The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.

The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.

The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.

As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.

Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.

"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."

The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.

The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.

The RCVS and the BSAVA are to conduct a research project to evaluate the impact of the Professional Development Phase (PDP) on veterinary graduates.

The College’s PDP is a period of structured self-assessment, reflection and development designed to help veterinary graduates in the transition from life as a veterinary student to clinical practice.

During the PDP (which normally lasts no more than three years after the graduate enters clinical practice), graduates are supported by a Postgraduate Dean and are expected to keep a record of their clinical cases against a list of clinical skills and procedures, and reflect on how they are progressing in relation to the PDP Competences.

In 2016 BSAVA launched its online PDP Resource Bank, matched to the RCVS competences and created to provide BSAVA graduate members with CPD support during their first years in practice.

The research project, which is being conducted across the whole profession, aims to:

• gain a better understanding of the challenges faced by new graduates and their employers in the transition to practice
• evaluate the impact of the PDP on the development of clinical and non-clinical skills
• understand the support needed by employers of new graduates to help them complete the PDP and how both BSAVA and RCVS could provide this
• explore how reflection is understood by employers and used by new graduates during the PDP
• understand the impact of reflection as perceived by employers and graduates

The RCVS and the BSAVA have now appointed the Work Psychology Group, to undertake the research. The research team also includes Professor Susan Rhind, from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, and Professor Liz Mossop of the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham.

Christine Warman, Director of Education at the RCVS, said: "Since its launch in 2007 the PDP has had some success in helping graduates in the transition into practice life, but we recognise that there is some frustration and uncertainty with the process and that not everyone finds it helpful.

"So we are very pleased to be joining forces with the BSAVA on this project and hope it will help us get a better sense of how both graduates and employers feel about the PDP, where obstacles to learning and development exist, potential gaps in support provision and common areas of confusion, anxiety and concern."

Sheldon Middleton, BSAVA Honorary Treasurer and board sponsor of the BSAVA’s PDP Resource, said: "BSAVA recognised the gap in provision of support material for the professional skills element of the PDP and created the PDP Resource Bank to plug this gap for our members. We worked with the RCVS to match the resources to the structure of the PDP but also recognised that there was a need for support for employers of new graduates as well. The PDP Resource Bank is growing and has a dedicated editorial board reviewing material for inclusion. This research project will allow us to tailor our resource further and ensure our members are able to access the support they need.”

The research will be conducted across the whole veterinary profession through focus groups and telephone interviews and will include graduates, employers, vet school representatives, Postgraduate Deans, and BSAVA and British Veterinary Association (BVA) representatives. The results of the research will ultimately be made publicly available across the profession, together with recommendations for the further development of the PDP.

For more information about the PDP, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp. You can find the BSAVA’s PDP Resource Bank at https://www.bsava.com/Education/PDP

The RCVS has held the first meeting of its Brexit Presidential Taskforce.

The taskforce was established following the EU referendum result on 24 June, with the central purpose of putting the profession in charge of its future by maximising the opportunities and minimising the risks of Brexit.

Almost half of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified from veterinary schools elsewhere in the EU. While the Government issued a statement in mid-July clarifying that as yet there has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK or UK nationals in the EU, it is not clear whether this situation will continue once the UK has left the EU.

The Brexit Presidential Taskforce will consider, and proactively engage with, the many possible changes that could shape the future of the UK veterinary profession due to Brexit.

The members of the Taskforce are: the President of the College, Chris Tufnell; the CEO, Nick Stace; the Treasurer, Amanda Boag; Operations Director, Corrie McCann; Junior Vice-President, Stephen May; Acting Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson; Chair of Education, Susan Dawson; Head of Education, Chris Warman; Council member Stuart Reid; Chair of VN Council, Liz Cox; and Director of Strategic Communications, Lizzie Lockett. 

The terms of reference include: considering how EU regulations currently impact the regulation of veterinary professionals in the UK, and making recommendations as to which should be maintained; looking at the issue of mutual recognition of veterinary graduates in Europe; considering workforce requirements and the implications of a new system of immigration; understanding the implications for the current RCVS agenda; considering whether a proactive RCVS agenda can influence any new UK legislation; reconsidering the College’s existing international strategy; and studying the financial impact on the College.

It was also agreed that the College should maintain communications with the British Veterinary Association and coordinate approaches where appropriate. 

Dr Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Brexit has profound implications for our professions. The Presidential Taskforce is exploring all implications and will develop proposals that will seek to mitigate the risks and maximise the benefits that can flow to the veterinary professions and to animal welfare.

"We are working closely with representative bodies and others so that the veterinary professions have a coordinated and well executed plan in place. We are in discussions with all relevant Government departments, working collaboratively and constructively, ensuring that our voice is heard and our influence is felt."

