The Royal College is inviting veterinary surgeons to the first-ever Virtual Question Time, which is being held online with The Webinar Vet, from 8-9.30pm on Wednesday 24 April.

Lizzie Lockett, Head of the RCVS Communications Department said: "This is an ideal opportunity to put your burning questions to members of the RCVS Officer team and to VN Council. Our regular Question Time meetings are popular, so we are following their format by asking delegates to set the agenda via their choice of questions. This time there is the extra advantage that busy vets and nurses can take part from the comfort of their own homes. If the Virtual Question Time proves successful, we may hold these events regularly."

The meeting will be run as a free, live-audio webinar. RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux will open proceedings, and introduce the panel, before answering questions from the participants.

Questions may be put to the College in advance and can also be submitted as discussion unfolds on the night. These can be on any issues affecting the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions - there is no set agenda - and might range from the First Rate Regulator initiative, new vet schools, veterinary nurse training and clinical governance, to proposed changes to the Practice Standards Scheme and recent amendments to the Veterinary Surgeons Act.

The session will also be recorded so those unable to attend on the night can still listen afterwards.

The meeting can be counted towards continuing professional development for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Registrations and questions can be submitted online at http://thewebinarvet.com/rcvs/#.

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative has published A Guide to Enhancing Wellbeing and Managing Work Stress in the Veterinary Workplace.

Written in association with Dr Elinor O’Connor, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Psychology at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, the guide is designed for anyone with an interest in the wellbeing of the veterinary team. It provides practical advice to veterinary workplaces on managing stress and promoting wellbeing, alongside examples from the three winning practices of the 2016 MMI/SPVS Wellbeing Awards.

Elinor said: "Addressing stress in veterinary work not only has benefits for the health and wellbeing of each person in the veterinary team, but the business case for reducing work-related stress is clear; stress is associated with poorer performance, increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover. The wellbeing guide provides information about proven techniques for reducing stress at work combined with suggestions for how they might be applied in veterinary workplaces."

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "Stress at work is an important issue right across the veterinary team. It is sometimes considered just an acceptable part of working in an environment that can be difficult to control, but things can change.

"By making wellbeing a priority practices can support individuals and help their team work better together, and thus provide the best treatment for the animals under their care. This leaflet unpacks some of the root causes of work-related stress and may be of particular interest to practice managers, line managers or health and safety officers."

Good to see that the guide includes a recommendation that practices have measures in place to identify and resolve conflict at work and a clear policy on harassment or bullying, something which research by VetSurgeon.org, VetNurse.co.uk and ex-BSAVA Head of Scientific Policy, Sally Everitt MRCVS found correlated with reduced reports of sustained unpleasant behaviour in practice, a significant source of stress.

The guide can be downloaded here: https://www.vetmindmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MMI-12pp-web.pdf.

The RCVS has published an inspiring talk about the future of digital veterinary practice given by Dr Adam Little, DVM, President of Exponential Vet Inc., at this year's RCVS Open Day.

In his talk, 'Digital Veterinary Practice', Adam presents an exciting and compelling vision as to how technology will transform the profession and enable veterinary surgeons to offer better care to more patients. 

His talk begins with an interesting look at how technological change has gathered pace in recent years, before considering some of the emerging technologies that could be applied to veterinary practice.

In particular, he talked about the so-called 'Internet of things': the way more and more 'things' other than computers are connected to the Internet.

There are now about 9bn 'things' connected to the internet, by 2020 there are expected to be 50bn. Adam predicted that more and more of them are going to be worn by animals: to measure reproductive health in farm animals; to track performance in equines; and to monitor behaviour and activity in companion animals.

Adam discussed how there is already a smart litter box which measures an animal’s habits, an oral pill camera that can take 360 degree internal photos, 3D printed drugs and digitised microscopy. By uniting these technologies with increasingly accurate virtual reality technology, he said, long-distance examinations could become a real possibility.

In relation to the role of the RCVS, Adam explored how the profession could be proactive in engaging with these technologies, such as by: using regulation as a mechanism to attract 'disruptors' to work alongside the profession; identifying areas of retraining and creating targeted learning opportunities; fostering an entrepreneurial mindset; creating an early-adopter network of practices to foster initial collaboration; and framing industry challenges as targeted problems whose solutions can be crowd-sourced.

