward-thinking regulator - despite being established when Queen Victoria was only recently on the throne, and working to 45-year-old legislation.
"Changing the logo, font and colours we use is only a small part of the process though. Our branding review included several layers of research and we now have a better understanding of how we have been perceived, how we would like to be perceived, and what we need to do to get there. This includes changing how we behave and communicate as an organisation, as well as how we position ourselves to the outside world."
The new look, which includes new logos for RCVS Awards, the RCVS Charitable Trust and the Practice Standards Scheme, will be rolled out across other communications elements as the year unfolds, to avoid the unnecessary wastage of materials branded with the old identity.
Meanwhile, the website is a living medium, and the College says it is keen to hear feedback from users about what they like, and what could be improved, to help inform further developments.
The competition is open to all UK-based undergraduate veterinary students and offers them the opportunity to work as a team to brainstorm, develop and present an innovative idea to a board of industry professionals.
Students can enter either as a single applicant or as a group (of roughly five members), with single applicants then being placed in a group with other applicants from their university. There can be more than one team representing each university.
Each student’s project can cover any aspect of veterinary health innovation. The RCVS suggests potential projects might include: innovations within veterinary education, innovations to improve sanitation and hygiene, innovations to improve veterinary-public communication and innovations to improve patient safety.
Entries must show how they have improved upon – or extended beyond – current expectations of best practice in their chosen area.
Each applicant will receive support from one of the Association of Veterinary Students’ (AVS) Vet Futures Ambassadors, as well as a mentor session with a chosen industry professional to guide them on their project.
Teams will need to submit three components for judging: a log of their progress throughout the project (which can include social media updates using the hashtag #ViVetStudentInnovation), mentor engagement and feedback, and a five-minute video ‘business pitch’.
The three finalist groups of the competition will be invited to present their pitch to a board of industry professionals at a ‘Dragon’s Den’ style event held at the RCVS ViVet 2019 Innovation Symposium on Tuesday 1 October 2019 in Manchester.
The winning and runner-up groups will then be selected and will be presented alongside the ‘mentor’s choice’ award. The Mentor’s Choice award will be selected by the team mentors. The prize will be awarded to an individual who shows excellence and enthusiasm within their work on the project.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership & Innovation (pictured right), said: "This competition provides a great opportunity for veterinary students to engage with their fellow classmates across different fields of study and to work on projects that could genuinely make a difference to animal health and welfare and the way veterinary services are delivered. Teams will receive one-on-one mentoring and will be guided through the innovation process, developing skills that will be useful throughout their careers. We look forward to seeing the three finalist teams presenting at the RCVS ViVet Innovation Symposium in Manchester on 1 October."
Zoe Skinner, Vet Futures Student Representatives Team Leader, said: “This competition is a great opportunity for veterinary students to receive mentoring from experienced veterinary professionals and form contacts within our profession. It gives students a way to work together as a team and allows them to learn how to produce and develop innovative, problem-solving concepts as well as skills in delivering presentations. These are all important aspects of our career ahead, which will look brilliant on our CV’s.”
ViVet is now accepting registrations for the competition for the 2018/19 academic year. To enter, applicants must submit an online registration form. For further information, email info@vivet.org.uk.
The committee considered 5 separate charges against Dr Radev, relating to his treatment of a Yorkshire Terrier and Shih Tzu cross called Pickles at a Vets4Pets veterinary practice in Oxford between 5 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The charges related to Dr Radev failing to provide adequate and/or appropriate care to the animal and failure to keep detailed clinical records.
After hearing the evidence from Dr Radev and the complainant, the College submitted that it wished to withdraw charges 1(i) and 1(ii) on the basis of insufficient evidence. In addition, Dr Radev had already admitted charges: 1(iii)(b), 1(iv)(d), 1(v), 4(i)(a) and 4(ii)(a) but denied the remaining charges. Of these remaining charges the Committee found charges 1(iv)(a), 2(i), 2(iv), 3(i) and 3(ii) proven with the rest not being proven.
The charges admitted or found proven were that Dr Radev:
(1) On 5 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:
(iii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to offer and/or undertake:
(b) urine tests;
(iv) Failed to put in place and/or document an adequate management plan for Pickles, more particularly in relation to:
(a) adequate direction and/or advice regarding a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;
(d) collection of urine at home for analysis on review at the practice;
(v) Having noted that he suspected renal disease, prescribed meloxicam when the same was contraindicated for dogs with renal disease;
(2) On 28 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:
(i) Failed to take and/or record an adequate history from Mrs Pancott in relation to Pickles’ condition and/or clinical signs since 5 October 2015;
(iv) Failed to provide adequate direction and/or advice regarding a date for a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;
(3) On 30 October 2015, having been informed that Mrs Pancott had telephoned the practice with concerns about Pickles, including blood in the faeces;
(i) Failed to note the matter in Pickles’ medical records;
(ii) Failed to take sufficient steps to obtain more information from Mrs Pancott or to ensure that Mrs Pancott was advised to seek veterinary attention for Pickles in relation to her concerns;
(4) On 1 November 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:
(i) Failed to interpret the blood tests adequately and/or take appropriate and adequate action in relation to the results of those blood tests, more particularly with regards to:
(a) blood glucose;
(ii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to:
(a) offer and/or undertake urine tests.
In considering these charges the Disciplinary Committee found that only charge 4(ii)(a) – namely the failure to correctly interpret and act upon the results of a blood glucose test – amounted to serious professional conduct with the rest not passing the threshold of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee did not consider that in addition the cumulative effect of all the proven charges taken together amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to the cumulative effect of all the proven charges Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Dr Radev had made errors in relation to one patient but on four separate occasions. These were, for the most part, individual failures at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Taking into account all of the failings, the Committee in its judgement did not consider that the nature and number of errors and the period of time over which they took place justified a cumulative finding of disgraceful conduct."
In considering the sanction for Dr Radev the Committee took into account a number of mitigating circumstances including the fact that Dr Radev had undertaken suitable training and development in the areas in which he made mistakes, had demonstrated good insight into his conduct and had made some open and frank admissions early on in proceedings. It also considered that the one charge that was found to be serious professional misconduct was a single, isolated mistake linked to Dr Radev’s inexperience.
Professor Barr said: "The Committee considered that taking ‘no further action’ was appropriate and proportionate having considered the history of the case, the Committee’s overall findings and the good reports of Dr Radev’s performance in the two years since the matter which had led to the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The decision to take no further action was also influenced by the length of time it had taken the charges to be heard by the Committee, the positive character references about Dr Radev from professional colleagues and the fact he was unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future.