View all veterinary jobs
The RCVS Trust has announced 34 grants totalling approximately £165,000, being made to veterinary surgeons, universities and higher education (HE) establishments, to fund high-quality research projects in the UK and overseas, and support veterinary education.
Harper Adams University College and Myerscough College will be the first veterinary nursing colleges to receive funding under the Spencer-Hill equipment grants programme; this was the first time that RCVS-approved HE veterinary nurse training providers were able to apply for this funding. Harper Adams will receive £2,350 to purchase a Humphrey ADE-circle system, and Myerscough, £1,395 for an 'Emily' canine positioning mannequin.
Severine Tasker MRCVS, from the University of Bristol, and Janet Patterson-Kane MRCVS, from the University of Glasgow each received Blue Sky Awards of £17,000. Severine will conduct research into constructing defined feline coronavirus strains for determination of the role of virus genetics in the development of feline infectious peritonitis. Janet Patterson-Kane's research will investigate whether a new therapy for treating wounds in humans can be translated for use in horses.
Janet said: "Limb wounds in horses are very common and are notorious for developing masses of exuberant scar tissue - proud flesh - and not healing properly. This can necessitate multiple operations. The findings of current research at University College London by our collaborator, Professor David Becker, suggest that in human patients a protein, connexin 43, is not downregulated at the edges of wounds that are difficult to heal. Use of therapy to reduce connexin 43 expression in human skin wounds in which healing has stalled has been remarkably successful in achieving wound closure. The aim of our research is to determine if connexin 43 plays a similar key role as a 'master switch' for wound healing in horses. I am extremely grateful to the RCVS Trust for their support."
Six veterinary undergraduates will also receive EMS vacation research scholarships of £700 each, which can be used to fund expenses relating to a research project undertaken in the UK or overseas as part of a UK veterinary school's extra-mural studies requirement.
Full details of the RCVS Trust grant awards may be found at www.rcvstrust.org.uk/awards
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has embarked upon the most extensive review of its veterinary nursing qualifications for many years, in order to meet the timetable for Ofqual's implementation of the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) in summer 2010.
The new QCF aims to provide a more user-friendly and flexible system. Under the new arrangements, all qualifications will carry a 'value' in terms of their level and the volume of learning involved. It's a similar system to that used in higher education for a number of years.
The new national awards framework means that NVQs as such will disappear and the process of review opens up the whole qualification structure, allowing for the creation of a more flexible system to suit better the needs of the veterinary nursing profession and employers.
Head of Veterinary Nursing, Libby Earle said: "Future options include potentially placing more of the responsibility for education and basic skills on the colleges, leaving practices to concentrate on providing quality mentorship and work experience, with less emphasis on assessment.
"Consideration will also be given to providing part of VN training and education within full-time further education, which is possible now that the lower age limit for VN students has been dropped."
The College is keen to hear the views of those involved with the delivery of training and employers of qualified nurses. A consultation letter has been sent to those involved and topics on which views are sought include the range and level of knowledge and skills delivered by the current awards, the impact of training on employers of student VNs, meeting the increased demand for qualified VNs, and providing VNs for mixed or equine practices.
Over the summer, evidence-gathering meetings will be held at the RCVS to explore the issues in more depth. Anyone who has not been sent a formal consultation letter and who would like to contribute is very welcome to submit their views. Please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/vnawardsreview for the consultation papers. Comments should be submitted by 30 June 2009.
The review of the RCVS awards will take place alongside Lantra's review of the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for VNs: the NOS describe what a person needs to do, know and understand in their job to carry out their role in a consistent and competent way.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Nottinghamshire veterinary surgeon, having found not proven the charge that he had caused, allowed or failed to prevent a potential breach of the Rules of Racing of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB).