A one-day seminar entitled ‘One World, One Disease,’ will take place at the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM), Wimpole Street, London, on 24 June 2008.

The event, which has been jointly organised by the RSM and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), will examine some of the effects of climate change on patterns of animal health and the impact of this on humans. The meeting will provide an understanding of the complexity of the global changes that we face, and will work towards the integrated approach needed to manage the serious problems that threaten animal and human health.

About two-thirds of new infectious diseases that threaten humans come from animals. With global climate change, this looks set to increase. Now more than ever, it is important that veterinary and medical colleagues come together to discuss disease control strategies.

Speakers will include RCVS Senior Vice-President Professor Sheila Crispin, who has been instrumental in organising the conference, Caroline Lucas MEP, Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, the RVC’s Professor Quintin McKellar and Lt Col Tim Brookes from the Health Protection Agency, among others.

All are welcome. Tickets are available from the Royal Society of Medicine online at http://www.rsm.ac.uk/academ/e10-oneworld.php

Following the outcry from the profession over the disciplinary hearing into Mr M Chikosi, the RCVS' new Operational Board has clarified the the College's position on the use of blankets to move animals.

The hearing found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.

As a result, the Disciplinary Committee directed that Mr Chikosi's name be removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct. The College says that since the appeal window has closed without an appeal being made, Mr Chikosi has now been struck off.

However, the Committee also said: "... his [Mr Chikosi's] advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back."

This was widely criticised as being out of touch with the practicalities of real life and unsupported by any evidence.

Speaking on behalf of the Board, President Neil Smith said: "We fully support the decision taken by the independent Disciplinary Committee with regard to the Chikosi hearing, with one comment requiring clarification: the issue of whether a blanket can be used to move an injured dog. We consider that it is acceptable, in most cases, to transport an injured dog with the aid of a blanket.

"The profession should be reassured that our Standards Committee [the new name for Advisory Committee] will consider the general issues raised by the Chikosi hearing at its next meeting. This will not be a review of the decision, but form part of the routine consideration of DC hearings made by the Committee to see if they raise issues that require additional guidance and advice."

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust has announced 'Open Educational Resources to help new practitioners cope', a new initiative that will focus on the needs of veterinary graduates starting out in practice

The project will be jointly funded by the Higher Education Academy and JISC, who have agreed to provide a maximum of £25,000.

The project will identify the key needs of today's new veterinary graduates, and review what available ('open educational') resources already exist or can be adapted to meet those needs. The project will also encourage the sharing of these resources, and other ways of making these more accessible to new veterinary surgeons.

Nick Short, RCVS Trust trustee and Head of eMedia Unit at the Royal Veterinary College said: "New graduates moving from university to veterinary practices can face significant challenges, whether these come from long hours, demanding clients or finding that limited supervision may be offered by their employers. Veterinary practice by its nature can be emotionally fraught as well as intensely rewarding, as it involves, for example, helping clients make decisions about the treatment or euthanasia of pets, or advising farmers about valuable livestock. This means it's important that appropriate support is available to new practitioners."

The Trust will work in partnership with UK veterinary schools and other organisations on this project, and will aim to complement the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Professional Development Phase (PDP) for new graduates, and in particular the set of 'Year One Competences' that new graduates are expected to achieve within approximately their first year in practice. Supervision during the PDP is provided by the vet's employer and progress towards achieving the Year One Competences is monitored by their RCVS-appointed Postgraduate Dean, so the Trust's project will look at what other resources are available or could be adapted to support new graduates as they attain this level of competence.

A project co-ordinator is being recruited to work until September on the project, after which the findings will be disseminated through a report and associated workshop. Further details about the project and the project co-ordinator role can be found at www.rcvstrust.org.uk/graduateoer

The RCVS has announced a new student innovation competition called "What's Your Big Idea?", being held by ViVet ahead of the second Innovation Symposium in October.

The competition is open to all UK-based undergraduate veterinary students and offers them the opportunity to work as a team to brainstorm, develop and present an innovative idea to a board of industry professionals.

Students can enter either as a single applicant or as a group (of roughly five members), with single applicants then being placed in a group with other applicants from their university. There can be more than one team representing each university.

Each student’s project can cover any aspect of veterinary health innovation. The RCVS suggests potential projects might include: innovations within veterinary education, innovations to improve sanitation and hygiene, innovations to improve veterinary-public communication and innovations to improve patient safety.

