The RCVS issued a reminder today that there is just over a month left before the 1 April deadline for all veterinary practice premises from which medicines are to be supplied to be registered with the College.
Just over 4,500 premises have applied for registration since November 2008. This includes about 750 premises not previously listed with the College, demonstrating the usefulness of the process, which will enable the government to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines.
From 1 April it will be an offence for a veterinary surgeon to supply a veterinary medicinal product from any practice premises not registered with the RCVS. On conviction, those committing the offence may be liable to prosecution, which may include a fine or prison sentence. Veterinary surgeons convicted of criminal offences are also considered by the College's Preliminary Investigation Committee to decide whether the conviction would affect the individual's fitness to practise and should be referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
In addition to ensuring their practice premises are registered, veterinary surgeons also need to keep a record of other places where medicines are stored, so these can be considered during an inspection - such as vets' homes or cars, or perhaps a charity premises from which veterinary work is carried out and where medicines are stored. Such records will not be published, although some of those premises may need to be registered in their own right.
Practices accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme will be inspected by the RCVS; non-compliance with medicines standards will be dealt with under the rules of the Scheme. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) will carry out inspections of other registered premises to ensure compliance with the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Where non-compliance is noted, the VMD will take a proportionate enforcement approach ranging from issuing advice to, where appropriate, serving an improvement notice or seizing medicines.
The case was brought by the College after a member of the public raised a 'concern' relating to Mrs Mullen's practice in December 2015. The concern was not pursued by the College.
However, during its initial investigation, the RCVS case manager ascertained that contrary to the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct, Mrs Mullen did not have PII.
In January 2016 Mrs Mullen was advised by the College that, in order to comply with the Code, she needed to ensure her professional activities were covered by PII or equivalent arrangements.
The matter was considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee which asked, in October 2016, that Mrs Mullen produce evidence that she was now compliant with the requirement to have PII or equivalent. Mrs Mullen responded in November 2016 confirming that she had not put in place such arrangements.
The case was then referred to the Disciplinary Committee in January 2017.
During the hearing it was determined that, during the relevant time period (from November 2015 to November 2016) Mrs Mullen was practising but did not have professional indemnity insurance in place and therefore was in breach of the Code.
Mrs Mullen, who represented herself, told the Committee that she admitted that she did not have PII. She explained that she was 'ethically and morally opposed to it' as she felt that it did not give fair compensation to claimants and did not know it was a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct until she was informed by the College in January 2016.
When giving oral evidence as to equivalent arrangements she disclosed that she kept significant funds in a bank account; these were not however specifically earmarked for use in the event of any possible claims, and were also required to pay practice expenses.
In light of evidence produced by the College and her own admissions, the charges against Mrs Mullen were found proved and she was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
In coming to this decision Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent failed to have PII in place for a period of about 12 months as specified in the charges. Moreover, she failed to remedy the situation when advised in January 2016 by the College that she was in breach of the Code and the supporting guidance. This remains a continuous course of conduct, which has still not been remedied. The respondent has chosen not to read the Code, or the supporting guidance, until very recently, in relation to her obligation to have PII or equivalent arrangements in place, and she failed to heed the advice of the College that she must rectify the position."
In considering the sanction the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained over a significant period of time and that limited insight was shown by Mrs Mullen. While she did begin to display limited insight into the significance of her misconduct, the Committee said that this insight was "hampered by her ambivalence towards the College and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession."
In mitigation the Committee took into account Mrs Mullen’s long and unblemished career and the fact she was a sole practitioner who reported challenging personal circumstances and provided a unique service to a niche group of clients.
However, Chitra Karve said: "The Committee is unable to overlook the Respondent’s lack of commitment to obtaining PII or equivalent arrangements, even after being advised by the College that this was essential. The Committee is aware that a suspension could adversely affect her practice and her clients that she uniquely serves. However the Committee thinks it is necessary to send a clear message to the respondent and the public, that failure to obtain PII or equivalent arrangements is wholly unacceptable."
She added: "Accordingly, the Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of two months. The Committee considers that this period of suspension will give the respondent an opportunity to rectify her breaches of the Code in relation to PII… and to reflect upon her attitude towards the College and the appropriate regulation of the veterinary profession."
The Information Commissioner has supported the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' decision not to publish the Overspend Review Group's report (aka the McKelvey Report) in full.
The verdict follows two challenges to the College's decision, one made by the British Veterinary Association and a second by a member of the College.
The College says its original decision not to publish the report in full was based on two sets of external legal advice that to do so would be unlawful under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. However, the College did publish the recommendations from the report (otherwise known as the McKelvey Report), which it says comprise more than half of the total.
The Overspend Review Group was tasked with considering all aspects that relate to the College's budgeting and expenditure processes and to propose lessons that should be learned. It was set up following overspends in two areas: the installation of a new data management system and building development work at the College's premises in London.
RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux said: "This verdict is welcome in that it supports our original decision. But I can appreciate that it may frustrate those members unhappy that they will not see the full report.
"When it was commissioned, it was intended that the report would be published in full; in the event, the document included information that would contravene the Data Protection Act if published. However, I would like to reassure members that the substance of the report was included in the published recommendations, and these have now, in the main, been acted upon."
Questions and answers about the Report, together with the recommendations, can be found here.
The decision was made after Council heard increasing reports that practices have not been keeping records of POM-V parasiticide prescriptions within patient records as has always been required by the VMD.
This created a bit of a problem when the new 'under care' guidance came into force at the start of this month, which requires that veterinary surgeons must perform a physical examination as part of their initial clinical assessment of an animal before prescribing POM-V anti-parasitics.
Failing a record of an existing prescription, that would have meant re-examining large numbers of animals at a time when resources in the profession are already stretched.
RCVS President, Sue Paterson, said: “While it has been both surprising and disappointing to learn of such widespread non-compliance with legislation that has been in place for many years, Council decided to postpone the implementation of this one aspect of our new under care guidance to allow practices additional time to bring their prescribing protocols into line."
The delayed implementation date of 12 January 2024 relates only to the prescription of POM-V anti-parasitics.
The rest of the new under care guidance remains in effect from 1 September 2023
There are nine candidates standing in this year’s RCVS Council election, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Dr Linda Belton MRCVS
Dr Niall Connell MRCVS
Mr John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVS
Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVS
Mr Peter Robinson MRCVS
Following the changes made to the College’s governance arrangements last year, after a Legislative Reform Order changing the size and composition of Council was passed by Parliament, there will be only three elected places available for the candidates, as opposed to six in the years prior to the governance changes.
Ballot papers and candidates' details are due to be posted and emailed to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 25 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019.
In order to give the electorate a better idea of why each candidate is standing and ask them for their views on particular issues, this year the College is again inviting members of the profession to 'Quiz the candidates' by putting their questions directly to the candidates. Each candidate will be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers.
Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election commences.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote19.
Vets should email their question (NB only one per person) to vetvote19@rcvs.org.uk or send it to the College’s Twitter account @theRCVS using the hashtag #vetvote19 by midday on Monday 4 March 2019.
Noelle Lowry, a marathon-running vet from Lichfield has raised almost £2,500 for the RCVS Trust in the London Marathon.
Noelle beat her fundraising target of £1,500, to raise money for the Trust to use in its work to support veterinary education and research, and in providing library and information services.
She finished 4,594 out of the 11,037 women runners in the London Marathon, taking 4 hours and 36 minutes to run the 26.2 mile long course - and beating her time last year in the New York marathon.
Noelle said: "A lot of people chipped in at the last minute - my mum has been organising people back home in Ballymena and my friends and colleagues have all put their hands in their pockets - so a huge thank you to all of them.
"I'm a great fan of the RCVS Trust. It's not one of the big charity brands but the grant funding for veterinary research can really make a difference to animals - and we can all use the library and online resources - so I wanted to give it some help."
Click here for more about the work of the RCVS Trust
RCVS Knowledge says it first identified the need for an open access and easily accessible means of distributing veterinary evidence in early 2014. The concept for a new digital journal was announced at the 2014 EBVM Network Conference, and began with the mission statement of improving front-line clinical standards, funded initially by a donation from the RCVS.
In its first year Veterinary Evidence has published 58 papers which have been downloaded over 34,000 times by an international audience spanning 20 countries. It has also streamlined its submission process and added a range of new tools and resources. The tools include a downloadable submission template and a range of checklists and guidelines to help the practitioner conduct evidence-based medicine.
Looking to the future, the charity says that its website platform will be overhauled later in 2017, so practitioners can find articles quickly and implement their findings in practice.
RCVS Knowledge is now running a survey to find out what topics you'd like to see covered by Veterinary Evidence. All participants will entered into a draw for a new iPad.
Veterinary Evidence is also on the hunt for a new Editor-in-Chief, to move the journal into its next chapter. The Editor-in-Chief will have a passion for EBVM and engaging with the veterinary community and will help provide readers with the content they need. If you’re interested in applying for this role you can view the full job description here.
Changes to the registration procedure for veterinary surgeons, which are being put forward for approval by the Privy Council, have caused some concern in the profession.
Most contentious is the new requirement for veterinary surgeons to confirm their contact details annually, or face removal from the register.
Judging from the remarks in the VetSurgeon forums, many in the profession see this as just another example of bureaucratic-big-brother-pen-pushing-time-wasting (a perception that probably hasn't been helped by the RCVS stating that the change is driven by the need to meet EU Directive 2006/123/EC). Nor would Lynne Hill's remarks have done anything to calm the situation. She said: "If that [the requirement for vets to confirm their address once a year] is beyond the wit and the capability of supposed professional people that we expect to follow a guide to professional conduct, to act as professionals in everything that they do, then I really despair of this profession.
"I do not see anything wrong with the College asking people to confirm their address year in, year out when they make a payment. And if those people cannot be responsible for doing that then they deserve to go forward to be taken off the Register because, if they can't do that, God only knows what else they may well be doing in their professional lives!"
At face value, it's completely understandable why the new regulation was bound to get members' backs up. I mean, the threat of losing your license to practise because you didn't confirm something which hasn't changed anyway. It's a bit extreme isn't it?
The truth of the matter is probably a little more prosaic:
At present, many members pay registration fees by standing order, and may never have updated their contact details. You could argue that it is only right that the authority changed with regulating veterinary surgeons knows how to get hold of them. If a consequence of this is also that the RCVS is able to work more efficiently and cost-effectively (apart from anything else, it shouldn't have to spend so much time tracking down and chasing non-payers), then so much the better.
The new series comprises six online discussions taking place over the course of the spring, covering everything from diversity to creativity to identity.
The upcoming programme of events is as follows:
Tuesday 1st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: Celebrating diversityChaired by Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership & Inclusion Manager. Panel members Lacey Pitcher RVN, Dr Olivia Anderson-Nathan MRCVS and Samantha Payne RVN will be talking about what celebrating diversity means to people, exploring how this links to mental health, and sharing their thoughts on why – and how – the professions should be working towards greater inclusivity, both in and out of the workplace.
Monday 21st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: The joy of creativityThis discussion will look at why creativity is so important for people’s lives and how it can be used to support mental health and wellbeing with a panel comprising Dr Silvia Janksa MRCVS and Olivia Oginska MRCVS.
Tuesday 5th April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Overcoming self-doubt and stressing outThis discussion will consider the main causes of stress in the veterinary workforce and how this may have shifted throughout the pandemic. The discussion will encompass coping strategies, the ways in which stress can be channelled in a more constructive way, and overcoming feelings of self-doubt.
Thursday 21st April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Identity – who am I away from work?This discussion will consider to what extent veterinary professionals should let their careers define them, the importance of understanding oneself in and out of a work setting, and how people can learn to value, accept, and appreciate their whole selves.
Tuesday 3rd May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Saying goodbye…letting go and learning to growThis discussion will consider how best to cope with the various types of loss that may be encountered in an individual’s professional and personal life, and how to learn, adapt and grow from these losses.
Thursday 12th May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Tackling loneliness in a hyperconnected worldThis Campfire Chat will discuss why meaningful connection and having a sense of belonging matters, and how individuals and communities can tackle loneliness in a hyperconnected world.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: “We all lead busy professional and personal lives and sometimes it means that self-care, which includes talking to others about how we’re feeling and about issues that we find important to us, can fall by the wayside.
“Our Campfire Chats offer a perfect opportunity – and excuse – to take a bit of time out of your schedule to engage in a structured but informal discussion about all manner of subjects, expertly led by a chair and panel with experience, lived and otherwise, on the topic being talked about.
“These events are for the whole veterinary team, we keep the sessions very informal, and there is also the opportunity to share or ask questions of the panel.”
To sign up for the first session, visit https://bit.ly/3GnQK0G.
For further information about the events contact Abi Hanson, Mind Matters Initiative Officer, on a.hanson@rcvs.org.uk
The consultation invited members of the professions to explain how they currently understand and interpret Schedule 3 in practice, how it could be clarified and how it might be amended to bolster the veterinary nursing profession.
11,625 people responded to the consultation, the highest number that has ever responded to an RCVS consultation. 6,873 were veterinary nurses (around 35% of the profession and including 1,665 student veterinary nurses) and 4,752 were veterinary surgeons (around 21% of the profession).
The report on the consultation, which is published today by the Institute for Employment Studies, found that 92% of veterinary nurses and 71% of veterinary surgeons think veterinary nurses should be able to undertake additional areas of work.
However, neither vets nor nurses seem to have an especially good understanding of the current scope of Schedule 3 and how it applies in practice, rating their personal understanding at 5.6 and 6.7 out of 10 respectively.
When asked what prevented the full utilisation of veterinary nurses, the majority of both vet and vet nurse respondents highlighted a lack of understanding of what tasks can be delegated under Schedule 3, with around 60% of veterinary surgeons also admitting that they are not good at delegating.
61% of veterinary nurses and 50% of veterinary surgeons thought that the RCVS gives sufficient support and advice about Schedule 3, though the relatively poor level of understanding amongst veterinary surgeons in particular suggests more needs to be done.
In corresponding comments both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons said they would like more clarity, especially around 'grey areas' such as the meaning of the term 'minor surgery', as well as further communication from the College about Schedule 3 and for more training for veterinary nurses to ensure they have the competence and the confidence to carry out delegated procedures.
Liz Cox, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, said: "Thank you to all those who responded to the consultation in such large numbers and who shared their views on this topic. The consultation grew out of the government’s suggestion that we review Schedule 3 as a means of bolstering the VN profession, and from the VN Futures project last year, when Schedule 3 was identified as an area where there could be some additional work to clarify the rules around delegation to veterinary nurses.
"There was a clear consensus that veterinary nurses could do more in their role and under Schedule 3 and so we will be feeding the findings back to the RCVS Legislation Working Party, which will be looking, in the round, at possible changes to the framework of veterinary legislation, including how it applies to veterinary nurses and other paraprofessionals.
"In terms of the understanding of Schedule 3 and how it applies in practice it is clear that we need to do some further work to clarify the rules and develop guidance to assist both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons in exercising their professional judgement in respect to delegation, for example, through case studies and other examples."
Looking at the tasks currently performed by veterinary nurses, the survey found the five most commonly performed are: clinical cleaning (92%), administration of medicines by subcutaneous injection (91%), administration of medication (90%), monitoring of anaesthesia (86.5%) and administration of medicines by intramuscular injection (86%).
The consultation also found that the majority of veterinary nurses are involved in clinics aimed at educating animal owners on various different aspects of animal health and welfare. The most common include puppy/kitten care (66.5% of respondents), nutrition (65% of respondents), general check-ups (62.5% of respondents) and dental care clinics (57% of respondents).
Post-survey interviews with 10 veterinary nurses and 10 veterinary surgeons found a number of recurring themes, including: limited career paths for veterinary nurses; poor pay for VNs relative to their training and complexity of work; lack of recognition and appreciation for the VN role; enthusiasm for advanced practitioner and specialist status for VNs; and difficulty recruiting experienced VNs.
The College says the results of the consultation will now be considered by the RCVS Schedule 3 and Legislation Working Parties, which are reviewing the efficacy of the current Veterinary Surgeons Act and whether changes need to be made to bring the legislative framework for the profession up-to-date, including consideration of the part played by allied professions like veterinary nurses in the veterinary team.
The full report can be downloaded here.
There were ten candidates for the three available places.
6,087 veterinary surgeons voted, representing a 16.7% turnout.
This continued a decline seen since 2020, when there was a 26.2% turnout.
Alice McLeish scored 3,465 votes, Linda Belton 2,725 and Tim Hutchinson 1,571 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Congratulations to all our successful candidates in this year’s elections and thank you to all those who stood for election this year.
"We look forward to welcoming our successful candidates to their elected places at this year’s AGM.
“While the turnout for the VN Council election improved slightly on last year, it was a shame to see the turnout for vets fall again.
"As part of our wider Council culture project, we are looking at how to increase engagement with our election processes across the board, from candidate nominations, to how we present information about the candidates, to how we encourage greater election turnout.
"We will be consulting with the group set up to look specifically at this issue in due course to see how we can improve turnout going forward.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23.
All MsRCVS were set an email with a voting link and a unique voter code.
The College says it will be writing to the few vets for whom it has no unique email address with further instructions.
There are 14 candidates standing this year and you can now cast your votes for up to three of them by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2024.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the Annual General Meeting on Friday 5 July 2024.
Any vets who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com.
Kate (pictured right) was confirmed as the 150th RCVS President at the College’s 2021 Annual General Meeting, which took place last Friday. Kate’s investiture makes her the 10th female President of the RCVS and the first to lead an all-female presidential team with Senior Vice-President Mandisa Greene and Junior Vice-President Melissa Donald.
Kate has been an elected member of RCVS Council from 2015 to 2019 and then from 2020 onwards, and brings with her a bank of professional experience having worked in clinical farm practice, in the pharmaceutical industry and as a senior civil servant in non-veterinary roles, including as Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland.
She’s a graduate from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh and during her time on RCVS Council has chaired the Standards Committee and been a member of the Legislation Working Party. She currently chairs the Preliminary Investigation Committee /Disciplinary Committee Liaison Committee and sits on the Education Committee, Registration Committee, VN Council, Primary Qualifications Subcommittee and the Environmental & Sustainability Working Party.
During her first speech as RCVS President, Kate spoke about how experiences of loneliness early in her veterinary career, when she was working in rural farm vet practice, has led her to have a deep understanding of the importance of connection, something which has been reinforced by the coronavirus pandemic.
She said: “The Covid pandemic has demonstrated the value of connections for our mental health and wellbeing. Social distancing has spotlighted in fluorescent pinks, blues and greens the need for social connections. When hungry we eat, thirsty we drink, when we feel lonely we need to connect.
“And that starts with connecting with ourselves, nurturing our minds and bodies, building our sense of self and resilience. I am passionate about initiatives including the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and Vetlife that support our professions.
“Connections within the professions have been fundamental to my career, providing opportunities to collaborate, extend my knowledge and forge support networks. I look forward to building stronger connections with vets in the UK and abroad, including the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe. I’m so excited about the energy, new connections and networks springing up in the profession.
“I’ve worked in non-veterinary roles where I’ve had the opportunity to make new connections and share knowledge across professional disciplines.
“Pre-pandemic I attended a seminar on domestic violence. Speakers from social services said how hard it was to identify victims of domestic violence who were too scared to report. I informed the room about the Links Group, which works hard to raise awareness of the connection between the abuse of animals and people. Sadly, there are still silos, disconnections between well-meaning professionals. That proves to me the critical role of vets in human health and welfare by reporting animals they suspect of non-accidental injury.”
She concluded her speech (which is available to read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/features) by saying: “I am excited about my presidential year, thankful for my connections, my iceberg of support. I’m thankful for the wise counsel of past Presidents especially Mandisa Greene and Niall Connell. My priority is to encourage Connections that Count, making sure we look after ourselves so that we can build vibrant purposeful and powerful connections across ours and allied professions for the good of animal and human health and welfare, for our communities, society and the environment.
“My aim this year? To amplify and extend the reach of the veterinary voice.”
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he accepted the seriousness of its finding.
In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.
At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon, including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs). These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.
The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also taken as relevant in this regard.
The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer suffers from an alcohol problem.
Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his name being restored to the Register."
She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of particular importance that any member who has been removed should recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."
Sarah is a Professor of Veterinary Surgery at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, and leads the Nottingham Equine Colic Project, which works with organisations such as the British Horse Society to raise awareness of the condition.
Sarah's talk, 'Generating an evidence-based educational campaign on colic', will discuss new evidence from the project, and how it led to the REACT colic campaign. She will also be sharing experiences of how the campaign has worked and asking whether we can change people's attitudes and behaviours.
The evening starts at 6.15pm with food and refreshments with Sarah's talk starting at 7pm, after which there will be an update on the College’s latest projects and initiatives. That'll be followed by a question and answer session with senior officers and staff from the RCVS - including RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, and Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council Racheal Marshall.
Dr Connell said: "Thank you to Professor Freeman for agreeing to speak about the colic project which, through its Colic Awareness Week, is helping to raise knowledge of the early signs of colic amongst horse owners, allowing them to get their horses treated in good time and saving their lives.
"I also look forward to talking to members of the profession about some of the issues currently on their minds – the evening is very much led by what those who attend want to discuss – from mental health, to our under care review, to the Practice Standards Scheme. Attending the event can also count to up to three hours towards your continuing professional development (CPD) requirement."
The event is open to all members of the practice team including veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, practice managers and others. The event is free and places can be booked via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/nottingham.
In the afternoon before the event, between 12 noon and 5pm, the College will also be holding a series of free 45-minute Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) surgeries with PSS Lead Assessor Pam Mosedale.
The surgeries are open to both RCVS-accredited practices and those considering joining the Scheme and allows delegates to discuss the assessment process, how to apply for awards, how to meet particular requirements and any other questions they may have about the PSS.
Places at the surgeries are limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. They can be booked at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSsurgeries
The candidates for this year's RCVS Council election have been announced, many of whom will be coming to the VetSurgeon.org forums to lay out their stalls and explain why you should vote for them.
A record number of veterinary surgeons - 14 - are contesting six seats in the RCVS Council election. Veterinary surgeons may each vote for up to six candidates to fill these seats, which fall vacant as elected Council member's terms of office expire at the RCVS Annual General Meeting (6 July). In 2012, five existing Council members are seeking re-election, and nine new candidates are standing.
Of the 42 RCVS Council members, four are appointed by the Privy Council, 14 by the veterinary schools and 24 by direct election; each member serves a four year term. This year's candidates are:
Voting opens from Friday 9 March and all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote should receive their ballot papers shortly. Votes must be received by 5pm on 27 April 2012 and, as in previous years, can be cast online, by post, or by text message
New faces on the RCVS Council include Richard Stephenson, Charles Gruchy and Catherine Goldie. Dr Barry Johnson (first elected to Council in 1985) and Dr Christopher Chesney (first elected in 1996) have been voted on for further terms. Dr Robert Ellis, who has had three previous periods on Council, has been re-elected.
Figures produced by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons show that almost half of the first cohort of newly-qualified vets to sign up to the Professional Development Phase (PDP) have now completed it.
The PDP is a web-based database that enables new graduates to develop, and reflect on, their professional skills during their first year in clinical practice. Completing the PDP became a professional obligation for all newly-qualified vets from 2007 onwards. Of the 636 vets who graduated in 2007, 586 (92%) signed up to PDP and 290 have now completed. Of the 616 vets who graduated in 2008, 546 (88%) have so far registered for the PDP.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Undertaking PDP is a professional requirement for every newly-qualified vet working in clinical practice. The first vets to undertake PDP seem to be taking around 15 months from signing up to signing off. Properly completing PDP counts as the first year's CPD and we strongly recommend that this year's graduates sign up as soon as they have found their first clinical role."
The PDP is also open to any vet returning to practice.
To find out more about PDP requirements, log onto www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp, to enrol, email pdp@rcvs.org.uk.
The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.
32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.
Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists.
Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.
RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.
"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."
Following the announcement last month of the establishment of a Working Party to review Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) in the undergraduate veterinary degree, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comment from all those involved with organising, providing and receiving EMS.
Opinions are not being sought in response to a set of formal questions, but respondents may like to consider the strengths and weaknesses in the system; problems and possible solutions; and what should be retained and what could change.
Written comments should be sent to Freda Andrews, Head of Education at the RCVS, on education@rcvs.org.uk by 16 February 2009.
This call for input is the first of several phases of activity that will lead to the delivery of a report from the Working Party to the RCVS Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in October 2009. Following this initial information-gathering stage, some individuals and organisations will be invited to deliver their views in person to the Working Party during April.
Draft recommendations will then be formatted for any change to the current system, which requires that veterinary students undertake pre-clinical and clinical work experience placements for at least 38 weeks during their degree course. A further consultation process may follow, depending on the nature of the recommendations, before the paper is finalised.
Dr Barry Johnson, RCVS Council member and Chairman of the EMS Working Party said: "It is over 10 years since the RCVS undertook a major review of EMS, although the requirements and guidelines were revised and updated in 2005 to introduce more flexibility for universities to meet the individual learning needs of their students.
"In recent years, there have been significant changes in the UK higher education system, the veterinary curriculum and the organisation of veterinary schools, and the time is now right for a more substantial review."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
Dr Mostert admitted to his conviction but denied that it rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
He also admitted not disclosing his conviction to the RCVS but denied that it amounted to dishonesty or was misleading and that failing to do so amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee first considered whether Dr Mostert’s conviction affected the public interest, which included the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour for members of the profession.
The Committee noted that the conviction involved dishonesty relating to false statements about the value of goods sent to the USA.
The Committee felt that a conviction for a serious offence involving dishonesty would have a negative impact on public confidence in the profession, and that its reputation would be damaged if proper standards of conduct and behaviour were not upheld.
The Committee also noted that as the products that Dr Mostert imported into the USA were not labelled as coming from a foreign market and were not labelled as needing to be administered by a vet, his conviction also related to animal safety, as anyone who accessed the medications could believe that it was safe for them to be given to an animal.
The Committee then considered Dr Mostert’s failure to declare the conviction to the College on three separate occasions.
Dr Mostert testified that, at the time, he did not believe he had to disclose his conviction as it occurred in a country where he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon.
He also said he had not taken the time to read and interpret the application form accurately.
However, the Committee considered that the wording around convictions on the application and annual renewal forms is very clear and that, as a veterinary surgeon, Dr Mostert would be familiar with such documents.
The Committee considered that it was inconceivable that an experienced veterinary surgeon, making a declaration of this kind to his regulator, would not have understood that a serious conviction in the USA, dating from June 2017, was a conviction that he was obliged to disclose.
The Committee therefore found Dr Mostert’s failures to declare his conviction dishonest.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, noted that in deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the case did not involve any actual harm to an animal or human and that Dr Mostert had had a long and otherwise unblemished career.
However, a key aggravating factor was that the action that led to the conviction resulted in financial gain through the creation of a business enterprise and that Dr Mostert falsely declared the value of goods.
The extent of any financial gain was not known to the Committee, but the business operated on the basis that false declarations were repeatedly made.
Judith said: “After careful consideration the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances, a lengthy period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the case and satisfy the public interest. The Committee has decided that the appropriate length of suspension is one of 18 months.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Buttler was charged with having been under the influence of alcohol whilst at work on two separate occasions. On both occasions, she was working as a locum veterinary nurse.
The first occasion was between 25th and 28th April 2016 in Frome, and the second from 3rd July to 4th July 2016 in Salisbury.
It was also alleged that a prior conviction of drunk driving on 19th November 2013 rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee decided to hear the case in Ms Buttler’s absence as it was satisfied that she had properly been served with the notice of hearing and because she had stated that she was aware of the proceedings but did not wish to engage with the process. The Committee also noted that she had not requested any adjournment.
The Committee heard from five witnesses for the first charge, including three veterinary nurses and one veterinary surgeon. They gave testimony that they had had cause to suspect that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work due to her demeanour, and recalled Ms Buttler repeatedly retreating upstairs to her accommodation during the working day. Further, an open wine bottle was found in Ms Buttler’s accommodation and was observed to have been drunk during the course of her shift. The Committee found the first charge proved.
The Committee heard from four witnesses in respect of the second charge. Two of the witnesses stated that they smelt alcohol on Ms Buttler’s breath while she was on duty, with one of them stating that Ms Buttler had slurred speech and a flushed face at the end of a fourteen-hour shift. The other two witnesses also presented evidence to support the assertion that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work, while the Committee found that Ms Buttler lacked credibility because she had denied having any alcohol on the premises when originally confronted, but later admitted in an email to the College that she had had an open bottle of wine in her bag. The Committee found the second charge proved.
The Committee then considered the third charge, namely the conviction in 2013. The Committee considered the certificate of conviction obtained from the North East Devon Magistrates Court and was satisfied that Ms Buttler had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol as set out within charge 3.
When considering whether these all amounted to a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee was concerned about Ms Buttler showing no insight into her drinking, and the repeated nature of the offences. The Committee also considered that being under the influence of alcohol when working as a veterinary nurse was conduct which fell far short of the standards to be expected of members of the veterinary nursing profession.
It therefore concluded that Ms Buttler was guilty of disgraceful conduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Buttler’s conviction (charge 3) rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. The Committee concluded that Ms Buttler had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions in 2013, or learnt any lessons from it. Accordingly, it felt that she continued to pose a risk to animals and the public in the future. The Committee also felt that the conviction undermined the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession because the offence inevitably involved a risk of injury to herself and other road users.
Having found Ms Buttler guilty of misconduct, the Committee went on to consider sanction.
The Committee took into account aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to an animal, the fact that the first two charges involved an element of premeditation, the fact that Ms Buttler was under the influence on more than one shift in each practice, that there is no evidence of insight from Ms Buttler and there is a future risk to animals if she continued to practice unrestricted.
They also considered mitigating factors, including the fact that this is the first disciplinary hearing she has faced, that she did not cause any harm to any animal and that she did not gain financially from her conduct.
In reaching its decision Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Ms Buttler said she had worked for twenty years without any problem and that she was previously of good character. However because there was no evidence that Ms Buttler would not repeat the conduct with regards to working whilst under the influence of alcohol she could continue to pose a risk to animals or the public in the future. The Committee therefore was bound to consider her removal from the register.
"Although it noted from the brief email correspondence Ms Buttler had sent to the College that she said she did not intend to practice in the future, the Committee decided that until she had shown insight into her behaviour in 2016, she remained a risk to animals. It therefore decided that the proportionate action was to instruct the Registrar to remove her name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith."
If Ms Buttler chose to re-engage with the College, she could apply for restoration to the register after ten months.
The follow up service ‘can be provided personally by the veterinary surgeon or practice, or by written agreement with a veterinary services provider which is local to the client (as with the current situation for [out-of-hours] care provision)’.
The new rule comes into force on the 1st November, to allow practices to make any necessary arrangements.
The RCVS Council also decided that the temporary derogation from the usual requirement to conduct a physical examination before an animal is regarded as ‘under care’ be reviewed as a standing item at each subsequent Standards Committee meeting, until the normal guidance provisions are fully restored.
Mandisa qualified from the Royal (Dick) Vet School in Edinburgh in 2008 and has since spent much of her career working in emergency and critical care.
She served as the first black president of the RCVS in 2020/21 and has also worked for Harper Adams University as a lecturer in veterinary sciences.
Mandisa will replace Laura Playforth, who is joining IVC Evidensia as group QI director, on the Vets Now board.
She said: “I’m delighted to be joining the Vets Now family at such an interesting and challenging time for the veterinary professions.
“I look forward to working together through innovative approaches to ensure our teams continue to deliver the highest standards of clinical care and client services.”