Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."
The RCVS has announced that registrations for the new RCVS Register of Veterinary Practice Premises will be accepted from 1 November 2008, allowing all those who wish to supply medicines from veterinary practice premises from 1 April 2009 onwards a full five months to comply with the latest medicines legislation.
In order to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines, the UK Government decided that any veterinary surgeon may only supply veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) from premises registered with the Secretary of State, with effect from 1 April 2009.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is responsible for the inspection and registration of practices under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Steve Dean, VMD's Chief Executive, says the new veterinary practice premises register will complete the UK information base by bringing veterinary practices in line with other suppliers of veterinary medicines who already have to operate from registered premises.
The Register will enable the supply of veterinary medicines by veterinary surgeons, including controlled drugs, to be subjected to inspection and verification. As a result, DEFRA Ministers and the European Commission can be re-assured that veterinary medicines are being supplied in the UK in accordance with EC legislation.
In discussion with the VMD, it was agreed that the most appropriate body to maintain this register would be the RCVS, not least because the College already manages the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and publishes the (voluntary) Directory of Veterinary Practices, so has the necessary systems already in place. The register will be published on RCVSonline and updated quarterly.
Whilst there will now be a statutory fee levied for each practice premises registered on the new Register, the College's existing database framework has kept this to a relatively low £40 compared to what other bodies might have had to charge after starting from scratch.
Practices could appear in the Directory for free because the cost of producing it was partially covered by subsequent data sales. However, the new Register will need to be self-funding, as the data it contains will be freely available online.
Not all practices will have to pay the statutory fee. RCVS President Jill Nute said: "For those practice premises already accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), the fee will be taken from their existing PSS annual fee.
"What's more, accredited practices will not face additional four-yearly inspections by VMD inspectors (unless there is an investigation for enforcement purposes) as their PSS inspections already ensure that they keep up to date with current medicines legislation."
Practice premises that have applied to join the Scheme, but have not yet been accredited, will not face additional VMD inspections either, but will still need to pay the statutory fee.
To help practices understand the new requirements and what they need to do before next April, the RCVS has produced a range of guidance, including a series of Frequently Asked Questions (www.rcvs.org.uk).
"In particular, we hope this guidance will help to explain which premises are likely to be considered ‘veterinary practice premises' and the difference between those premises and places where medicines might simply be stored or kept," said Mrs Nute.
"It is important to realise that there is a legal requirement to register veterinary practice premises for the supply of medicines, and a professional obligation, set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct, to keep a record of where all medicines are stored or kept. This record should avoid the need for additional registration of car boots, farms and homes."
Over the coming weeks, application forms will be posted to all practices currently listed in the Directory and accredited under the PSS, containing all the practice information currently held. These forms must be checked, signed and returned, even if no fee is due. Separate application forms will be available for any non-accredited practice premises not published in the Directory, and a letter will be sent to all RCVS members to ensure the whole profession is aware of the new requirements.
The campaign gives 11 reasons why owners should register their pets with a veterinary practice, and encourages them to visit www.findavet.org.uk to find the right vet practice for them and their pet.:
Just like people, your pet can benefit from regular health checks to help stay happy and healthy.
Emergencies can happen at any time – registering means you’ll have easier access to emergency vet care whenever you need it.
Your vet knows a lot more about your animal than Dr Google and can provide tailored advice for your pet.
Regular weight checks and nutritional advice can help to keep your pet in shape – your practice’s vet nurses can often help with this.
Many vet practices run pet socialisation and training classes where you can meet other pet owners.
Your vet practice will hold your pet’s medical history to help diagnose any problems quickly.
Your veterinary practice can offer great advice about which pet is right for you because they will know you and your family.
Your vet practice is best placed to recommend other services for your animal, whether that’s pet groomers and trainers, or referral to an advanced practitioner or specialist.
Veterinary staff are often animal owners too, so they understand that pets are a much-loved part of the family.
Vets and nurses have made a solemn promise to look after animals under their care; they study for many years and have to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.
There are some medicines that only vets can prescribe, so it helps to be registered with a practice.
BVA President John Fishwick said: "Pets need vets to ensure their lifelong wellbeing, which is why it is concerning that a large number of pet owners in the country have not registered their animals with a practice. It is important that owners have access to reliable advice and veterinary care to be able to best look after their pets, and so we are calling on the profession to get involved in promoting the wealth of benefits that registering with a vet practice provides."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May added: "Owning an animal is a huge responsibility, which is why access to professional veterinary advice is vital. With this campaign we aim to highlight some of the very considerable benefits of registering pets with a veterinary practice, and raise awareness amongst pet owners who have not yet registered of the value of having access to professional veterinary advice, expertise and treatment to keep their animals healthy. We would be delighted if practices across the country would help share these messages on their own social media accounts."
Vets, vet nurses and veterinary practices can help spread the word on the value of registering pets by sharing campaign resources on social media using the hashtag ‘#petsneedvets’, downloading campaign resources and using the opportunity to encourage local pet owners to register with their practice.
To further highlight the value of veterinary care and the special bond between a veterinary professional and the animals under their care, BVA is also encouraging existing clients to share pictures of their pets at the vets online using the hashtags #lovemyvet and #lovemyvetnurse.
The Pets Need Vets campaign stems from the aim of the joint BVA and RCVS Vet Futures Action Plan to develop communications tools to assist the public’s understanding of veterinary costs and fees, and promote the value of veterinary care.
More information on the campaign and shareable resources are available at https://www.bva.co.uk/petsneedvets and www.rcvs.org.uk/petsneedvets
Reference
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The campaign was officially launched at an event at the Palace of Westminster sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression, and featured first-hand testimonials from senior veterinary surgeons and doctors who have experienced mental ill-health.
‘&me’ is a collaboration between the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative, which seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, and the Doctors’ Support Network, which provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.
Introducing the campaign, Mr Jones said: "The key message I have today in regards to mental health is talking about it and trying to get it out of the dark corners rather than it being something you are ashamed to talk about. That is how we get people to help themselves with their own condition and to seek help. The other key thing is not to write people off if they have a mental illness."
The floor was then opened to personal stories from those who have lived experience of mental ill-health. Dr Louise Freeman is Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and was diagnosed with depression in 2009 as a result of the way in which her return to work was handled after having time off work as an emergency medicine consultant following a bereavement.
She said: "This experience made me think that doctors with mental health problems were in a small minority and that it was probably our own fault anyway. Both impressions are completely wrong. The incidence of mental health problems is one in four people in any one year and is actually higher for doctors, who are often slower to seek help than non-medics. The good news is that well supported doctors have excellent treatment outcomes.
"During my own return to work, I was told by my clinical lead that they had 'always thought that I was a mental health problem waiting to happen.' I think this says more about them than it did about me! On reflection, yes that was true, but only inasmuch as this applies to all of us during our lives.
"I hope that the ‘&me’ campaign can start to address this by encouraging senior healthcare professionals, who are currently well, but have experienced mental health problems, to disclose that they have 'been there themselves'. I think that this will help to normalise mental ill health for healthcare professionals and therefore remove some of the barriers to unwell professionals seeking help at an earlier stage. Overall this would be better for healthcare professionals, their colleagues and their patients."
David Bartram, Director of Outcomes Research for the international operations of the largest global animal health company and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' governing Council, spoke next. He gave his perspective on coming to terms with a mental health condition in a profession that has some stigma attached to it.
A number of years ago David attempted suicide following the breakup of his marriage and explains what happened from there: "I just thought I was stressed – after all, who wouldn’t be in those circumstances? But in fact I was becoming progressively more unwell. What started as worry, early waking and palpitations – which I recognised – led to patterns of thinking which I did not recognise as being disordered. I felt trapped and worthless – suicide was the only escape. From a medical perspective, my biological, social and psychological risk factors had converged and tipped me into major depression.
"That was the first of multiple suicide attempts and several prolonged stays in hospital. Over a three-year period I spent 12 months as a psychiatric inpatient. I was treated with antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, talking therapies and electroconvulsive therapy.
"But now thankfully I am well – and I have been for 14 years…. To what do I attribute my recovery? A mixture of medical treatment, psychological therapies, supportive friends and family, rest and time – they all contributed, probably in similar measure."
He added that while his episode of mental ill-health does not define him it has changed him in a positive way and that no one is immune from it.
Dr Jonathan Richardson is Group Medical Director for Community Services at the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust who had a mental health condition when he was a medical student and spoke about how it is possible to flourish in your career with a mental health diagnosis.
"I was unwell as a teenager with a physical illness and later as a medical student with a mental illness… these two experiences crystallised my drive to become a doctor and my own approach to healthcare. I wanted to be able to deliver the care that I was fortunate to receive. I wanted to be as patient-centred and compassionate with the patients I would serve, in the same way as the teams who delivered my care. I was lucky to have support when I was unwell from very good friends, some from school and some from university; and a very close family. I have been able to recover.
"It is 24 years since my mental illness. I now work in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, one of the largest mental and learning disability health trusts in England – and one of only two to be rated outstanding by the Care Quality Commission…. I do not feel that my illnesses have stopped me."
Dr Angelika Luehrs is the chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and a consultant psychiatrist who was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder while she was a trainee psychiatrist. She said: “When I asked for advice about how to access help one of the answer I got was one of ‘whatever you do, make sure that you don't have any mental illness in your medical records otherwise you will never go anywhere in your medical career. However, getting the diagnosis and help from a Consultant Psychiatrist was the best thing that ever happened.”
She added: "The reality is that my diagnosis has not stopped me – I have been a consultant psychiatrist since 2010 with the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, last year I was appointed as medical lead for West Wiltshire including early intervention, intensive services and primary care liaison services. I have a special interest in supporting doctors with mental illness and I am delighted to be appointed by the newly launched GP Health Service as a special advisor for complex mental health cases."
The last speaker was veterinary surgeon Neil Smith who chairs the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and outlined how to participate in the campaign. He said: "This event is just the start… the real challenge is to start to get this message out to the wider professions. Stigma is a difficult thing to tackle, but the good news is that changing our minds is within the power of every individual to do."
Following the launch the ‘&me’ campaign is now encouraging other senior health professionals to step forward and talk about their own experiences with mental ill-health, especially as both medical doctors and veterinary surgeons have higher suicide rates than the general population but often have more reluctance to seek help because of the impact it may have on their career.
The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health. To participate in the campaign email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.
Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon for submitting a certificate of Clinical Inspection for Veterinary Inspectors ("TB52") for tuberculin tests he had undertaken on cattle, despite knowing that he had not fully complied with the standard operating procedures (SOP) for these tests.
At the outset of the three-day hearing, John Wilson admitted that, when acting as an Official Veterinarian (OV) he had not carried out tuberculin tests on cattle at a Wiltshire farm on 19 May 2011 strictly in accordance with the SOP required by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), an executive agency of Defra.
The admitted shortcomings were that on 19 May, the second day of testing, Mr Wilson had failed to confirm the identity of all the animals, failed to inspect the animals digitally (ie using his hands) and had not measured the fold of skin at the injection site of all the animals. The College argued that this was contrary to the directions of the AHVLA and, in subsequently signing the TB52 certificate, he was either dishonest or should have known that the certification was incorrect. Mr Wilson admitted that he ought to have known the certification was incorrect but denied dishonesty, because he believed that he had conducted the test in a satisfactory manner and had correctly identified all the reactors in the herd.
Mr Wilson was a veterinary surgeon of over 40 years experience and unblemished record, and the Committee found his account of events to be accurate and honest. He said the farm involved was unprepared and test arrangements were chaotic, with poor handling facilities, and he would have been concerned for the safety of the animals and their handlers if he had complied fully with the SOP. He had advised the farmer to delay the test but his advice was rejected.
The Committee accepted that the testing had been carried out under exceptional and difficult circumstances. It noted that Mr Wilson had identified a reactor and taken appropriate actions, knowing that the outcome would be the quarantining of the whole herd. He had made no financial or other gain, other than the nominal fee charged for the work. Although failing to comply with the SOP fell short of what was expected of a veterinary surgeon, because of these circumstances, and as he had acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the animals and personnel, these actions did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that, even allowing for these difficulties and concerns, in signing the TB52 certificate a few days later, without any qualification, Mr Wilson ought to have known that it was incorrect, and his actions fell far short of the standards expected of the veterinary profession. They did not however find that he had been dishonest.
The Committee stressed the importance attached to accurate and reliable certification, in maintaining the confidence of the public and the profession, and in ensuring animal welfare.
Professor Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the committee said: "The Committee is aware, as confirmed by AHVLA, that this is a single, isolated event and the first offence in some 40 years of the Respondent working as a LVI [local veterinary inspector] or OV. After considering all the mitigating factors.and, given the exceptional circumstances of this specific case, the decision of the Committee is to reprimand Mr Wilson."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a London-based veterinary surgeon, having found charges related to fraudulent registration not proved.
Miss Maria Becerra Parga was charged with fraudulently entering her name on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, by submitting a registration application in 2005 that contained a forged certificate of good standing from the Distinguished Official Veterinary Association of Lugo, Spain.
The Committee said that, in order to conclude Miss Becerra Parga had acted dishonestly, it needed to be sure that when she submitted the certificate to the RCVS she knew it was not genuine.
Miss Becerra Parga admitted that she did not make any application for the certificate directly to the Lugo Association. She accepted that the certificate she supplied to the College (the number of which was genuine and corresponded to a male veterinary surgeon registered in Spain) was a forgery, and that it contained a reference to her degree, a statement of good conduct, and was dated before she had a need for it; however, she said, this had been given to her by a friend and veterinary colleague and she had understood that she had been given a temporary membership of the Lugo Association for the purpose of registering with the RCVS. She also said that she had left these arrangements to her colleague and assumed that the document she had been given was genuine.
Her colleague, called as a witness by the College, said that Miss Becerra Parga had admitted the fraud to her and she denied that she had given the certificate to Miss Becerra Parga. Her friend said that she gave no more than general guidance because she knew that Miss Becerra Parga would be guided by a UK company that would arrange for her registration with the RCVS and through which she would be employed. She thought it possible that she had told Ms Becerra Parga that she needed a letter of recommendation, but she was not sure.
After careful consideration, the Committee preferred the evidence of Miss Becerra Parga and found her account to be "consistent with her naivety, inexperience and trusting nature" and "was sure that she did not forge the document herself". It found that to the extent that Miss Becerra Parga read the certificate at all when given it, she obviously did not notice its date or significance. The Committee was not able to say who was responsible for forging the certificate.
The Committee also dismissed an argument RCVS Counsel put forward, that Miss Becerra Parga had neither offered nor made payment for the certificate, and that she had forged the certificate to avoid a payment. The Committee said it did not find it credible that a veterinary surgeon, in work with a supportive family, who obviously was easily able to obtain proof of her good character directly from the university if necessary, would have jeopardised her entire career by forging the document, let alone for a small financial advantage.
The Committee directed that the charges be dismissed.
The new Mind Matters Initiative (MMI) Kite App is the result of a collaboration with The Kite Programme. It offers a series of bespoke microlearning modules - known as 'kites' - about mental health and wellbeing.
Microlearning is a type of learning which delivers content in bite-size modules. It usually combines a mixture of interactive activities, images and videos, which can be worked through in as little as five minutes.
The first ‘Kites’ available on the app will cover subjects like breathing activities, mindfulness, time management and physical activity for mental health.
New modules will be added over the weeks and months ahead, in response to feedback from users.
Angharad Belcher, RCVS Director for Advancement of the Professions, said: “Veterinary professionals undertake vital work for animal health and welfare, but the intensity and pressure of their work can take its toll on mental health and wellbeing. Sadly, research shows that compared to the general population, veterinary professionals are more likely to experience mental health distress, including depression and anxiety.
“We recognise how hard it can be for veterinary professionals to fit wellbeing activities into their busy workdays and understand that everyone’s mental health needs are different. By collaborating with The Kite Program, we wanted to create a wellbeing platform that was accessible, flexible and had a range of activities to meet a variety of mental health and wellbeing needs. This app will be another useful tool for the professions, and we are pleased to be able to offer it free of charge.
“We are really looking forward to hearing feedback from the professions about the platform and creating more modules based on their wants and needs.”
The College highlights that users cannot input any personal information into the app and the only data it will hold is a record of active users.
To register for the app, visit: https://www.vetmindmatters.org/mmi-app.
The app will also be demoed at BEVA Congress 2021 (5th-7th September, Birmingham ICC).
Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.
At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).
Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).
In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.
However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.
The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.
Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.
A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.
She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.
Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.
The Committee found the admitted facts proved.
The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.
Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.
Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.
"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”
As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.
The awards were:
Queen’s Medal - to Dr John (Iain) Glen MRCVS (pictured right) who, at AstraZeneca, was responsible for the discovery and development of the anaesthetic drug propofol, one of the world’s most common anaesthetics for medical and veterinary use.
Honorary Associateships - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Professor Stuart Carter, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Liverpool’s Institution of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences. The second was awarded to Anthony Martin, a philanthropist with a particular interest in supporting national and international charities working with the veterinary profession to improve animal welfare.
Impact Award - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Alison Lambert, the founder and owner of veterinary business consultancy Onswitch which helps veterinary businesses create customer-centred practice so that pets, horses and livestock receive the best care. The second was awarded to Dr Gwenllian Rees for her involvement in the Arwain Vet Cymru (AVC) project, a collaborative national antimicrobial stewardship program for farm vets in Wales.
Inspiration Awards - Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS was nominated for her leadership role at the BVA during the early stage of the coronavirus pandemic. The second award went to Professor Mandy Peffers, a Wellcome Trust Clinical Intermediate Fellow in Musculoskeletal & Ageing Science at the Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences at the University of Liverpool.
The International Award was posthumously awarded to Emeritus Professor Michael Day, the prolific researcher and writer.
A new award this year is the Compassion Award, which was given to David Martin MRCVS for his work helping practitioners identify the signs of non-accidental injury.
Another new award this year is the Student Community Award, given to Jack Church, who - on top of his studies - has been volunteering on a covid ward, and Lavinia Economu, for her work to inspire young people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and different socio-economic backgrounds into the veterinary professions..
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS, RCVS President, said: “I am so impressed by the breadth and depth of the awards nominations that we received this year which demonstrate the very best that the veterinary professions have to offer.
“From veterinary students to veterinary surgeons and nurses who have been practising for decades, all our award winners demonstrate that veterinary professionals and veterinary science has a profound and positive impact not only on animal health and welfare but also wider society. I am immensely happy and proud for them all and look forward to formally being able to present them with their awards later this year.”
A formal awards ceremony, hosted by Mandisa, will take place on Thursday, 23 September 2021. Further details on the event and how to attend will be published later this year.
For the research, Which? conducted an online poll of 1,009 pet owners who had had an issue with their vet in the past two years.
It also conducted qualitative interviews with 14 owners who had complained.
The most common reasons for complaint were:
Of the 1009 pet owners who had experienced some kind of problem with their vet, 57% did NOT make a complaint, 33% because they did not want to fall out with their vet.
Pet owners who wish to complain about veterinary services have three options: to complain directly to their practice, to use the voluntary Vet Client Mediation Service (VCMS), or to raise a 'concern' with the RCVS.
The Which? report found that of those who did complain to their practice, 35% were not happy with the outcome and 31% with the way it was handled.
Which? found that although the VCMS reported a high resolution rate of 84% in 2022-23, its interviewees had found it a bit hit or miss.
Finally, Which? found the process of complaining to the regulator flawed by the fact that the threshold for the College to progress a 'concern' is set so high, because College has no jurisdiction at a practice level, and because it has no sanctions to use in enforcing consumer law.
The report recommends that:
Full report: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/complaints-and-redress-in-veterinary-services-a5z611X9tZzf
CommentI loved the regal response from the RCVS to The Guardian about the case studies in the Which? report: “the facts presented in the case studies do not completely align with those reported to us”.
That aside, surely the big issue here is not so much that consumers have little way to complain effectively.
That is important, of course, but isn't it more important to consider what they are complaining about, which in the main is MONEY.
Driven by the advances in veterinary medicine, the innate desire of vets to provide the best possible care, anthropomorphising pet owners saying they want 'the best' for their fur baby (without necessarily having the wherewithal), corporatisation and society's changing expectations about working conditions, prices have been going up at a rate far outstripping inflation.
Increasing prices have of course been accompanied by an increase the standards of care and the range of clinical equipment.
But the question everyone must ask is at what point the cost of veterinary care for a dog outstrips the benefits of owning one?
These complaints are the canary in the coalmine.
Mr Fioletti was found guilty of the murder of Stephanie Hodgkinson at Bournemouth Crown Court in January, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 15 years.
The hearing for Dr Fioletti took place on Thursday 6 June, with the Committee deciding to proceed in his absence after Dr Fioletti said in correspondence that he did not want to attend the hearing nor be otherwise represented.
The Committee found the facts of the case proven by the certificate of conviction and went on to consider whether the conviction rendered Dr Fioletti unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Aggravating factors in terms of fitness to practise included the fact that it was an offence involving violence and loss of life and the injuries caused by Dr Fioletti to Ms Hodgkinson.
The sentencing remarks, which were cited during the disciplinary hearing, also made clear the devastating impact that Dr Fioletti’s actions had on Ms Hodgkinson’s family, including her two young children.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that, when consideration is given to the ferocity of the attack on Ms Hodgkinson and the number of stab wounds she suffered, when taken together with the finding by the sentencing judge, who presided over the trial, that the respondent “represent[ed] a significant danger to any female with whom you find yourself in a relationship”, members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way and would be concerned at the risk the respondent posed to some members of the public.
“This Committee considers that the offence of murder is so inherently deplorable and shocking that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession; and is certainly liable to bring the profession into serious disrepute and undermine public confidence in the profession.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Dr Fioletti.
In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, Mr Morris said: “The misconduct in this case relates to a savage, sustained and ferocious attack with a weapon on a defenceless woman in her own home.
"His victim trusted him to be in her home.
"He knew that she was the mother of two young sons, of whom she had custody, and to whom he knew she was devoted.
"He would have known that the effect of his attack on her would have devastating consequences for her sons and her other close relatives – and it did.
"This conduct constitutes disgraceful conduct of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.
“The Committee also considers that the misconduct raises serious concerns about the reputation of the profession in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.
"This was abusive and controlling conduct of the worst kind and conduct of which the respondent had been guilty of in past relationships, as the sentencing judge found.
"Such acts by their very nature run contrary to the very essence of the practice of the profession of veterinary surgery, which is intended to protect and enhance the welfare and well-being of animals and of work colleagues.”
In mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Fioletti had no previous criminal history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee found that only complete removal from the Register was appropriate in this case.
Paul added: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"The respondent’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.”
The Committee expressed its condolences to the family of Stephanie Hodgkinson for their incalculable loss.
This pilot was originally launched in February 2017 to trial proposed changes to CPD, which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
Some 115 veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses volunteered, with 60 attending an induction days at the College’s office last year.
The College says the response to its proposals was largely positive, and at its meeting on 2 November 2017 RCVS Council agreed to an extension of the pilot for a further six-to-nine months, in order to increase the breadth of views on the changes and gather further evidence on its impact.
The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s 2016 consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others.
The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
Shona McIntyre MRCVS, a teaching fellow in small animal medicine at the University of Surrey and the practitioner representative on the CPD Pilot Working Group, said: "As a general practitioner involved in the initial phase of the CPD pilot I was thrilled that we had so many from the profession engage with the consultation, and later with the pilot.
"By extending the pilot further we are looking to get an even wider range of views on board and fine-tune how we will be asking members of the profession to engage with the reflection element of the proposals. We are looking for a mix of those who support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them and I can only encourage those not yet involved to consider signing up for the extended pilot and make their voice heard."
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Naila Hassanali, RCVS CPD Officer, via cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
Volunteers will be supported by RCVS staff throughout the trial.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available on the College website: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpdconsultation/.
The first part of the charge was that, between 3 November 2014 and 10 December 2016 he did not provide CPD records to the RCVS requested in four separate letters dated November 2014, September 2015, November 2015 and November 2016. The second part of the charge was that, between 11 December 2016 and 26 July 2017, he did not provide the RCVS with his CPD records despite requests.
Dr Zukauskas admitted to the charge against him at the outset of the hearing.
The Committee considered whether Mr Zukauskas’ failure to respond to requests for his CPD records constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that he had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not responding to the repeated requests for information from the College, although the Committee noted that there had not been total silence. Mr Zukauskas had made email contact on at least two occasions in response to RCVS letters and gave evidence that he had attempted to phone the authors of the letters. The Committee also noted that in early February 2017 Mr Zukauskas had made repeated attempts to give the RCVS access to his online CPD account, which he had been updating to reflect CPD work that he had undertaken.
Mr Zukauskas’ explanation for his failure was that he had not fully appreciated the importance of the letters, that his English was poor, and that he failed to obtain appropriate advice about the content of the letters until recently. It was only in a witness statement dated 27 July 2017 that he finally disclosed his full CPD records.
The Committee noted Mr Zukauskas' admission in his evidence that his English was not good, particularly in light of the obligation, brought into the Code in February 2016, for veterinary surgeons to be able to communicate effectively in written and spoken English.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "From that date, if not earlier, the respondent should have been concerned to understand English sufficiently well to address the correspondence from the College. Whilst the Committee did not consider that his conduct in this respect amounted to disrespect, it did consider that he had shown a disregard of his obligations.
"At all times he could and should have made appropriate efforts to respond to the correspondence from the College and obtain appropriate advice. In effect he put off dealing with these matters and put his head in the sand."
Regarding his failure to respond to requests between December 2016 and July 2017, Ms Karve added: "This caused the College a considerable amount of concern and extra work. Had he done so much earlier, much of this matter would have been avoided. The respondent was once again in breach of his obligations."
Having found Mr Zukauskas guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against Mr Zukauskas, taking into account the fact that the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee had recently suspended a veterinary nurse from the Register for a period of two months having found her guilty of similar charges.
In mitigation the Committee considered a number of testimonials from colleagues and clients, his hitherto long and unblemished career in the United Kingdom, and his open and frank admissions and subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of his behaviour. Language problems were also considered as an explanation for why the situation had occurred. However, it also considered the aggravating factor that the misconduct was sustained over a period of time and that there was unacceptable disregard for the obligations he had to the College as a veterinary surgeon.
In summing up Ms Karve said: "The Committee has determined to impose a reprimand. In doing so it acknowledged that the respondent has shown considerable insight into his behaviour. He had acknowledged that he has needed help in communicating with the College. It noted that he is a good and proficient veterinary surgeon in the work which he undertakes. He expressed remorse for his behaviour. He has carried out sufficient CPD and since December 2016 has been communicating with the College. The Committee considers it unlikely that he will transgress again.
"The Committee has decided that it is appropriate in this case to add a warning to the decision to impose a reprimand. It is mindful of the fact that other veterinary surgeons registered with the College have a duty to discharge their CPD obligations and they honour those obligations. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent has involved a considerable amount of work and expense for the College."
The warning was that in future Mr Zukauskas must respond in a timely and appropriate manner to any communications from the RCVS.
Nominations will remain open till 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2023 and the elections will take place in March and April 2023.
RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald, a member of RCVS Council since 2016, said: “I am a general practitioner by background, and so having the opportunity to serve on Council and be at the heart of decision-making that has a real and consequential impact on how we as vets work and conduct ourselves, has been a real privilege.
“In my six years on Council I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in fascinating debates and discussions, to represent the RCVS and its activities at country fairs and congresses, and to talk to and get the views of peers and colleagues from across the UK.
"Serving your profession in the RCVS is a fantastic opportunity and I would recommend anyone who wants to have a real say and impact on the future of the profession to stand for next year’s Council elections.”
The full eligibility criteria, info and FAQs for vets who want to stand can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil23.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council can also contact Melissa Donald for an informal conversation about what it means to be an RCVS Council member: president@rcvs.org.uk.
There is also an opportunity for prospective candidates to attend a meeting of the RCVS Council on Thursday 19th January 2023 at the University of Nottingham Veterinary School, as an observer.
Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you'd like to go.
Telemedicine can be defined as any clinical healthcare service that is provided using remote telecommunications services.
The aim of the consultation, which starts on the 13th February, is to receive feedback to help the College develop an appropriate regulatory framework for such services in the veterinary sector. The College’s current Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance is generally concerned with face-to-face provision of veterinary services.
The consultation will consider issues such as who is responsible for veterinary care if it is provided remotely, how 'under veterinary care' is defined in the context of the telemedicine delivery of services, the potential risks as well as opportunities for improving animal welfare that may arise out of new technologies and the appropriate regulation of veterinary services provided directly to clients using new remote technologies.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "We want the UK’s veterinary surgeons to be at the forefront of innovation and to be making use of, and developing, new technology to extend the reach of veterinary services and thereby improve animal welfare.
"However, while the adoption of technology can greatly benefit veterinary services, we also need to develop a regulatory framework that takes into account the questions it poses, for example, in areas such as remote diagnosis and prescribing, to ensure that animal health and welfare is the foremost consideration."
David Catlow, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee that approved the consultation, added: "What we are looking for in this consultation are comments that will help inform a new position for the College on the use of telemedicine. There are questions that need to be answered around the principles of using telemedicine and we hope that we will get the views of a broad range of the profession.
"I would strongly encourage all members of the profession to engage with this survey so that we can build a better picture of how this technology is currently being used, how it might be used in the future and how we can best regulate it."
The consultation questionnaire will be available to complete for six weeks from Monday 13 February 2017 at www.rcvs.org.uk/telemedicine
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Council has decided that the final enrolments for the remaining RCVS Diplomas must be made by 1 November 2012.
According to the College, this is in line with the recommendation made by the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee to Council that the RCVS should speed up the process of phasing out all of the remaining RCVS Diplomas in favour of the increasingly popular European Diplomas.
There are now such small numbers of candidates sitting RCVS Diploma exams that benchmarking and determining a consistent examination standard becomes increasingly difficult, and the examination increasingly indefensible and unsustainable. For example, in each of the past three years, only two candidates have entered the Diploma in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) exam, and there was only one candidate in 2008. Similarly, it is now usual for only one or two candidates per year to sit Diploma exams in Zoo Medicine, Cattle Health and Production or Ophthalmology.
A number of RCVS Diplomas have already been phased out, and new enrolments are no longer being taken in subjects such as Small Animal Medicine, Dermatology, Anaesthesia and Diagnostic Imaging.
Examinations will continue to be held for enrolled candidates (including candidates who enrol ahead of the 1 November 2012 deadline). The last Diploma examinations held in each subject will depend upon when its final candidates complete the pre-examination requirements. For candidates enrolling this year, this means 2019 at the latest.
The phasing out of RCVS Diplomas has been an agreed strategy of Council for many years after the then Education Strategy Steering Group recommended greater convergence with European Colleges in a report to Council in 2002 entitled "A framework for veterinary education and training for 2010 and beyond".
The position of each subject has been under review by the respective subject boards at their annual board meetings for the last few years, and some have already been closed to new entrants.
Professor Mike Herrtage, Chairman of the RCVS Diplomas and Certificates Subcommittee said: "For some subjects, there had been a perception that the European route required the candidate to follow a residency in an academic institution, which could be a barrier to UK practitioners' chances of completing a Diploma.
"However, all the European Colleges allow an alternate training route for practitioners provided the programme is planned and specified at the time of enrolment and approved by the College before training starts."
In some subjects, the European Diploma syllabus may not cover exactly the same ground as the RCVS equivalent - for example, small animal surgery encompasses both soft tissue surgery as well as orthopaedics - but the trend for residency positions in both universities and specialists practices has been to take candidates through the European style programmes, which produces more surgical specialists who thereafter can major in one aspect of another.
Mike said: "Recent experience has shown that many diplomates take the European Diploma first, and this entitles them to apply to join the list of RCVS Recognised Specialists. If they then want to specialise in a narrower field they can do so, by providing supporting data and references to show that they are practising at a specialist level in the area concerned."
Veterinary surgeons will continue to have multiple routes to RCVS Recognised Specialist status - including via European Diplomas, which also offer a route for those not in a standard residency position, American Diplomas, the RCVS Fellowship, or other such high level qualifications.
Musculoskeletal therapists currently have their work underpinned by an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which allows them to treat an animal under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has first examined that animal.
The College says it has recognised that there has been confusion over whether musculoskeletal therapists need a veterinary referral for maintenance work, such as massage, in a healthy animal. This may lead to delays in animals receiving maintenance care.
The new guidance, found in Chapter 19 (www.rcvs.org.uk/unqualified) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, sets out the existing rules for musculoskeletal treatment of illness, disease or pathology, and clarifies that healthy animals do not need a veterinary referral for maintenance care.
The guidance stresses that musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team, and that any animal, including healthy ones, should be registered with a veterinary surgeon and referred to a vet at the first sign of any symptoms that may suggest underlying health issues.
The guidance also says that vets should be confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified; indicators of this can include membership of a voluntary regulatory body with a register of practitioners, and associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a complaints and disciplinary process.
In March 2019 the RCVS published the Review of Minor Procedures Regime (www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/report-to-defra-on-the-review-of-minor-procedures-regime-and/) which noted that the existing exemption order was not suitable for underpinning the work of musculoskeletal therapists, and recommended that this be remedied by reform of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, alongside regulation by the RCVS through Associate status for musculoskeletal therapists.
This would allow the RCVS to set and uphold standards for musculoskeletal therapists in a similar way to veterinary nurses, giving further assurance to both the veterinary professions and the public. The recent Legislation Working Party Report recommendations builds on that recommendation, and is currently open for consultation at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.
The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.
The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.
Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."
The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.
Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."
The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia
Ed's comment: The new guidance seems like common sense to me. A couple of things stand out as useful reminders, though. The first is to anonymise details of the cases you discuss on vetsurgeon.org, or get your clients' prior permission to discuss their animal in a professional forum. The other is the fact that being disparaging about a colleague online is as much of a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct as if you do it offline. So don't!
There are 10 candidates standing this year and vets can vote for up to three of them until 5pm on Friday 21st April 2023:
The biographies and statements for each candidate are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July 2023.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com stating which election they intend to vote in.
The RCVS and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) will be holding a free Masterclass offering practical guidance on the requirements of the Veterinary Practice Premises Register, on Saturday 4 April, at BSAVA Congress.
If you are concerned about medicines inspections and would like further information about complying, this is your chance to find out what you need to do.
By 1 April, all practice premises from which medicines are supplied should be registered with the RCVS. All such premises are then subject to inspection - by either Practice Standards Scheme inspectors, if accredited under the Scheme, or VMD inspectors. Will you be ready if an inspector calls?
Suitable for veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers, the interactive session will be held from 10am - 12noon, with presentations from VMD and the Chief Inspector of the Practice Standards Scheme, followed by group discussion and plenty of time for questions and answers.
Attendance at the Masterclass, which will be held in Hall 6 of the ICC in Birmingham, is free to BSAVA passholders.
For your free ticket, contact Fiona Harcourt on 020 7202 0773, f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk, or during Congress visit the RCVS Stand, number 918, opposite the catering stand in the Exhibition hall.
The Disciplinary Committee considered four charges against Dr Strokowska. The first was that, whilst registered in the 'Practising Outside the United Kingdom' category of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons maintained by the RCVS, she practised as a veterinary surgeon in the counties of Somerset, Shropshire, London, Lancashire and Norfolk between July 2016 and August 2017 when she was not registered as UK-practising. The charges were that her conduct in relation to this was dishonest and misleading to her employer and/or clients.
The second charge was that, between October 2016 and July 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs of and comments about animals being treated at the practices where she worked, without the consent of the owners or the practices.
The third charge was that, between January 2017 and March 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs, videos and comments about animals being treated at Goddards Veterinary Hospital in Wanstead, without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon.
The fourth charge was that, between July 2017 and September 2017, Dr Strokowska made representations to the practice principal of Barn Lodge, in Lancashire, and/or a student vet working at the practice that she had gained consent for photographs and social media posts when she had not, and that her conduct was dishonest and misleading.
At the outset of the hearing, the Dr Strokowska admitted to having practised as a veterinary surgeon in the UK when she was registered as practising outside the UK, but disputed that she had been dishonest or misleading with regards to this.
She also admitted to the entirety of the second charge and part of the third, but, under the latter charge, denied that she had, without consent, taken a video of an animal being operated on by a veterinary colleague.
Finally, she admitted to dishonest and misleading conduct with regard to part of the fourth charge, but denied that, in July 2017, she informed the practice principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs at Barn Lodge and post these on social media, when she had not been so told.
The Disciplinary Committee went on to consider the facts of the case for each of the charges that remained in issue.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee accepted that she did not have her registration status with the RCVS in her mind while she was working in the UK during the period in question. Accordingly, the Committee did not find her to have been dishonest.
With regards to the third charge the Committee considered the issue of whether the video in question had been posted "without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon". After examining the relevant evidence (which included the video in question) the Committee determined that the evidence did not support the facts charged and thus that charge three was not proved.
With regards to the fourth charge, Strokowska denied that her conduct in relation to informing the principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs and post these on social media was dishonest or misleading, on the basis that she believed she had permission to take and post photographs on social media. The Committee was not able to be sure as to how she sought this consent and the response provided and so the charge was found not proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that it was the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that her registration status was appropriate at the time she was doing locum work in the UK. However she had provided her RCVS registration number to all the practises she had worked for and in the view of the committee there was no intention to deceive anyone. In the judgement of the Committee, her conduct was not sufficiently grave so as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
The Committee, in its judgement, concluded that her conduct in relation to the second charge did fall far short of the behaviour to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that all members of the profession are obliged to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct, and the supporting guidance, in relation to the use of the internet and social media.
Unauthorised posting of photographs of animals being treated by a veterinary surgeon on social media may well cause distress to the owners, and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole, and to the reputation of individual practices.
The aspect of the third charge admitted by the respondent involved posting a photograph with accompanying text of a dog without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered that this was, indeed, a matter of professional discourtesy, but did not consider that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The respondent admitted the fourth charge and admitted that her conduct was dishonest and misleading. The Committee, in its judgement, considered that by choosing to lie in response to a genuine professional enquiry about her conduct, her behaviour fell far short of that to be expected from a member of the veterinary profession, and constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose.
In mitigation the Committee considered that the postings were an attempt to promote the health and welfare of animals; the lack of risk of harm or actual harm to an animal or human; no apparent financial gain from her actions; her youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct; her open and frank admissions at an early stage; her subsequent efforts to avoid repetition; the lapse of time since the incident; and her demonstration of insight into the effects of her postings on some owners.
The Committee considered the available sanctions in order starting with no further action. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate where the serious professional misconduct found in this case involved dishonesty, even given the mitigating factors relating to that as outlined above, nor in view of the repeated nature of the social media posts without owner consent.
The Committee determined that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.
Dr Strokowska was reprimanded for her serious professional misconduct in relation to her admitted failure to obtain necessary consent for posts on social media and her dishonesty in communication.
She was warned that she should in future be fully aware of, and comply with, the provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, in particular as it relates to the use of social media, including the need to ensure that she has obtained all the necessary consents from all relevant parties.
The RCVS has announced that it is to host an open day on Monday 15 December for those members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions who are interested in joining the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), Disciplinary Committee (DC) or Veterinary Nurse Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC).
In January 2015 the College will be looking to recruit veterinary members for PIC and DC following a legislative reform order last year to reconstitute them separately from RCVS Council. This means that the committees must be made up of veterinary and lay members who are not on Council and members will be appointed on the advice of an independent selection committee.
The RCVS will be seeking to recruit four veterinary surgeons for DC as well as three veterinary surgeons for PIC. At the same time the College will be recruiting two registered veterinary nurses and a veterinary surgeon for VN PIC. Applications are particularly sought from practising or recently retired clinicians.
The Open Day (at Belgravia House from 9.30am to 4pm) will provide the opportunity for those who are interested in applying to hear from current members of each committee about what being a committee member is really like and the type of cases dealt with. Recruitment consultants will also be on hand to explain the hiring process and attendees will have the opportunity to put questions to Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Those who are interested in attending the Open Day should contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761 to register an interest or request an agenda.
1CPD was launched in 2020 with the aim of providing an easy-to-use platform for veterinary surgeons to use to plan, record and reflect on their continuing professional development (CPD).
The workshops, which are taking place on Wednesday 9th December 2020, are designed to help those who are not yet familiar with the platform, or have some limited experience of it but would like some additional guidance.
The first workshop takes place at midday and is for those members of the profession who haven’t yet used the platform. The session will give an overview of how 1CPD works and the benefits of using it for planning, recording and reflecting on CPD. No prior knowledge is assumed, and complete beginners are especially welcome. There'll be an opportunity to ask questions.
The second workshop takes place at 7pm and is for those who have some experience of using 1CPD but may have further questions, for example, about how to use some of its features such as the planning module and how to best make use of the reflective notes and comments feature.
Both of the workshops will last for approximately an hour each.
Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “We’ve seen fantastic take up of the 1CPD platform in less than a year – with around 65% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons and an amazing 80% of veterinary nurses using it to plan, record and reflect on their professional development. The feedback that we receive has been overwhelmingly positive, with the even the more technically-challenged amongst us finding 1CPD intuitive.
"Although the numbers are very encouraging, there is a cohort of people who have not yet actively engaged with the platform and maybe are unsure about using it or are put off by the thought of having to learn how to use a brand new online system. The aim of these workshops is to guide and reassure those who are hesitant that the 1CPD system is very simple and easy-to-use with lots of useful features. In the long run, it will save you a lot of time and effort when it comes to recording your CPD because it’s there on your phone or tablet, ready to update as-and-when you need to."
Richard Burley, Chief Technology Officer for the RCVS, added: “We are very glad that the 1CPD platform developed by our team here has been so well received. We are continuing to improve and update the platform based on user feedback to improve its design and usability and would welcome any further constructive comments that members of the professions have about it. We do hope you those who are both unfamiliar with the system, and those who have used it but need further advice, can join us for these sessions to find out both how to use 1CPD and how to get the best out of it.”
To sign up to one of the workshops, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/1cpd-online-workshop.
For those who aren’t able to make it on the day, recorded versions of all of the workshops will be made available to watch again after the event.
To download 1CPD as an app for use on iOS (Apple) or Android devices, or to access the web version, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/1CPD