During the re-scheduled, three-day hearing, the Committee heard that Dr Gary Samuel was on duty on 10 October 2009 as the GBGB licensed track veterinary surgeon at Nottingham Greyhound Stadium. When the trainer came to collect her dog for the race, she discovered a biscuit in his kennel in the paddock area, in potential contravention of the rules of the GBGB, which do not allow greyhounds access to any food, drink or other substance after weighing in, prior to a race. She reported this discovery to the paddock steward. The dog was withdrawn from the race, so there was no prospect of prize money. The trainer, despite her unblemished record, was put at risk of disciplinary action by the GBGB, which could have resulted in the loss of her training licence and livelihood. Following the events of 10 October, the GBGB held a disciplinary hearing, at which Dr Samuel was disqualified indefinitely from holding a GBGB licence and fined £2,500, and the matter was referred to the College.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee confirmed that it should not be bound by the GBGB decision, and that the charges laid against Dr Samuel must be resolved on the basis of the evidence before it. Both Counsel for Dr Samuel and the College urged the Committee to have close regard of CCTV footage from 10 October, which showed Kennel 21 where the dog had been placed and the biscuit found. From evidence given by the paddock steward and the trainer, the Committee accepted that the kennel was clean when the dog entered at 5.30pm, so the biscuit must have been introduced between 5.30pm and 9pm, when the trainer collected him for the race.
The footage available to the Committee from Nottingham Race Track was only four-and-a-half minutes long. The Committee was concerned that there were almost three-and-a-half hours of footage that it had not been shown and that, in addition, witnesses were not able to state that they had viewed the remainder of the footage. In those circumstances, the Committee considered that the footage available must be of the best quality to allow it to reach a sure conclusion as to what exactly Dr Samuel may have been doing in his position close to Kennel 21. From the quality of the footage available, the Committee was not able to be sure.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Vice-Chairman Professor Sheila Crispin said: "The fact remains that the Committee cannot be sure that the Respondent caused the biscuit to enter Kennel 21, [so] finds the charge against the Respondent not proved."
Dr Samuel therefore remains on the RCVS Register and is entitled to practise.
The aim of the survey is to provide a better understanding of the views, experiences and challenges faced by disabled and chronically ill people within the veterinary profession and provide an insight into how the profession and educational institutions can be more inclusive.
You do not have to be disabled or chronically ill to complete the survey, which will take you around 20 minutes to complete.
Claire Hodgson, director and co-founder of BVCIS, said: “Working in the veterinary professions with a chronic illness or disability can be hugely challenging, but there is currently a knowledge gap in terms of understanding exactly where the problems lie.
“A 2019 RCVS survey of the professions found that around 6.7% of vets and 7.4% of RVNs have a disability or medical condition that limits work that they can do, but the true figures are likely to be much higher.
"No reliable data for veterinary students currently exists.
“The purpose of this survey is to close that knowledge gap and help us understand how we can better support disabled and chronically ill people in the workplace and education to create a more inclusive working culture.\
“Those living with disability and chronic illness are often hugely resourceful and fantastic problem solvers because of the day-to-day challenges they have had to learn to overcome.
"They have a great deal to contribute to the sector, and it is important that they feel valued and respected and have access to the tools they need to thrive.
“Diversity makes the workforce stronger, so we are calling on as many different people as possible from across the veterinary community to complete our survey so that, together, we can help create a more inclusive workplace for all.”
The survey will be circulated by email to all RCVS registered veterinary surgeons in the near future.
Details will be circulated to students via their educational institutions.
The RCVS says all survey responses will be completely confidential, and results will only be analysed and reported at a level that does not allow identification of individuals in any way.
Completed surveys will not be seen by anyone at the RCVS or BVCIS – the IES will send through a report with key research findings to both the RCVS and BVCIS after the survey has closed.
Veterinary surgeon Andrew Reeder, Director of the Stonehenge Veterinary Hospital, in Durrington, near Salisbury, was the lucky winner of a Sony Pocket e-Reader in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' prize draw at the London Vet Show in November.
The competition was mounted to launch an online quiz to test members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct. All those who completed the quiz on the RCVS stand at the event were entered into a prize draw: the RCVS would like to stress that it was a random draw, in spite of the serendipity of Andrew's surname!
"This is brilliant, I so rarely win anything!" said Andrew. "I'd recommend that all RCVS members should have a go at the quiz - it's quick, easy to complete and certainly makes you think."
Over 600 people have tackled the quiz so far. Those who fancy testing their knowledge of the Guide should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz. The quiz is anonymous, but the College will be collating data to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required. On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.
Fees will now be £340 for a UK-practising member, £170 for members practising outside the UK, £56 for non-practising vets under the age of 70, and free for non-practising vets over 70.
Restoration fees, charged in addition to retention fees, increase to £85 following voluntary removal, and £340 following removal for non-payment.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This year we asked Council to agree a fee increase to help us prepare for unknowns such as Brexit, as well as fortify our proactive work to help support the professions.
"Over the past few years we have put increased resources into projects such as: Mind Matters, our mental health initiative; Vet Futures, our joint project with the British Veterinary Association; Vivet, our innovation hub; and our recently launched Leadership Programme. Unfortunately there has also been a rise in Disciplinary Committee hearings and we are having to allocate further funds to making our building fit for purpose, and so a small increase has been necessary.
"This still places us at the lower end of fees for regulatory bodies while providing a secure financial foundation."
Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
On 9 April, the College published a flowchart to help veterinary professionals to decide whether or not to carry out a particular type of work, whilst ensuring the health of their teams and clients, and working to uphold animal health and welfare.
The flowchart has been updated as follows:
Firstly, the box that previously said:
‘Can you effectively support the case while maintaining social distancing for your team and the public?’
now says:
‘Can you effectively support the case while abiding by the appropriate social/physical distancing guidance for workplaces to protect your team and the public?’
The College says this new wording better reflects the different language and varying guidance in place across devolved nations. It also recognises that the new government guidance is not just about maintaining a 2m distance, for which ‘social distancing’ appears to become a shorthand, but accepts that other biosecurity measures might be appropriate if the 2m rule cannot be followed in the workplace.
Secondly, the box that previously said:
‘Could the planned intervention have animal health and welfare or public health implications if not carried out within two months?’
‘Could the planned intervention have animal health and welfare or public health implications if not carried out?’
This change recognises that this phase of lockdown-exit may carry on for longer than a two-month period; it therefore leaves it to the clinician’s professional judgement in terms of the implications versus the risk, rather than seeing it within a specific time-period.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: "I’m grateful to the members of our Covid-19 Taskforce for continuing to keep under review our key guidance to the profession during the ongoing pandemic. Whilst these latest changes do not represent any significant changes for vets and vet nurses as they continue to care for the nation’s animals, it is important that we continually keep our guidance in line with that of the UK’s governments."
The updated flowchart is available to view and download from www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected.
At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.
The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.
“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded
“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.
“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
The VetGDP, which replaced the Professional Development Phase (PDP), provides a period of structured support to aid the transition of newly-registered veterinary surgeons from veterinary studies to life in the workplace.
VetGDP is being rolled out during 2021 and this year’s veterinary graduates will need to enrol on it.
One of the main features of VetGDP is the requirement for a trained VetGDP Adviser to be available in the practice to provide their new graduate with one-to-one, meaningful support and guidance, to help develop their confidence and capabilities.
In order for veterinary surgeons to become VetGDP Advisers they must complete an online training package being developed by the RCVS and formally commit to supporting new graduates.
Practices that have trained VetGDP Advisers and make this commitment will receive the status of an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice.
The original plan was that practices who wish to employ this year’s cohort of graduates should have obtained RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status by June 2021.
This has now been amended in recognition of the additional pressures that veterinary practice teams are under as a result of the pandemic.
Practices who employ graduates this year will now have until December 2021 to achieve this status, provided they have started to work towards RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status and commit to supporting their new graduate while they do so.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The ongoing pandemic restrictions, specifically changes made by the government to veterinary professionals’ key worker status on 13 January, means that there are now significant additional pressures on practice teams, particularly in terms of staffing, as many members of the profession will be balancing their work with caring responsibilities. We recognise this and, as such, we have updated the timeframe for the completion of our training for VetGDP Advisers.
“I would also like to personally thank the 850 vets who have already registered their interest in becoming VetGDP Advisers. It is very reassuring to see so many members of the profession committed to supporting new members of the profession, and wanting to engage with the training and with VetGDP to help nurture and develop our future vets through their first few years in practice.”
The College will be holding three VetGDP workshops in February. Each workshop will feature the same content, so there’s no need to attend more than one.
They take place on:
The workshops are open to anyone in the veterinary team including veterinary surgeons who may be considering becoming a VetGDP Adviser, practice managers and others involved in graduate recruitment and anyone else who would like to find out more about VetGDP.
The sessions will be interactive and there will be a significant portion of time given over to Q&As. The RCVS Chair of Education Committee, Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, and Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, will be available to answer any questions which can be submitted live during the event. You can also submit questions as you register for the workshop at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdpworkshops.
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdp
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.
The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.
The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.
The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.
In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.
Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.
In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."
In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both.
Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems.
In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.
Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."
Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The 2009 RCVS Continuing Professional Development Record Cards have been sent to all practising vets and Registered Veterinary Nurses.
Undertaking and recording Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is a mandatory professional requirement for these vets and RVNs. Vets must average at least 35 hours of CPD per year and RVNs 15 hours, although many will do far more.
The RCVS can ask to see CPD records - and they may be checked during practice inspections as part of the Practice Standards Scheme. For newly-qualified veterinary surgeons, completing the Professional Development Phase also fulfils the CPD requirements in their first year of practice.
Jill Nute, President of the RCVS, said: "CPD is about maintaining professional competence. Vets and RVNs are expected to make continuous improvements in their knowledge and skills, which will have benefits for their patients and clients, their own development and the profession at large. Undertaking CPD allows vets and RVNs to demonstrate their commitment to maintaining the highest professional standards."
As professionals, vets and RVNs are expected to evaluate what knowledge and skills they need to develop, and how they will do this. This may include activities such as going to particular case-conferences or asking for some in-house training. Getting together with other practices to organise training sessions or secondments or finding a mentor can also be useful.
Personal study - documented in a learning diary detailing the aims of the study, what was studied and the outcomes, for example, a change made to a practice protocol - can also be used. There is no limit on properly documented study, but vets cannot count more than 10 hours, and veterinary nurses five hours, each year of undocumented study.
All CPD activity should be systematically planned to meet identified professional needs, and clear records must be kept of what has been done.
Further information about CPD requirements for veterinary surgeons and Registered Veterinary Nurses can be found on the back of the CPD Record Card, and at RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk).
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Wilson faced two charges. The first was that in October 2017, he provided inaccurate information to an insurer in respect of a Labrador he treated by saying that the dog was presented to him with a lame left foreleg on 13 June 2017, when in fact the dog was presented for treatment on 7 June 2017 and that his conduct was therefore dishonest and misleading.
The second charge was that between 17 January 2017 and 17 January 2018 he failed to have any arrangements in place for Professional Indemnity Insurance (a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct) and then, that between 8 January and 5 December 2019, he failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS regarding his Professional Indemnity Insurance.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee to adjourn the hearing subject to the Committee accepting his undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.
Mr Wilson’s legal representative at the hearing submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that granting the application would be in the public interest on the basis that Mr Wilson was 68 years of age and had now retired from the profession and closed his practice, that he had dedicated his entire working life to veterinary practice, had a previously long and unblemished career with no other complaints, and that he was well-regarded by clients and professional colleagues.
The application was not opposed by the RCVS whose representative informed the Committee that, relating to the charge of dishonesty, the College had taken into account that the insurance claim form was not submitted by Mr Wilson himself, and that there is no evidence of any financial motivation behind the charge nor any allegation of harm to an animal.
Taking into account the submissions from Mr Wilson’s representatives and from the RCVS, as well as precedent cases for such applications, the Committee decided that Mr Wilson’s voluntary undertakings went well beyond any sanction that could be imposed by the Committee and considered that the application would protect the public interest, confidence in the profession, and the welfare of animals.
Professor Alistair Barr FRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee. Taking into account proportionality, and weighing in the balance the public interest, the interests of justice, the need to protect the welfare of animals, as well as the interests of both parties, the Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.
Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.
The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.
Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.
The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".
Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.
The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.
Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.
"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.
Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".
Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."
The RCVS Council has approved the new Strategic Plan designed to bring the College closer to its vision of enhancing society through improved animal health and welfare, over the next three years.
The Strategic Plan is founded on feedback from the profession and the public about what the College does well and where it could do better, and an analysis of how other leading regulators operate. It includes 35 actions, clustered under five themes, all centred on the purpose of setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.
For example, the College aims to introduce a service charter - for the public and the profession - of rights, expectations and responsibilities for each of its functions.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "This drive for excellent service lies at the heart of our focus on improvement.
"The concept of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as well as the public, being our 'customers', was one that unsettled the profession when it was first mooted. But I believe that only by ensuring that we focus relentlessly on improving how we interact with our customers will we deliver a service for the profession, the public, and, ultimately, the UK's animals, which is worthy of the name first-rate regulator."
Amongst other things, the Plan also commits to:
The Strategic Plan can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/strategy.
Also at its November meeting, Council approved:
More information on all of these topics will be available in the November issue of RCVS News, online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
You can also hear direct from the CEO via his post-Council video update: www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos.
The outreach programme began earlier this month at the Devon County Show (pictured right), where the College used the opportunity to spread the word about its petsneedvets campaign, handing out over 1000 promotional bags in the process.
Next on the itinerary is the Royal Welsh Show near Builth Wells from the 23rd to 26th July. From there, the College will be heading to the BBC Countryfile Live event, held in the grounds of Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire from the 2nd to 5th August.
Ian Holloway, Director of Communications at the RCVS, said: "Following the success and popularity of our stand at Countryfile Live over the past two years we decided that this year we would broaden our horizons and attend some of the UK’s most prestigious and well-attended regional events.
"We have our ever-popular careers materials available, and it was wonderful to see dozens of young people at the Devon County Show asking us about how they can become veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as they always have the past two years at Countryfile. This is a really encouraging level of interest in the professions and we’re very happy to provide information to help them fulfil their aspirations.
"Attending more and different public events is a trend we are very keen on continuing with and we will be looking at other events to attend in different parts of the UK for next year."
For more information about upcoming events involving the RCVS visit www.rcvs.org.uk/events
Photo: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
The RCVS has issued a summary of the key decisions made at the June Council meeting.
The summary is below, but for those who prefer, Nick Stace has done a four-minute piece to camera:
24/7 & PostnominalsCouncil agreed in principal to changes to the supporting guidance of the Code of Professional Conduct regarding 24/7 emergency care and to put the brakes on a decision regarding the removal of all postnominals from the RCVS Register of Members.
AccountsAlso at the meeting, Council agreed to the 2013 Annual Report and Financial Statements, which is this year in a new format - the Statement of Recommended Practice, Accounting and Reporting by Charities (SORP 2005) - on the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee. The Annual Report will be available to download shortly (www.rcvs.org.uk/publications).
In addition, Council agreed a freeze on retention fees for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for 2015 - the fifth year in a row, and an effective decrease over this period of over £40 for veterinary surgeons.
CharterCouncil also agreed to an amended version of the proposed new Royal Charter, which will now go to the AGM on 11 July 2014 for endorsement by members. The updated text, together with an explanation of the changes, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/newcharter.
Governance reviewNearly a year on from the introduction of the new Operational Board and other governance changes designed to streamline decision-making, Council took the opportunity to review how this new structure was working. It agreed that, going forward, the Operational Board would appoint members of all committees and that papers for Council meetings should include minutes of all committee meetings.
Council also agreed that the Operational Board should take responsibly for registration matters, which are currently within the remit of the Standards Committee. Terms of reference for the Audit and Risk, Specialist Recognition Appeals and Standards Committees will be revised. Whether the Education Committee should be responsible for all decisions on the recognition of registerable degrees (as opposed to Council in its entirety) will be discussed further at the November meeting of Council.
Registration RegulationsThe planned discussion on updated Registration Regulations was postponed until the November meeting, as feedback is awaited from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Alternative dispute resolutionCouncil agreed to the trial of an alternative dispute resolution service to start before the end of the year. The service will help the College to deal with complaints which, while they do not give rise to issues of serious professional misconduct, may have some substance. The trial will be carried out with Ombudsman Services and will focus on concerns relating to small animals received by the Professional Conduct Department. It will be limited to no more than 150 cases at a cost not to exceed £120,000.
Risk RegisterCouncil discussed and approved an updated Risk Register. The Risk Register is confidential.
Practice Standard Scheme updateCouncil gave approval for the general direction of travel of the review of the Practice Standards Scheme, including a new modular framework; an IT system that would be available to all practices, not just those in the Scheme; new training and assessment for inspectors; and increased practice fees to cover these developments.
Also at the meeting, Amanda Boag was elected Treasurer, a post she will take up at RCVS Day on 11 July.
Reports were also presented from the Audit and Risk, Education, Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Liaison, Standards, Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, and the Veterinary Nurses Council.
Finally, on behalf of Council, President Neil Smith gave thanks to retiring Council members Christine Shield, Peter Robinson, Clare Tapsfield-Wright and Caroline Freedman, also thanking Peter Lees, in his absence.
More detail about these topics, and other issues discussed at Council, will be available in the minutes in due course. The papers for the Council meeting can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/rcvs-council/council-meetings/5-june-2014.
See also the June issue of RCVS News, which can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications shortly.
The Codes were approved by RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council earlier this year, following a lengthy consultation and review process that began in 2009, and will replace the existing Guides to Professional Conduct.
The College says the new Codes are principles-based, easily accessible and, at 16 pages long compared to the 50-page Guides, much more concise. They bring the College's guidance into line with the codes of conduct of other regulatory bodies, and help to describe those professional responsibilities that are fundamental to veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' practice.
To expand on and clarify these professional responsibilities, an additional 27 chapters of supporting guidance have been published on the RCVS website, which also consolidate and update all existing RCVS guidance for veterinary professionals.
Both Codes set out five principles of practice: professional competence; honesty and integrity; independence and impartiality; client confidentiality and trust; and, professional accountability.
The veterinary surgeons' Code features an update to the declaration made on admission to the profession and, for the first time, the veterinary nurses' Code includes a declaration to be made on professional registration.
Among the professional responsibilities introduced in the Codes are: mandatory recording of continuing professional development; a mandatory professional development phase for new veterinary surgeons and period of supervised practice for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) returning to practice after a break; a Performance Protocol; and, notification to the RCVS of any matter that may affect fitness to practise, including convictions (although this will require further consideration by the College).
For the first time, mandatory clinical governance has been introduced, and minimum practice standards have also been incorporated, at equivalence to the core standards set out in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme.
A pocket-sized hard copy of the Code will be posted to all vets and RVNs shortly, which will include references to where the supporting guidance and further information can be found on the RCVS website. The online versions - at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcode and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncode - are fully searchable by keyword, and PDF versions will soon be available to download. A digital version is also being explored, to enable veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to access the Codes and supporting guidance on smart phones and tablets.
Although only registered veterinary nurses have agreed to abide by the VN Code of Professional Conduct, the College hopes that all veterinary nurses will consider it a useful benchmark of professional standards.
Dr Jerry Davies, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted that this significant piece of work has come to fruition. The RCVS has shown that, despite aged legislation, the Codes will, through imaginative interpretation of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, ensure the public and their animals continue to receive the level of professional service they have come to expect from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in the UK."
The RCVS is to hold an online hustings on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm to help voters decide who they wish to vote for in the upcoming RCVS Council elections, and is inviting members of the veterinary profession to suggest questions for the candidates to answer.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "From feedback we've received, one of the reasons why people don't vote is because they know little about the candidates or their views. We hope this hustings will provide the candidates with a platform to address the veterinary electorate directly, and give voters the chance to put their own questions to those hoping to serve on Council."
The hustings will be run as a live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will be free to listen to. However, the College says that due to the high number of candidates standing for election, it isn't possible to hold a debate, so questions should be submitted in advance (see below). Each candidate will be allocated around three minutes to introduce themselves and answer up to three questions of their choosing. The whole event will run for just under an hour.
Anthony Chadwick, who runs The Webinar Vet, will moderate proceedings, and Gordon Hockey will be on-hand to address any factual inaccuracies.
Veterinary surgeons can register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs and submit their questions at the same time; alternatively, questions can be emailed to Ian Holloway at the RCVS (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk).
Questions should be relevant to the role of the RCVS and the role of Council Members (see www.rcvs.org.uk/about). If questions should remain anonymous, please say so.
Ballot papers and candidates' biographies and manifestos are due to be posted on 7 March. Votes may be cast online, by text message or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by James Main, who was struck off in 2011, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a Disciplinary Committee hearing held on 22 February 2011, Mr Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and his name was removed from the Register. The then-Committee established that, contrary to the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) rules of racing, Mr Main had injected tranexamic acid into the racehorse 'Moonlit Path' on 19 February 2009, knowing that the horse was to race later that day. He was also found guilty of dishonestly concealing this injection in his practice records as a "pre-race check".
At yesterday's hearing, the Committee noted that the decision to remove Mr Main from the Register had sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of strict compliance with the BHA's Rules of Racing; it was the inevitable consequence of his breaches of those rules and his dishonesty in concealing the administration of the injection. In oral evidence, Mr Main said he accepted the findings and decision of the previous Committee, and he apologised.
The Committee also noted a number of changes since implemented at Mr Main's practice, including a pharmacy review to improve traceability of drugs; withdrawal of the use of tranexamic acid in the management of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage; and a cautious approach to drug withdrawal times. Mr Main's practice had also reviewed its processes to ensure its veterinary surgeons complied with all relevant rules, regulations and guidance, and that any requests by clients to breach these rules would be refused.
The Committee accepted evidence that Mr Main had worked in a management capacity in his practice since 26 March 2011, performing no clinical role, and had undertaken appropriate continuing professional development since being removed from the Register. It also noted the large volume of testimonials and public support presented at the hearing from both veterinary surgeons and clients in the horse world.
Furthermore, it noted that removal had been financially and emotionally detrimental to Mr Main, his family and practice and, if his name were not restored to the Register, there would be a continuing detrimental effect on his family finances and the practice.
Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee accepts that Mr Main has found the removal of his name from the Register a humbling and salutary experience and accepts his apologies. It is satisfied that he is very unlikely to breach the rules of racing in the future and does not consider that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals by restoring his name to the Register.
"The Committee does not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession."
The Committee directed that Mr Main's name be restored to the Register.
Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her.
The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.
Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.
However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.
Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.
“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.
“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.
“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”
She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”
Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Every year, the RCVS invites members of the veterinary profession to apply to join the RCVS Fellowship.
Becoming a member of the Fellowship is a recognition of an individual’s contribution to the professions and their commitment to advancing the scientific achievements of the veterinary sector.
Everyone that applies to join the Fellowship needs to demonstrate the impact they have had throughout their career on the veterinary professions.
The Fellowship Credentials Panel is responsible for reviewing and scoring Fellowship applications and making recommendations for who should be approved.
Angharad Belcher, Director for Advancement of the Professions, said: “Being part of our Fellowship Credentials Panel is a great opportunity to see the huge amount of dedication to the profession that prospective Fellows have shown throughout their careers, and to then celebrate their achievements when they are successfully welcomed to the Fellowship later in the year”.
To apply to join the Fellowship Credentials Panel, download and complete the application form (https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/credentials-panel-recruitment-2022/), then email it to Ceri Chick, Senior Leadership Officer at c.chick@rcvs.org.uk with a CV by 5pm on 28 February 2022.
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings