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.”
RCVS Council had introduced temporary guidance allowing the remote prescription of drugs for animals not under care back in March, to ensure that animal health and welfare could be maintained during lockdown without risking the health of veterinary teams or their clients.
Since then, the College has twice extended this guidance, because of the ongoing situation.
However the College says it now recognises that many practices are returning more to 'business as usual' and that the guidance and associated flowchart should be updated according.
Consequently, before deciding to prescribe POM-Vs remotely, the updated guidance now requires veterinary surgeons to first consider whether the animal is already under their care; or, if not, whether it is possible to physically examine the animal in order to bring the animal under their care. If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, POM-Vs may still be prescribed remotely providing the guidelines set out in the College’s coronavirus advice hub are adhered to.
Surprisingly, the College says that its surveys of the profession have thus far identified no immediate safety concerns around remote prescribing.
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “The reason for maintaining the possibility of remote prescribing without a physical examination was that we recognised that the current situation is unpredictable, and while the ability for the public to visit practices in person has improved over the last few months, we felt that situations might still arise where that would not be possible, and where access to remote prescribing would be necessary. These could include further local lockdowns, ongoing quarantine arrangements, and the remaining fact that some members of both the veterinary team and the public continue to shield.
“It remains our intention that this guidance will continue to be a temporary measure and may be subject to further extensions or updates given the uncertain nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
RCVS Council will review the position on 8 October, with any changes being effective by 1 November at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the RCVS review of ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover has now resumed, starting with a number of virtual focus groups and consultation with stakeholders within the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
The findings from these focus group discussions will then inform a wider survey to be sent to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in early 2021, along with stakeholder organisations and the animal-owning public. Remote prescribing will continue to form a part of this review.
The introduction of the new Level 3 Diploma in Veterinary Nursing has seen an increase in numbers of both students and training practices, according to statistics released today by the RCVS.
Since January, the RCVS has approved over 30 more Training and Auxiliary Training Practices, bringing to a total of 1,559 the number of practices approved for veterinary nurse (VN) training. Scope for practices to train student VNs is increased through the emphasis on Auxiliary Training Practices (aTPs), an option for practices without the full facilities or caseload needed for student training. Students at aTPs complete their in-practice training at other aTPs or full Training Practices. Of the 31 new practices approved since January for student training, eight are aTPs.
The number of VN students enrolling with the RCVS has also increased, with almost double the number enrolling in January 2011, compared with January 2010. There were a total of 1,168 student enrolments in the 12 months from 1 February 2010, compared with 1,121 enrolments in the same period from 1 February 2009.
Libby Earle, Head of the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Department said: "The Level 3 Diploma has been in place for little more than six months, yet VN student numbers are already up. This bodes well for the supply of qualified, competent registered veterinary nurses demanded by veterinary practices, and for those keen to enter the veterinary nursing profession."
The qualification was introduced when the government abolished the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) system last summer, forcing a change in the vocational qualifications for VNs. The resulting Level 3 Diploma is designed to better meet the needs of practices, colleges, and students themselves.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has produced bookmarks for accredited practices to give clients, which explain the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS).
Lizzie Lockett, Head of the RCVS Communications Department said: "A key part of the PSS is helping practices explain their accreditation to clients - and the bookmarks are a simple and eye-catching promotional tool for this. We hope they will have the advantage over conventional leaflets of being kept, and used, by clients, meaning the accredited-practice message is more likely to be taken on board. Although many people are using e-books these days, the traditional book - and bookmark - still has a place."
All accredited practices may order a free sample of 100 bookmarks, and a further 400 free bookmarks are available to practices recently renewing or receiving accreditation. More bookmarks may also be ordered from the RCVS, as well as the new accredited-practice logos. To find out more, or download an order form, practices can visit www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSpromo.
RCVS Council recommended the increase due to inflationary pressures and increased business costs.
Dr Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS, RCVS Treasurer, said: “We recognise that these are difficult economic times, so Council has endeavoured to limit the fee increase as far as possible; however, in proposing these new fees, Council has had to take account both of increased costs due to inflation, and of additional costs related to ensuring we are fulfilling our regulatory remit to the best of our abilities and meeting our strategic priorities.
“For example, increased costs related to the additional number of veterinary degrees coming on stream, modernising our membership database, our Charter Case Committee, the trial of our private prosecutions protocol against non-vets breaching the Veterinary Surgeons Act, and much more besides.”
Vets need to pay their annual renewal this year by 1st April.
Anyone who hasn't paid by 1st May will face a late payment charge of £35.
Anyone who hasn't paid by 1st June risks removal from the Register.
As part of the annual renewal process, vets also need to confirm their registration and contact details, declare any convictions and declare they are compliant with the College’s requirements for continuing professional development (CPD).
Anyone who expects to encounter any difficulties in paying their fees is asked to contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0722.
Melissa graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1987 and, after working as a food animal intern at Iowa State University in the United States for a stint, in 1990 joined a two-person traditional mixed-animal veterinary practice on the Ayrshire coast. Over the next 25 years she developed it into a 4.5 person small-animal practice with a focus on dentistry, before moving away from clinical work in 2015.
Melissa was first elected to Council in 2016 and re-elected in 2020 and, since joining, has sat on a number of committees including the Education Committee, Finance & Resources Committee, and Preliminary Investigation Committee/Disciplinary Committee Liaison Committee. Since 2019 she has chaired the Standards Committee where she has led the Review of ‘Under Care’ and Out-of-Hours Emergency Cover and also chairs the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice Subcommittee.
As well as her work with RCVS she has also been President of the British Veterinary Association’s Scottish Branch and is currently a Non-Executive Director of the Red Tractor Assured Food Standards Scheme and a Trustee of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Outside of work, she enjoys running, swimming, cooking, reading and hopes to have the patience one day to write children’s books.
Melissa said: “I’m delighted and humbled to have been voted in as JVP from July. Thank you to my peers on Council and, as with everything I have done in my career, you, the profession, will see me put all my energy and commitment into the role.
"Themes that I'm keen to develop as a member of the RCVS Officer Team will be: communication, as that can always be improved; community, including within the profession, within the workplace and within the society in which you live; and continuing with the ‘blame culture’ theme originally set out in Chris Tufnell's presidency by looking into how we can use veterinary human factors to improve patient safety."
Other appointments that were confirmed by election at the same meeting of Council was Dr Niall Connell MRCVS as RCVS Treasurer, a role he will take up at the July AGM after completing his year as Senior Vice-President.
Niall: “It is a tremendous honour for me to be elected Treasurer. The RCVS has an exciting strategy which I am looking forward to playing my part in ensuring we remain on a sound financial footing, supporting projects within the RCVS Strategic Plan and continuing to play a wider role within the RCVS Officer Team.”
In terms of committee chairs, Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS was reconfirmed as Chair of the Education Committee, Dr Melissa Donald was reconfirmed as Chair of the Standards Committee and current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS was elected as Chair of the Advancement of the Professions Committee, replacing Professor David Argyle in that post from July 2021.
Following Professor Argyle stepping down as Junior Vice-President earlier in March 2021, an election to replace him as Junior Vice-President for the remainder of the presidential year will take place in April 2021. Subject to the usual approval from Council, this person will take up the position of RCVS President 2021-22 following the AGM in July.
Generally, veterinary practices may remain open, but there are national variations in what services should be offered and how, including the conditions under which remote prescribing can be used to help support a case.
Wales currently has the tightest ‘firebreak’ restrictions, meaning practices can only provide essential and urgent work until midnight on 8 November 2020, thereafter, returning to usual operations in line with Wales’ standard measures around workplace safety.
England and Northern Ireland are under national restrictions (4 Nov – 2 Dec, and 16 Oct – 12 Nov, respectively), meaning practices can provide treatment essential for maintaining animal health and welfare, along with non-urgent work providing that social distancing measures and safe working can be maintained.
Veterinary surgeons practising in these three countries may also choose to support a case remotely at an earlier stage, for example, through the remote prescribing of POM-Vs without first having conducted a physical examination.
Scotland remains the only country under regional tiered restrictions, meaning practices can continue to provide treatment whilst maintaining social distancing; however, before remote prescribing is offered, veterinary surgeons should first consider whether the animal can be brought under their care.
The full guidance and corresponding flowcharts should be consulted together and are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq2and www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4.
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s election, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr "Not Again" Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
At the time of writing, the College is still waiting for the Legislative Reform Order (LRO) concerning its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, to be approved.
Under current arrangements six candidates will be elected to RCVS Council – however, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places on Council.
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 12 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Once again this year the College is inviting veterinary surgeons to email a question for the candidates to vetvote18@rcvs.org.uk or tweet it using the hashtag #vetvote18 by midday on Monday 26 February.
Each candidate will then be asked to answer two questions 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.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said:"After last year’s record turnout in the RCVS Council elections we are continuing to work with Electoral Reform Services (ERS) to make it easier for members to vote for their preferred candidates.
"While the traditional paper ballot papers and booklets will be posted as usual, ERS will once again send personalised emails linking members to their unique secure voting website and then send regular reminders to those who haven’t yet had the chance have their say."
Dr Henry faced one charge, that in January 2020 she wrote and/or signed an undated letter confirming that a ewe had died in transit to the surgery due to dystocia and peri-parturient stress, when in fact she had euthanised the animal at the veterinary practice the day before. The letter, which was addressed 'To whom it may concern’, was on practice letterheaded paper and signed "Louise Henry MRCVS".
The second part of the charge outlined that her conduct concerning the letter was dishonest.
The Committee heard that the ewe was lambing and brought to the practice by a client. Dr Henry was on-call at the time and advised a Caesarean section. The client agreed and Dr Henry delivered two live lambs and one dead lamb.
Dr Henry was concerned about the welfare of the ewe post-surgery because of the risk of peritonitis and advised that the ewe should be euthanised.
The client agreed to the ewe being euthanised and then asked Dr Henry to write a letter in which it was stated that the ewe had died in transit on route to the practice. Dr Henry agreed to write the letter in which she falsely certified that the ewe had died in transit.
The letter came to light when the practice director found it in an insurance file. The practice arranged an investigatory meeting with Dr Henry where she admitted that writing the letter was an error of judgement. When asked about her conduct, Dr Henry explained that the client had subsequently been dissatisfied with the letter she had written and asked her to change it. She refused to amend the letter and told him that it was wrong of her to have written it in the first place and that she regretted having done so.
Dr Henry told the Committee that she valued integrity very highly and that she was deeply ashamed that she had been prepared to write the dishonest letter.
The Committee heard several testimonials from people who had worked with or studied alongside Dr Henry, who all attested to her skill as a veterinary surgeon and that they had no concerns about her integrity and honesty. She self-reported her actions from January to the RCVS and from the outset admitted the facts of the charge. During the hearing, Dr Henry submitted that her action of dishonest false certification amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that, in this case, the aggravating features were limited and the mitigating factors extensive. There was no premeditated dishonesty or financial gain involved, there was no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal or human and this was a single incident in an otherwise unblemished 13-year career. The Committee found that the shame and remorse expressed by Dr Henry were entirely genuine. Her conduct on this occasion was entirely untypical of her practise.
“After careful consideration, the Committee concluded that the substantial mitigating features permitted it to take the somewhat unusual course of issuing a reprimand in a case involving dishonesty. In taking this course, the Committee attached significant weight not only to the isolated nature of the event but also to the genuine insight shown by Dr Henry and the lasting impact this event has had upon her. In the Committee’s assessment, a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would, in this particular case, regard a reprimand as a sanction which protected the public interest in the profession and upheld its standards.”
The full documentation for the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.
After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.
The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”
“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”
Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”
“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The College was ranked seventh in the medium-sized company or organisation category (50 to 449 employees) of the Best Workplaces for Women initiative.
This year is the first that the Great Place to Work Institute has run this initiative and, in making its rankings, it looked at a number of factors including the number and proportion of women in leadership positions, pay parity between men and women, workplace policies and how they support female employees, as well as training and development and mentoring.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted that the RCVS has been recognised for being an excellent and supportive place for women to work and pleased that the hard work of the team at Belgravia House in this area has been publicly rewarded in this way.
"One of the key themes of my Presidential year is diversity and I think it is very important that, as a regulator, we reflect the veterinary profession (which is currently 63% female for veterinary surgeons and 98% female for veterinary nurses) as far as possible. With two-thirds of the staff at the RCVS being women it demonstrates that the College is largely reflective of the profession it serves.
"However, it’s not just about the numbers and with 60% of the Senior Team at the RCVS being women, including the CEO and Registrar, it demonstrates that the College has developed a culture in which women can shatter the glass ceiling and pursue leadership roles.
"Also, with policies such as flexible working hours, encouragement of home working, shared parental leave and enhanced maternity and paternity pay, the College goes the extra mile to support working parents."
The RCVS has launched an online petition calling on Parliament to protect the title ‘veterinary nurse’ in law.
The petition follows on from the work done by the College earlier in the year, drawing up the ‘Veterinary Nurse (Protection of Title) Bill’ which was submitted to a ballot of the House of Lords in May by former RCVS President and Council member Professor the Lord Trees and received its first reading on 10 June.
Unfortunately, Lord Trees' Bill was drawn low in the ballot, so it is now thought unlikely - though not impossible - that it will be given time for a second reading in this parliament.
Nevertheless, the College is continuing to try and raise awareness of the issue, both amongst the public and parliamentarians. If the petition gains enough signatures, it should maximise the chances of the Bill being given a proper airing in parliament, this year or in the future.
Liz Cox, the Chair of VN Council, said: “We believe that the fact that anybody can call themselves a veterinary nurse is unacceptable. It means that there is potential for the public to be misled and for animal health and welfare to be compromised. Therefore we would urge veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and animal owners to sign this petition. With 10,000 signatures the Government is obliged to respond formally and take a stance on the issue; with 100,000 signatures the issue would be considered for a formal parliamentary debate.
“If we are successful with this campaign, the public will be assured that they are receiving the highest standard of nursing care for their animals from a genuine professional and by protecting the title we can remove any doubt about who is a veterinary nurse.”
In conjunction with the petition, the RCVS has also produced a template letter which the profession and public can use to write to their local Member of Parliament asking them to support the campaign. For example, the letter asks the MP to adopt the Veterinary Nurse (Protection of Title) Bill and enter it into a Private Members’ Bill ballot or introduce it as a 10-Minute Rule Bill.
The petition, and the campaign in general, has received support from the BVNA and the British Veterinary Association BVA.
Fiona Andrew, President of the BVNA, said: “BVNA has campaigned for the protection of the title of 'Veterinary Nurse' for many years. We are delighted that the RCVS is continuing the campaign with the addition of the online petition and letter template.
“We would ask all out members to sign the petition and write to their MP. We believe that this is an important step towards giving clarity and reassurance to the public, strengthening the profession and raising awareness of what veterinary nurses can do and enhancing animal welfare.”
John Blackwell, President of the BVA, added: “BVA is delighted to support the campaign to protect the title, as veterinary nurses are an essential part of the veterinary team and deserve full recognition for their roles. By protecting the title it not only recognises the skills of qualified veterinary nurses, but also gives clients confidence that their animals are receiving the highest standard of care possible.” Those who wish to sign the petition can do so on the UK Government and Parliament petition website https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106153 To find out more about the campaign, download a template letter to an MP and view the College's animated video about protecting the title, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/vntitle
The College has kicked off with questions and answers about the right to work in the UK and the impact on those currently studying to become a veterinary surgeon or planning to do so.
Although it's not yet possible to give definitive answers and there will doubtless be many more questions, the College says it will be keeping the new page updated as the situation unfolds.
The Q&A page can be found here: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-rcvs-register/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-impact-of-the-eu-referendum/
The RCVS has announced a number of senior staff changes.
Gordon Hockey has been ratified by Council as Head of Legal Services and Registrar. This is a new role created when the post of Registrar and Secretary was split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary; and Head of Legal Services and Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Assistant Registrar/Head of Professional Conduct, and then Acting Registrar, will have oversight responsibility for registration and professional conduct.
At the same time, Eleanor Ferguson, formerly Acting Head of Professional Conduct, has been confirmed in the position.
The post of Head of Registration has been made redundant, with a new role of Customer Experience Manager created to ensure that the customer (public and profession) journey improves across the organisation. This position will also report into Gordon Hockey.
There have been other changes on the Senior Team at the College. The post of Head of Corporate Services that had been vacant since the departure of Richard Holford last December will not be filled, and Head of Finance Corrie McCann has been promoted to the new role of Head of Operations, which will incorporate finance, corporate services (IT, mailing, reception) and facilities.
Two other posts have been made redundant: Special Projects Manager and RCVS Charitable Trust Director. A new post of Executive Director for the Trust will be developed, with a view to taking the Trust through a full strategic review.
Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "I believe that an engaged and well-purposed team of staff, with a focus on customer service and driving improvements, lies at the heart of any successful organisation. These changes will enable the College to move into the next stage of its development towards becoming a first-rate regulator."
The changes will mean that the Senior Team is reduced from 11 people to seven, being the Chief Executive plus Heads of Legal Services, Operations, Human Resources, Education, Veterinary Nursing and Communications.
Dr De Armas Jimenez faced four charges against him, that:
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, in relation to a cat, he a) failed to obtain informed consent to sedate/anaesthetise the cat and/or did so without the owner’s consent (admitted), b) failed to take adequate steps when the cat required emergency attention (admitted), and c) failed to provide adequate details to the owner following the cat’s death (admitted).
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, he a) failed to record adequate clinical record details of the cat’s sedation/anaesthetic (admitted), b) recorded when the cat became cyanotic, that i) a tube had been passed in order to intubate (proved not to have occured) and ii) chest compressions had been given when this was not the case (not proved that it did not happen), and c) failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to differential diagnoses and proposed treatment plan (not proved).
That his conduct in relation to charge 2(a) and/or 2(b) was a) dishonest and/or b) misleading. (Admitted his conduct was both dishonest and misleading in relation to 2(a), and the Committee found proved that his conduct was dishonest and/or misleading in relation to 2(b)(i)).
Between 22 April 2022 and 23 April 2022, he failed to have any professional indemnity insurance in place (admitted).
Dr De Armas Jimenez admitted most of the charges again him.
The Committee found that his actions had breached a number of sections of the RCVS Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that Dr De Armas Jimenez had caused actual harm to the animal.
Mitigating factors included that he had no previous disciplinary history, that he had been working for eight years as a veterinary surgeon in the UK without complaint, that he admitted most of the charges, that he'd made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition by no longer working night shifts or locuming, and finally that the incident related to one animal.
The Committee also noted that he'd shown appreciable insight and remorse, and took into account positive character references.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Whilst the misconduct in this case involved breaches of the RCVS Code, caused serious harm to both the cat and the client, and involved dishonesty which was concealed, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension could take account of the seriousness of these matters and meet the wider public interest.”
He added: “In deciding on this period of suspension, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors and the mitigation Dr De Armas Jimenez had put before it.
"It was not persuaded that a shorter period of suspension would properly reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct.
"It concluded that this period of suspension had a deterrent effect and sent a signal as to how serious the Committee had found the misconduct to be.
"It also took into account Dr De Armas Jimenez’s remorse and insight.
“However, in order that the wider public interest was upheld and to reflect the Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the Committee determined that the proportionate sanction and period of suspension should be a suspension order of eight months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The RCVS Officers will be heading to Somerset, home ground of President Bob Moore, on Thursday 22 May for RCVS Question Time.
The Shrubbery Hotel in Ilminster is the venue for the final Regional Question Time of Bob Moore’s Presidential year, where he looks forward to seeing lots of familiar faces for a lively debate.
Veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and others involved in the profession are all welcome to attend the meeting, which kicks off at 6:30pm with a relaxing drink, a bite to eat and a chance to catch up with colleagues, followed by Question Time at 7:15pm. The meeting will finish at approximately 10:00pm.
Bob Moore will be chairing the meeting and the panel will be made up of the Officer team and Veterinary Nurses Council Chairman Andrea Jeffery, who will be answering your questions and concerns regarding the veterinary profession.
Hot topics expected to be raised on the night include the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, a new Veterinary Surgeons Act, RCVS modular certificate, 24-hour cover, the Professional Development Phase and the non-statutory Register for veterinary nurses.
To book your place contact Fiona Clark at the RCVS on 020 7202 0773 or f.clark@rcvs.org.uk before 9 May 2008, or download an invitation at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/ and post it to the address supplied. All veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses living within reasonable travelling distance of the meeting venue will be sent a personal invitation.
If you are unable to attend the meeting, but have a question you would like to raise, please do write in.
The College says the consultation, which closes on 22nd December, reflects its commitment to keep reviewing its requirements for newly-qualified VNs to ensure they remain up-to-date and reflect the standards and expectations of current veterinary nursing practice.
Participants will be asked to comment on a proposed new set of requirements, which is divided into three parts:
Day One Competences: the minimum essential competences that the RCVS expects all student veterinary nurses to have met when they register, to ensure that they are safe to practise on day one.
Day One Skills Lists: the essential clinical skills that veterinary nurses are expected to possess on entering clinical practice.
Professional behaviours and attributes: this encompasses the behaviours newly-qualified veterinary nurses are expected to demonstrate on entering the profession.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing (pictured right), said: “With this consultation we want to gain an effective representation of what the professions desire from future RVNs in term of their range of skills and knowledge and professional behaviours from their first day in clinical practice.
"Any feedback we receive on the proposed new requirements will be vital in helping to ensure that student vet nurses receive the appropriate education and training, and that our RVNs are fully prepared and armed with what is necessary to thrive in and add value to current veterinary clinical practice.
Once the consultation is complete, the responses will be reported to the working group, which will then have a final opportunity to amend and agree the proposals, before being submitted to VN Council for consideration.
The aim is that VN Council will agree to the new version of the requirements in its February 2022 meeting.
The deadline for completing the consultation is 5pm on Wednesday 22 December 2021. A PDF document with the proposed new requirements as well as the link to the online survey can be accessed from www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone.
To take part, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone
The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has approved a new Health Protocol, which formalises a more compassionate approach to veterinary surgeons with health problems.
The Protocol will allow - in appropriate circumstances - veterinary surgeons (and, from next year, registered veterinary nurses) who suffer from health concerns affecting their ability to practise safely, to have the matter dealt with confidentially, without going to a full public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
It will allow individuals to access appropriate support and help away from the public spotlight, while ensuring that they do not put animals or the public at risk.
According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the College to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.
The draft Protocol was the subject of consultation amongst the profession and the public over summer. Proposed amendments to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, to support the introduction of the Health Protocol, were also approved in the November meeting.
RCVS Head of Professional Conduct, Gordon Hockey said: "The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable.
"Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected."
Mr Ng faced seven charges:
Mr Ng admitted some aspects of the charges against him, including that he had deleted two patient records and that this was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee then determined the facts of the rest of the charges after hearing evidence from witnesses and Mr Ng himself, as well as expert witnesses.
Having considered all the evidence, it determined which elements of the charges were proved, and which were not.
The Committee then considered whether the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it considered that the charges against Mr Ng fell into three broad categories – deficiencies in clinical care, deficiencies in record keeping, and dishonesty.
In respect of all three, it found the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct had directly caused harm to animals and also created risk of further harm, and noted that there were three instances of dishonesty.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that there were three instances of dishonest behaviour in relation to clinical records.
"The amendment of the clinical record in the labradoodle’s case was particularly serious.
"This alteration was made at a time when the respondent knew that the owner was dissatisfied with the treatment the dog had received and was complaining about the lack of therapeutic intervention.
"The alteration presented a false account of the owner’s attitude towards immediate therapeutic intervention.
"Conduct of this kind was liable to damage trust in the profession.”
In mitigation, the Committee took into account the sense of pressure Mr Ng felt following a financial dispute with his relative in respect of the veterinary practice, his long career as a veterinary surgeon and the high regard with which he was held by those who provided testimonials on his behalf.
The Committee acknowledged Mr Ng’s assertions that he now understood his failings and his expressions of remorse for the harm he had caused and that these indicated the beginnings of insight.
However, in respect of the clinical deficiencies, the Committee found that various aspects of Mr Ng’s approach to treating conditions such as diabetes and cherry eye were inadequate and out-of-date, and that there was little in his continuing professional development (CPD) record or his statements to suggest he had attempted to improve these deficiencies.
Ultimately, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct was so serious that removal from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee has concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"In view of the nature and gravity of the Committee’s findings in this case, removal from the Register is necessary to ensure the protection of animals and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS first appeared before the Committee in January 2018 to face a number of charges related to two drink-driving offences, breaching the terms of her undertakings to the College as part of its Health Protocol, and being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016.
Dr Davies admitted all five charges against her and admitted that this meant she was unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
At its first hearing the Committee having considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances decided to postpone the hearing for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into a new set of undertakings, including one not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement.
At the second hearing, in July 2018, the Disciplinary Committee resumed its sanction inquiry decision. Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that Dr Davies wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed her witness statements, documentary proof and medical records that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with the her undertakings given at the last hearing.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Having had the opportunity to see and hear from the respondent when she gave evidence and when she answered the questions put to her, the view formed of her current state of health was favourable. All members of the Committee considered that the account she gave of herself in the witness box was confident and they were reassured by her evidence as to how she now sets about managing her levels of stress and how she reacted to stressful incidents.
"Such concerns as the Committee had about her return to practice concerned her ability to receive support from a third party who would act as a mentor…the Committee therefore requires the Respondent to identify, within a period of one month of today’s date, a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor. That mentor would have to be a veterinary surgeon acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity and that mentor would have to be approved before the Respondent could resume practice.
"A further requirement of the Committee would be that the Respondent should make a disclosure to any new employer of the fact of her appearances before this Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions of the Committee in relation to both such hearings. The final requirement of the Committee in this respect is that the respondent should not accept a 'sole charge position' at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction."
The Committee directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust is looking for a vet with a particular interest in veterinary education, professional development and research, to be a new trustee.
The RCVS Trust is an independent small charity that provides two key services to the veterinary profession to further education and animal welfare: an educational grants programme and a Library and Information Service. It is seeking a trustee who can bring new contacts and ideas relevant to the work of the Trust.
The Trust is also seeking further 'lay' trustees with experience of library services, fundraising and grant-making.
The current Board members have a wide range of experience from academia, government, animal health and small and large animal practice, and veterinary nursing. However, there is room for some new Trustees to join and bring the Board up to full strength.
Stephen Ware, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, said: "The Trust has an important role in supporting practising vets, veterinary nurses, researchers, students and academics through its grants programmes and library and information resources."
"We are looking for a veterinary surgeon who is actively involved in the wider profession through networks and specialist interest groups, and who is willing to promote the work of the Trust, for example, at veterinary congresses. Given the nature of the Trust's work, the new trustee should also have experience of postgraduate education or research.
"We need someone who has the energy and experience to get things done - and who can work with other trustees in a collegiate style."
Trustees serve an initial three-year term, spending around six days a year at meetings in London and conferences. Reasonable expenses are reimbursed. Experience of charity governance and finance is not necessary as training and support will be given.
Those interested in the role can contact Cherry Bushell, Director of the RCVS Trust, for an informal discussion and an application form. The closing date for applications is 30 April.