The next meeting will be held on 15 September, with the third one scheduled for 9 November.

Shakira Free Miles RVN has been reprimanded and warned by the RCVS VN Council Disciplinary Committee after pleading guilty last year to six counts of theft and one of the attempted theft of animals which she and her co-defendants mistakenly believed were in need of rescuing.

Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition. 

They went to steal the animals from their owners' property after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.

Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.

The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.

Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.

In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.

In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.

The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.

However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.

"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.

"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.

“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.

"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”

When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:

• that there were no concerns about her competence or quality of practice,
• there had been a significant lapse of time since the incidents,
• her guilty plea,
• co-operation with the regulatory process,
• disclosure of the conviction to the RCVS,
• no evidence of repetition of the offending behaviour,demonstration of some insight into the seriousness and impact of the offences on public trust and confidence,
• positive personal character references,
• remorse expressed for upset caused to the owners,
• apology to the RCVS and her profession,
• compliance with the requirements of the criminal sentence,
• and low risk of repetition.

The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.

However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.

Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.

"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.

“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.

"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.

"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.

"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”

The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.

It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.

The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.

The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

The RCVS has been recognised as one of the best places to work in the country by the Great Place To Work Institute, which carries out comprehensive annual surveys of staff engagement with a wide variety of small, medium and large businesses and organisations.

The College was ranked number 30th out of 50 in the medium (50 to 499 employees) category, after 91% of the staff gave a positive answer to the question: "Taking everything into account, I would say this is a great place to work", compared to 52% agreeing with this statement in 2013.

Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "The fact that we have been ranked as one of the best places to work in the country demonstrates the great strides made by the College over the past three years and recognises the resolve of staff and Council to improve our working practices, how we communicate with each other and overall well-being.

"It is also a testament to the importance of two-way communication - of giving staff the opportunity and freedom to come up with ideas and having a senior team that is willing to listen to and implement these where appropriate.

"I would also like to thank members of RCVS Council in particular as they have been very supportive of our efforts to improve staff engagement and recognise that a more motivated and happy workforce at the College will be reflected in the quality of service offered to members of the profession."

Following the award, an interview with Nick also appears in Great Workplaces, a magazine produced by Great Place to Work which is included as a supplement in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend. 

Further details about steps taken by the College to improve staff engagement can be found on Nick's blog: nickstaceblogs.org

David Chalkley MRCVS has been suspended for three months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found him guilty of serious professional misconduct over bovine tuberculosis (bTB) testing at a Cheltenham farm in March 2018.

Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.

The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.

In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.

The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.

On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.

He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.

In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.

When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.

Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.

In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.

The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration.  However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.

Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.

The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he  knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.

The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.

In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.

The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.

“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.

“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.

“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.

The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.

Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.

The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.

The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.

Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”

The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Gemma Louise Cole has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee following her conviction for pet insurance fraud in 2024.

Mrs Cole pleaded guilty to fraud in July 2024 at Crawley Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, 20 days rehabilitation activity and a £187 victim surcharge.

The College opened its own disciplinary investigation against Mrs Cole after receiving the certificate of conviction, which related to more than £13,000 of pet insurance fraud.

It then proceeded with the hearing in Mrs Cole’s absence as she had not responded to any of the communications sent to her by the College on the matter.

Having found the charge against her proven by the certificate of conviction, the Committee then determined that the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct… was plainly dishonest and contravened a fundamental tenet of the profession.

"She abused her professional position in order to commit the offence.

"The dishonest conduct in this case related directly to the respondent’s professional life, as she was working as a veterinary nurse when she completed and submitted the fraudulent claims.

“Her conduct also constituted a breach of the trust owed to her employer and to the insurance company to which her dishonest claims were submitted.

"She put her professional colleagues at risk as their names were used on the clinical records which purportedly supported her dishonest claims.

“Her misconduct was repeated and sustained over a period of many years.

"Her modus operandi was sophisticated and premeditated.

“The respondent’s conduct clearly had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public trust in the profession.

"A member of the public would be rightly appalled to learn that a veterinary nurse had abused her position by submitting false claims in this way.”

The Committee found that there were no mitigating factors, and that aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of Mrs Cole’s fraud, the clear breaches of trust in respect of her colleagues, her clients and the insurance companies, the significant financial gain made from her fraud and the fact that the fraudulent activities were sustained and repeated over a period of four and a half years.

Kathryn added: “Taking into account the gravity of her misconduct, the need to maintain standards of probity in the profession, especially in relation to practice records and the submission of insurance claim documents, as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the Committee has resolved to direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, has chosen Medical Detection Dogs and The Horse Trust and as the recipients of this year’s RCVS Christmas Box, a £3,000 annual donation.

The Horse Trust provides a range of services to support working horses, while Medical Detection Dogs trains dogs to alert their owners to cancers and other medical conditions, providing pre-emptive non-invasive warning. 

Stephen said: "These two charities' work in strengthening and supporting the human-animal bond is truly remarkable. Though The Horse Trust was originally founded in 1886 as a retirement home for working horses, and this remains a core focus of theirs to this day, it has now evolved to provide a whole range of services, from education to research to rescuing neglected equids.

"Medical Detection Dogs, though founded much more recently in 2008, has already done an incredible amount in its short history - 76 of its dogs are now partnered with people with critical medical conditions, ensuring essential emotional as well as medical support."

Jeanette Allen, CEO of The Horse Trust, said: "The Horse Trust is extremely grateful to the RCVS for this enormously generous donation. We care for 130 horses, ponies and donkeys that have either retired from public service or been rescued from appalling conditions. We also provide dedicated training programmes for first responders who have to deal with horses in crisis situations, as well as being the second largest funder of equine specific veterinary research in the UK. We survive as a charity on donations, and this one is most welcome and greatly appreciated."

Claire Guest, co-founder and chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said: "We are so grateful to the RCVS for their very generous donation. We receive no government funding for our work, so we rely entirely on the generosity of organisations like the RCVS. Thanks to this donation, we can continue our pioneering research into the detection of human disease using the extraordinary smelling power of dogs."

The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Riding for the Disabled Association, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and Vetlife.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based Mark Kombert be removed from the Register after he was found guilty of stealing ketamine and methadone from a practice.

Prior to the start of the hearing, the RCVS received correspondence from Mr Kombert confirming that he did not intend to attend the hearing, either in person or via a video-link, nor did he intend to send legal representation in his stead.

The Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Kombert and any legal representation, on the basis that it was in the public interest and the interests of justice to proceed and that Mr Kombert had been given the opportunity to attend or be represented. 

The Committee heard that staff at the practice where Mr Kombert was working as a locum had undertaken a check of the medicines kept in the practice’s controlled drugs cabinet and discovered that 5.5ml of ketamine and 1.5ml of methadone was missing. After the code to the controlled drugs cabinet was changed, Mr Kombert was observed taking an additional 3ml of methadone, which he then administered to himself while on duty at the practice.

After Mr Kombert was confronted with the evidence, he was given the details of the Vetlife charity for support and asked not to return to the practice.

The police were contacted and, on 4 January 2019, Mr Kombert was arrested and interviewed. He received a police caution for theft, with conditions that he should attend and complete a drug-use awareness course, and engage in a restorative justice process, which involved attending the practice to discuss his offences. At this meeting, Mr Kombert admitted stealing the drugs and administering them to himself while on duty, which meant he was not in a fit state to see patients. He apologised for his actions and the matter was then also reported to the RCVS.

In relation to the fact that Mr Kombert had accepted the police caution, made the admissions at the restorative justice meeting and had emailed the RCVS apologising for his actions, the facts of the case were found proven.

The Committee then went on to consider if Mr Kombert’s actions amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect (henceforth called ‘serious professional misconduct’), something which Mr Kombert had admitted to in correspondence with the RCVS.

The Committee found that Mr Kombert’s actions did amount to serious professional misconduct. Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s conduct was dishonest; it constituted both a breach of trust and an abuse of his position with regards to access to veterinary medicines; it risked animal welfare and jeopardised the reputation of colleagues. It fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The Committee then considered what the appropriate sanction against Mr Kombert should be, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of harm to animals, his dishonesty, the premeditated nature of the misconduct, the breach of trust and the fact it was repeated.

It also took into account three previous matters recorded against Mr Kombert in the United States of America.

These were: a letter of admonition from the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine for practising when his licence had expired; a stipulation order from the same body in which he agreed to relinquish his licence in that state following an allegation that he took controlled substances from a veterinary practice and self-administered them; and a criminal conviction in New York State for obtaining an opioid controlled drug by deception, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation. The Committee was made aware of the New York State criminal conviction after Dianne Norris, a Probation Officer based in that state, had contacted the RCVS after hearing about the inquiry and informed the College that Mr Kombert was in breach of his probation conditions.

Dr Whiting said: “The Committee has considered the witness statement of Ms Dianne Norris, a probation officer employed by Putnam County Probation in New York, who was responsible for supervising the respondent as part of his probation. Ms Norris explained that the respondent breached his probation on numerous occasions, which took place from November 2017 to 2018…. As a result of the breaches, Ms Norris required the respondent to increase his attendance at support groups to an inpatient treatment program for 28 days from 13 July 2018. He failed to attend.

"Ms Norris explained that warrants were issued for the respondent’s arrest…. The Committee noted that the conduct of the respondent in relation to obtaining controlled drugs from his employers for his own use while in the United States of America was similar to his conduct … [described in] the charges."

In mitigation the Committee considered that Mr Kombert had consistently admitted the charges against him as well as accepting and agreeing with the evidence against him.

However, the Committee decided that in light of the seriousness of his misconduct, including dishonesty and risk of serious harm to animals, removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.

Summing up, Dr Whiting said: "The respondent has failed to uphold the requisite standards to be expected of him on multiple occasions. The Committee considers that the only sanction that is sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct is one of erasure."

Mr Kombert has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has published suicide prevention resources to help UK veterinary practices meet the now mandatory requirement to put workplace suicide prevention plans into place.

Since 1 April 2026, the RCVS has required all practices to implement a practice-specific suicide prevention plan.

The requirement includes assessing potential risks within the practice setting and putting in place measures to address and mitigate each identified risk.

The new resources include a suicide prevention guide for all practice staff, a suicide prevention plan checklist, and a practical step by step suicide prevention toolkit for veterinary workplaces.

Further resources, including a recorded webinar, will also be published in due course.

A "Suicide awareness fundamentals" course is also available via the RCVS Academy.

The course supplements the resources by looking at the contributing factors behind suicide in the profession, how to talk about it, reduce stigma, and support those in crisis.

Rapinder Newton, Mind Matters Initiative Lead, said: "These resources are comprehensive and will help veterinary practices not only create plans, but also implement and communicate them with staff, and regularly review them to ensure they're fit for purpose as well as adapt them if needed."

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/mind-matters/resources-and-cpd/suicide-prevention-in-the-veterinary-workplace 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored Ian Beveridge, a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon to the Register.

Mr Beveridge had been removed from the Register following a disciplinary hearing in May 2013 in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the Committee finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the College and that animals in his care were placed at risk. He subsequently appealed to the Privy Council but this was later withdrawn, resulting in him being formally removed from the Register in March 2014.

He first applied to be restored to the Register in 2015 but his application was refused by the Disciplinary Committee at a hearing in November 2015. At the time the Committee found him unfit for restoration to the Register because, following his removal, his veterinary medicines account had been used on an unauthorised basis to order prescription-only veterinary medicines, which reflected a "cavalier attitude to practice". Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not fully accepted the Committee’s original findings, had made inadequate effort in regards to engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) and also considered the seriousness of the original findings.

At the opening of his second hearing Mr Beveridge, who represented himself, sought to address the concerns that the Disciplinary Committee had outlined upon refusing his first application for restoration. Regarding his acceptance of the original findings, the Committee heard that he now apologised "unreservedly for his failings that led to erasure of his name from the Register" and the Committee considered that he had demonstrated a significant change in attitude from the previous restoration hearing where he had not fully accepted the reasons for being removed.

In considering issues of public protection the Committee also accepted that Mr Beveridge, until his original Disciplinary Committee hearing, had an unblemished professional record and had run a successful small animal practice for over 30 years. It considered numerous client testimonials as well as a petition signed by 600 clients from 2013.

The Committee also considered that there was no risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of Mr Beveridge being restored to the Register, noting the testimonials and references to satisfactory care and treatment given by Mr Beveridge to his patients.

Regarding CPD, Mr Beveridge produced evidence before the Committee that he had attended courses run by the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). The Committee accepted that he had made "considerable progress" in terms of CPD.

In concluding the hearing Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It is the judgement of the Committee that the conduct which resulted in the applicant’s name being removed from the Register is unlikely to be repeated. The applicant has satisfied the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register."

The RCVS has extended the deadline for nominations for the RCVS Queen's Medal to 31 January, to allow time for the nominations paperwork to be completed on return from the Christmas and New Year break.

RCVS CEO Nick Stace said: "We received more enquiries about the Queen's Medal over the Christmas period but appreciated that people might welcome a little extra time in the new year to complete and submit their nominations. We're certainly keen to allow anyone who wishes to make a nomination for this very special award the chance to do so."

The Queen's Medal, launched at the House of Lords last November, is a new Honour that will be awarded to a veterinary surgeon for a lifetime of outstanding contributions to the profession and who has dedicated their career to working above and beyond the call of duty in the fields of veterinary medicine or science, or related areas.

It is the most prestigious Honour that the RCVS can bestow, and will be awarded at RCVS Day in London in July.

Full details about the nominations process are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/Queensmedal). Nominations should be received by the RCVS no later than 5pm on Friday, 31 January 2014.