Entries must show how they have improved upon – or extended beyond – current expectations of best practice in their chosen area.

Each applicant will receive support from one of the Association of Veterinary Students’ (AVS) Vet Futures Ambassadors, as well as a mentor session with a chosen industry professional to guide them on their project.

Teams will need to submit three components for judging: a log of their progress throughout the project (which can include social media updates using the hashtag #ViVetStudentInnovation), mentor engagement and feedback, and a five-minute video ‘business pitch’.

The three finalist groups of the competition will be invited to present their pitch to a board of industry professionals at a ‘Dragon’s Den’ style event held at the RCVS ViVet 2019 Innovation Symposium on Tuesday 1 October 2019 in Manchester.

The winning and runner-up groups will then be selected and will be presented alongside the ‘mentor’s choice’ award. The Mentor’s Choice award will be selected by the team mentors. The prize will be awarded to an individual who shows excellence and enthusiasm within their work on the project.

Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership & Innovation (pictured right), said: "This competition provides a great opportunity for veterinary students to engage with their fellow classmates across different fields of study and to work on projects that could genuinely make a difference to animal health and welfare and the way veterinary services are delivered. Teams will receive one-on-one mentoring and will be guided through the innovation process, developing skills that will be useful throughout their careers. We look forward to seeing the three finalist teams presenting at the RCVS ViVet Innovation Symposium in Manchester on 1 October." 

Zoe Skinner, Vet Futures Student Representatives Team Leader, said: “This competition is a great opportunity for veterinary students to receive mentoring from experienced veterinary professionals and form contacts within our profession. It gives students a way to work together as a team and allows them to learn how to produce and develop innovative, problem-solving concepts as well as skills in delivering presentations. These are all important aspects of our career ahead, which will look brilliant on our CV’s.”

ViVet is now accepting registrations for the competition for the 2018/19 academic year. To enter, applicants must submit an online registration form. For further information, email info@vivet.org.uk.

Susan Mulvey has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for clinical and managerial failings, including failing to provide adequate veterinary care, failing to provide test results and clinical records, and failing to comply with the RCVS to address client complaints.

Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:

1. that she failed to provide appropriate and adequate veterinary care to a dalmatian.
2. that she failed to provide adequate information to an insurance company about a cockapoo, failed to provide clinical records to a superseding veterinary practice despite requests, failed to respond to a letter from the dog's owner, and failed to comply with requests from the RCVS for comments on the concerns raised by the dog's owner.
3. that she failed to provide the owners of a fox terrier with blood test results or give a reasonable explanation as to why the results were unavailable.
4. that she failed to provide information about a cockerpoo to a superseding veterinary practice despite requests.
5. that she failed provide the owners of a cat, and an insurance company with adequate information relating to insurance claims, despite requests, and failed to provide records to a superseding veterinary practice, despite requests.
6. that she failed to provide the owners of schnoodle with its clinical history, or give the information to a superseding vet practice, despite requests, and failed to comply with requests from the RCVS for comments on the concerns raised by the schnoodle's owners.
7. that she failed to comply with requests from the RCVS for comments on concerns raised by the owner of a cat.
8. that she failed to provide adequate and appropriate care to a French bulldog, failed to provide its clinical history to his owners and/or a superseding veterinary practice, despite requests, failed to provide an insurance company with adequate information, despite requests, and failed to comply with requests from the RCVS for comments on the concerns raised by the dog's owners.
9. that she failed to respond to requests from the RCVS in relation to details of her Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) and/or continuing professional development (CPD).

Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.

She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.

She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.

In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.

In  2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.

Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months. 

Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.

The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.  

The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.

In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.

The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings. 

There were no mitigating factors.

The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.

"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.

"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.

"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.

“This is a case involving serious malpractice.

"It was sustained over a period of time.

"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.

"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.

"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.

"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.

"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.

“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”

Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

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

The RCVS ViVet innovation project is hosting a series of Zoom meetings which vets are being encouraged to come and join, to reflect on the changes that have taken place in the delivery of veterinary services in the past few years and think about the improvements and innovation that have taken place.

The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.

"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.

"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”

Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.

The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487

More meetings are planned for later in the year: 

• Tuesday 20 July: Implementing new technology
• Wednesday 8 September: Innovative technology and learning new skills

If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk

Dr Amir Kashiv has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he was convicted of illegally removed a microchip from a labrador.

The DC heard how, in December 2022, a labrador called Bella had been stolen from its owner.

That same month, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, according to news reports telling him they'd taken the animal because it had been abused.

Dr Kashiv performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.

Although there was no suggestion that Dr Khashiv had been involved in the theft, it was alleged that he knew the animal had been stolen. 

In January 2024, after pleading guilty, Dr Kashiv was convicted of removing the microchip, contrary to section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.

He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85.

Dr Khashiv faced four charges at the RCVS disciplinary hearing, the first being that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The second charge was that in July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv had been made subject to a 5-year Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders.

The third charge was that Dr Kashiv’s conduct with regard to the microchip was dishonest, in that he removed it to conceal the labrador’s identity.

The final charge was that Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador and his conduct was thereby i) misleading and/or ii) dishonest.

From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four.

However, he initially denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.

In a later submission, Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee considered that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.  

It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.

The Committee found no mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:

• actual injury to an animal
• risk of injury to an animal;
• psychological and emotional harm to the animal’s owner
• recklessness in trusting people he should not have been trusting and a lack of due diligence
• premeditated conduct in carrying out the procedure
• abuse of professional position.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.

In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee found that Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four.

The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:

• attempts made to cover up his dishonest conduct;
• the risk of harm to an animal or human by allowing the dogs in his care to repeatedly escape and roam the neighbourhood and to be on the highway
• recklessness by failing to ensure his property was properly enclosed to ensure his dogs were unable to stray
• a lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way
• misconduct sustained over a period of time
• conduct contravening advice issued previously by the RCVS, including the Preliminary Investigation Committee and Professional Conduct Department, or other appropriate authority.

With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction.

The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.

The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a cover-up so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice.

The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.

On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.

In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse findings of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.

In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:

• some admissions to the matters alleged both at Court and to the College
• expressions of remorse to the labrador’s owner, the Committee and the profession
• in relation to the criminal behaviour order, the action he had since taken to maintain fencing and no incidents since 2023
• very positive testimonials.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”

He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.

"This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.

"However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.

“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv.

"The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided.

"However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15069309/Vegan-vet-Animal-Rebellion-activist-steal-pet-dog.html 

Laura Padron Vega, a veterinary surgeon who was struck off in 2018 for falsely backdating Certificates of Competence whilst working as an Official Veterinarian, has been restored to the Register by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.

Ms Padron Vega had also been found to have failed in her duties as an OV by being unprepared for, and unaware of, new regulations. She also did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.

Ms Padron Vega originally applied for restoration in December last year, at which time the Disciplinary Committee had concerns about her keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills needed to return to practice, and decided to adjourn for six months to allow her to prove that it was appropriate to restore her name to the Register.

At the latest hearing, Ms Padron Vega sought to address the concerns that the Committee had raised about her professional development. In addition to the documentation she provided in her original restoration hearing, which included positive testimonials from colleagues, she provided evidence of her continuing professional development (CPD).

This included a letter from her previous employer, who confirmed she had more recently worked for them as a Certification Support Officer from February to March 2021, where they received positive feedback on her conduct.

The documentation also included a letter from another practice confirming that Ms Padron Vega had been offered a position of employment with them, and a separate letter from practice veterinary surgeon, Dr Khan MRCVS, confirming that he would be her mentor. Dr Khan also confirmed that she had been coming to the practice for work experience and he considered her to have good working knowledge of current medicines used within the practice. He further outlined in his letter what CPD support the practice would be providing for Ms Padron Vega as part of her employment with them.

An additional piece of evidence was a testimonial from Dr Max Rutana MRCVS who confirmed that Ms Padron Vega had worked unsupervised for a period of three weeks, and that he found her clinical notes during this period to be satisfactory and they received no complaints about her conduct from clients.

Ms Padron Vega also submitted CPD documentation which confirmed she has taken a Certification Support Officers’ course and examination in mid-December 2020.

In response to questions from the Committee about her small animal practice experience and how long she had been shadowing Dr Khan for, Ms Padron Vega explained that she had completed 80 hours of shadowing with Dr Khan and that in her future employment under his mentorship, he would be available to support her. She also explained that her job offer was evidence that she would continue to be trained in the relevant area of veterinary work.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “During the hearing, we heard evidence from Dr Khan who provided reassurance of Ms Padron Vega’s continued professional development with his practice and the ongoing supervision that she would be under. He explained that the supervision would last at least three months.

“The Committee’s view is that Ms Padron Vega accepts the findings of dishonesty that were made against her at the original Inquiry hearing. In her Reflective Statement, she acknowledges that veterinarians have a professional responsibility to ensure the integrity of veterinary certification, that she is now aware that when signing documents as a veterinary surgeon they need to be approached with care and accuracy. Further she has undertaken a CPD course on this very ethical issue and has passed the examination set at the end of that course. The Committee is confident that Ms Padron Vega is unlikely to repeat the conduct which resulted in her being removed from the Register. It is the Committee’s decision that she should be restored to the Register.”

The RCVS Charitable Trust is offering two 'Blue Sky' grants of between £10,000 and £20,000 for basic or pure research intended to advance veterinary science.

Applications may be made for either an 'open' grant or a Robert Daubney Fellowship.  Both are open to academic staff and students within UK veterinary schools. However, the Robert Daubney Fellowship is granted specifically for research within the fields of virology and helminthology, and has additional criteria including that applicants must be on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons, and hold a postgraduate veterinary qualification.  

Cherry Bushell, the Trust's Director said: "This funding is offered for veterinary scientific research projects which meet our interests in innovation and development. In particular, pilot projects aiming to show a 'proof of concept' as a first stage of a more substantial project will be looked on favourably - if the project can then attract support from major funders this is likely to have more impact over the longer term." 

The Trust aims to develop mutually beneficial partnerships with grant recipients, and innovative and exciting projects which can respond to these objectives through the grant-giving process and beyond are also preferred.

Further information, including full application criteria, is available from www.trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants.   Preliminary applications should be made via the head of a UK veterinary school, and submitted to the Trust by 20 May 2011. 

West Midlands-based veterinary nurse Laura Jane Garfield has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee after it found that she had misled and been dishonest with a charity.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mrs Garfield had told a representative of the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) that she had possession of a greyhound called Lola, that she proposed keeping Lola living with her as an adoptee, and that she would not relinquish possession of Lola except to the RGT. This was despite the fact that, at the time of signing the adoption agreement, she had already given Lola to another charity named Greyhound Gap and that, as a result, her conduct was misleading and dishonest.

In considering the facts of the case, the Committee found the charges and all constituent parts proven and went on to consider whether this amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. 

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The end result of the respondent’s decisions and conduct meant that RGT was persuaded to pass lawful possession and ownership of the dog Lola to the respondent when it would not have agreed to do so had it been told the truth by her.

"In truth, the respondent was not going to adopt and re-home Lola herself. Instead the respondent’s plan and intention was that Lola should be passed on to a third party who had been recommended by a rival dog rescue charity for rehome and adoption."

Judith added: "The consequence was that a social media dispute broke out when the rival dog charity decided to attempt to take advantage of the erroneous belief of the respondent that a decision had been taken by RGT to put Lola to sleep. The publicity generated by the respondent’s erroneous belief… was obviously adverse…. The gravamen [seriousness] of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives."

The Committee judged that the charge and its parts constituted serious professional misconduct and went on to consider the sanction against Mrs Garfield. 

In considering the proportionate sanction the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of aggravating factors the Committee considered that the dishonesty was pre-meditated, that she accused members of a rescue charity of lying and demonstrated no or only minimal insight into her wrongdoing. In mitigation the Committee considered that Mrs Garfield had cooperated with the College in its investigations, that she had acted in the genuine belief that she was acting in the best interests of Lola and that her conduct did not put Lola at risk or cause her to suffer any adverse consequences as a result. The Committee also accepted the testimonials and positive evidence from colleagues. 

However, the Committee decided that removal from the Register would be the only appropriate sanction.

Summing up Judith Way said: "The reputational consequences for RGT were potentially significant bearing in mind that it is a rescue organisation with some 57 or so branches across the country. All of these consequences, actual and potential, stem from the respondent’s premeditated act of dishonesty in relation to which the Committee considers she showed very limited insight prior to this disciplinary hearing, as she did during the course of this hearing.

"In the result, it is the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register.”

Mrs Garfield has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal.