The RCVS has announced the names of the candidates standing in the Council elections this year and is, once again, inviting veterinary surgeons to put questions to them directly in this year’s 'Quiz the candidates'.
There are eight candidates (well, seven really, if you exclude the 'Donald Trump' candidate) contesting six places in the RCVS Council, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and four new candidates. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 14 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 29 April 2016.
To submit a question to the candidates, email it (NB only one per person) to vetvote16@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote16, by midday on Monday, 29 February.
Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 17 March.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "Last year, all election candidates produced videos for the first time and, with over 3,500 views in total, it seemed a popular way for voters to find out more about the individuals who were standing.
"Providing a way for all vets and vet nurses to put their own questions to the candidates is now an integral part of the elections, and one which we hope will continue to encourage people to get involved and have their say."
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.
The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.
The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.
RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.
"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."
Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.
RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."
Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.
The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).
Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.
The course was developed with RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, Gurpreet Gill (pictured), and aims to increase self-awareness of unconscious bias, explore strategies to reduce it, and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Gurpreet said: “Unconscious bias is an area that some within the professions may not be familiar with and so this course provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact in the workplace.
“We also explore strategies that we can all apply to help reduce unconscious bias.
"This is important in helping to achieve fairer and more equitable working environments, and I’d encourage any veterinary professional, whatever your role, to undertake the course.”
The course is accessible free via the RCVS Academy, and takes about an hour and three quarters to complete,
Building on the unconscious bias course, the RCVSA academy has also launched a course for members of the Fellowship Credentials Panels, who are responsible for assessing applications to the Fellowship.
Dr Niall Connell FRCVS, Acting Chair of the Fellowship Board, the governing body for the learned society, said: “This course explores the complexities of assessing applications, ensuring that each candidate receives a fair and thorough evaluation.
"Participants will gain insights into best practices for reviewing applications, offering constructive feedback, and identifying and addressing potential biases that may influence decision-making.
"By completing this course, participants will gain a heightened proficiency in assessing applications and managing bias, enabling them to support the RCVS’ mission of fostering equity, diversity and inclusion within the Fellowship.”
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
Surrey vet Matthew Morgan has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted and imprisoned for four counts of pet insurance fraud.
Mr Morgan was convicted, upon his own confession, of dishonestly making false representations to make gain for himself/another or to cause loss to other/ expose other to risk on 22 July 2013 at the Central Criminal Court and, on 23 August 2013, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Morgan, who was not present at the hearing but represented by Mr Laurence Imrie, Solicitor Advocate, had, between 13 November 2009 and 21 December 2012, taken out 18 insurance policies for veterinary cover with four separate insurance providers - Direct Line, Pet Plan, Pet Protect and Sainsbury's - in relation to a number of pets. Of these pets, only one, namely his pet cat, actually existed - the rest were fictitious.
During this period, the respondent made 50 claims on the insurance policies, seeking payment to reimburse him for the cost of veterinary treatment for the fictitious animals and also making false claims for treatment for his own pet cat, including for invented injuries 'sustained' during a non-existent car accident. As a result of the claims, the insurance companies made 54 payments to Mr Morgan to which he was not entitled, totalling £198,295.
At the time he began committing the offences Mr Morgan was working as a veterinary surgeon at a practice in Kent and, in order to support his fraudulent claims, used the practice's official stationery and stamps to fabricate invoices, clinical records and insurance claims. He continued to make fraudulent claims after leaving the practice, having taken the practice's headed paper and stamp with him.
Mr Morgan's actions came to light in December 2012 after submitting a claim to Direct Line for an operation on the spine of his own cat. The insurance company became suspicious and contacted the Kent practice which confirmed he had not treated the cat. An investigation by the insurers and, subsequently, the police began.
On 31 December 2012 Mr Morgan voluntarily attended a police station where he admitted fraudulently claiming £5,534.52 from Pet Plan and £7,610.03 from Direct Line, citing financial pressure caused by divorce, but failed to admit to the rest of his fraudulent activities. He was arrested on 25 January 2013 and, upon searching his home, police found the stamp and headed paper along with documents relating to the insurance claims.
The Disciplinary Committee, in considering the conduct of Mr Morgan, took into account a number of serious aggravating factors. This included the very high degree of financial gain from the fraudulent activities, the fact that there were 50 separate premeditated acts of dishonesty over a three-year period, the betrayal of trust of his former employer and the insurance companies, the potential reputational risk for his former employer, the abuse of his position as a veterinary surgeon and the fact that completion of insurance claims is an act of veterinary certification.
The Committee also considered, in mitigation, a letter from Mr Morgan to the Committee, three testimonials and representation from his legal representative. These cited the fact that Mr Morgan, when he committed the fraudulent activities, was heavily in debt, had serious domestic difficulties and was suffering from depression, although no medical evidence was submitted to the Committee.
However, it was the Committee's decision that the sanction of removing Mr Morgan from the Register had to be taken, in order to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee is of the view that the Respondent's conduct in this case was deplorable ... Such conduct can only undermine public confidence in the profession. The Respondent abused his position as a veterinary surgeon to perpetrate a deliberate long-term fraud on insurers for personal gain.
"The Committee is conscious that its role is not to punish but to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession. Due to the serious nature of the matters before it...the Committee has no doubt that the only suitable sanction is to direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent's name from the Register."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS has announced that it has accepted the resignation of council member Bob Partridge.
Bob, who had been an elected member of the RCVS Council since July 2006, tendered his resignation for personal reasons.
Peter Robinson will take up the vacated Council position, as he came next in the ballot in the 2013 election.
An online quiz by the RCVS has shown that veterinary surgeons generally have good understanding of the Guide to Professional Conduct, but that misconceptions about the role of the college are rife.
Around 850 people completed the quiz since it was launched in November 2009, with veterinary surgeons accounting for 70% of those that took part. The average score was 20 out of 25
Despite the high average score, there were several questions which a very significant number of people got wrong. The worst related to the role of the RCVS: 76% of people wrongly thought that the College's remit included negligence, whilst 66% believed that the RCVS could not consider criminal convictions (it can).
Nearly half of those taking part were not aware that the standard of proof to which the RCVS Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied is 'so as to be sure' - the same as for a criminal court.
Other questions poorly answered related to 24-hour cover, delegation to paraprofessionals, consent and ownership of records. The RCVS Communications Board will consider how to improve communications in these areas.
In terms of age, the highest scoring age-band was 51-60, achieving an average of 20.5 right answers; the lowest was '30 or under', at 18.7. However, this is not backed up by distribution of complaints to the RCVS, where only 27% of complaints relate to those who have less than ten years' post-qualification experience, although this group makes up 43% of registrations.
The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the genders in terms of Guide knowledge, at 19.54 right answers for men and 19.46 for women. Meanwhile, only 34% of complaints to the RCVS are made about women, while they account for 51% of the Register. However, as women tend to dominate the younger end of the profession, this statistic may be linked to the fact that a greater percentage of complaints relate to older individuals, more likely to be men.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "We hoped the quiz would offer a light-hearted way for vets - and others - to review their knowledge of the Guide, which can be a dry read, and have been pleased with the response.
The 1CPD homepage now displays two progress bars: one to track the number of CPD hours currently achieved and recorded, and another to show how many hours have been reflected on.
Once the number of required CPD hours has been recorded and reflected on, a message appears to tell the user that they're CPD compliant.
This change will not affect existing CPD records, and all previously inputted activities and reflections will remain in the system.
Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Lead for Postgraduate Education, said: “We hope that the changes to the 1CPD platform will allow people to track their CPD more easily.
"A key element in outcomes-focused CPD includes reflecting on what you have learned as this is known to have a positive impact on both personal professionalism and patient-health outcomes.
“It should be noted that any CPD you have already undertaken for this year but have not yet reflected on will still remain in the system.
"However, in order to be compliant for 2023, you must reflect on every CPD activity completed.
"If you have completed your hours but have not reflected, this will show as non-compliant.
"In order to make those hours count, you simply need to go back and add your reflections.
"This doesn’t have to be a long and onerous task – uploading audio notes, adding an attachment, or writing a few notes stating what you learnt and how you will use this newly acquired knowledge moving forward will all suffice.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty.
Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.
The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.
Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.
The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.
"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."
In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.
Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?
Discuss here.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Lizzie joined the College as Head of Communications in February 2005, in which role she oversaw the launch of the Practice Standards Scheme in 2006, an overhaul of the College’s design and branding in 2011 and the joint British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project in 2014. More recently, she has been the driving force behind the Mind Matters mental health initiative.
Lizzie was appointed as Director of Strategic Communications in November 2015 and Deputy CEO in September 2016. She became Acting CEO when Nick Stace left the position of CEO at the end of September 2017.
The College advertised the position in the Sunday Times online for four weeks, and used a recruitment agency called Saxton Bampfylde. In all, 60 candidates applied.
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "This was a very rigorous recruitment process with a very strong field of candidates and so it is a testament to Lizzie’s abilities and achievements that she saw off all the opposition.
"For some time Lizzie has been involved in setting the direction of the College through the Strategic Plan and the initiatives and projects that she has managed, which really have had a very tangible impact on the profession.
"For example, the Vet Futures project has encouraged the profession to think more strategically about the issues that are facing it and how to achieve constructive solutions, while the Mind Matters Initiative has helped get veterinary mental health further up the agenda and reduced the stigma that many feel about it.
"Her drive and her passion has really pushed these projects forward and I believe she will bring this to the role of CEO.”
Lizzie said: "I am delighted and feel honoured to have been chosen to take the College forward into its next stage of development. I see the Council’s choice of an internal candidate, able to maintain momentum for change and help the College continue on our current strategic path, as an endorsement of the amazing work of the staff at Belgravia House.
"Under Nick Stace’s leadership, the College achieved some really excellent things for the profession, the public, and animal health and welfare, and I look forward to our next exciting chapter."
RCVS President, Dr Jerry Davies, has committed to prioritise the establishment of a new Audit and Risk Committee, following publication of the recommendations of a report into two overspends at the College.
Earlier this year, outgoing President Peter Jinman had announced that a review would be carried out into the circumstances that led to higher-than-expected expenditure on the College's new database and building development works in the Lower Ground Floor at Belgravia House.
The RCVS Officer team asked Professor Bill McKelvey - a member of the College's Governance Review Group - and two of the College's Privy Council-appointed Council members to look at all aspects that related to its budgeting and expenditure process of those projects, and propose lessons that should be learned.
Dr Davies said: "That such a review was required is regretted, but I would like to thank Professor McKelvey, Richard Davis and Judith Webb for their diligence in this work. Their recommendations will be a very helpful addition to the work that is currently underway to ensure corporate governance is fit for purpose and, in particular, that the management of capital projects within the College is optimised."
The full Overspend Report (one sentence was redacted on legal advice) was considered by Council at its meeting on 3 November. Council agreed that the recommendations should be made public. The College is currently seeking further legal advice on whether it is proper for the report to be made available under the Freedom of Information Act.
Dr Davies added: "The recommendations of the report are under consideration by a group of five past Presidents, together with Richard Davis and Judith Webb as lay members of Council, under the Chairmanship of Peter Jinman, and their proposals will be considered by Council in due course.
"The recommendation that an Audit and Risk Committee be set up will be prioritised, as this was highlighted as an imperative. Other related activities, such as the development of a protocol for the management of major projects, had already been put in place by Officers prior to the overspend review."
Regarding the two projects at the heart of the report, the College says building work in the Lower Ground Floor at Belgravia House has been complete for some time and the new rooms and their facilities are being used, particularly when Disciplinary Committee hearings render much of the rest of the building out of bounds. The new data management system is also in use and an external consultant is currently looking at the work that has been carried out so far, and will make recommendations for the future.
"Meanwhile, although there are many lessons to be learned from the report, it's business as usual in terms of bringing to a conclusion many of our important ongoing initiatives, such as the introduction of the new Code of Professional Conduct, the consultations on the recommendations of the Specialisation Working Party and a draft Performance Protocol, and, of course, the ongoing work of the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees," said Dr Davies.
The recommendations of the report, which were adopted by Council, can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/McKelvey.
The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.
On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.
Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.
Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.
In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."
The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2016 RCVS Council elections.
Current members Christopher Barker (2,838 votes), Amanda Boag (2,689 votes), Kit Sturgess (2,586 votes) and Stephen May (2,452 votes) were returned to four of the six available seats on RCVS Council. Melissa Donald and Lucie Goodwin are joining Council for the first time with 2,532 votes and 2,307 votes respectively.
The re-election of Stephen May means that he will serve as Junior Vice-President of the RCVS for 2016-17.
Voter turnout was down this year at 15.6% (or 4,403) of those eligible to vote, compared to 18.1% last year and the 17.2% average over the past 10 years.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "I’d like to congratulate all those who were successfully elected, and re-elected, to Council, and thank all those who took part in this year’s elections – whether by standing as a candidate, casting a vote or submitting questions for the candidates to answer."
The successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 15 July 2016 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Each candidate in the elections was invited to produce a short video in which they answered questions put to them by fellow members of the professions and which appeared on the RCVS YouTube channel. The videos provided by the RCVS Council candidates received 1,169 views while those provided by the VN Council candidates received 779 views.
The elections were run on behalf of the College by Electoral Reform Services.
The RCVS and BVA have expressed their concern about a BBC Newsline report last week of suspected badger baiting in Northern Ireland, which also alleged that veterinary surgeons might be complicit in this illegal activity by not reporting cases of suspiciously injured animals to the relevant authorities.
Bert Allison MRCVS, President of the North of Ireland Veterinary Association, said: "Our Association, and veterinary surgeons across Northern Ireland and Great Britain, are sickened and appalled by these activities. We are grateful to the BBC for highlighting the problem and bringing it to the attention of the public.
"Veterinary surgeons work under a professional code of conduct to uphold animal health and welfare and care deeply about the animals under their care. The claim by USPCA that veterinary surgeons are deliberately failing to report incidents is therefore shocking.
"However, if there is evidence that this has happened the USPCA must provide all relevant information to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which is the statutory regulator of the veterinary profession.
"Under our professional code all veterinary surgeons must provide treatment to alleviate the suffering of an animal presented to them however the gangs abusing these animals may be obtaining veterinary care by deception. We are contacting our members urgently to offer support and remind them how to report suspected incidents safely and within the law."
The RCVS says it has yet to be presented with any evidence to support the claims, but will investigate any genuine complaint supported by first-hand evidence.
The College is also reminding veterinary surgeons about its guidance concerning breaching client confidentiality where a veterinary surgeon believes that animal welfare or the public interest may be compromised.
If there is suspicion of animal abuse, as a result of examining an animal, a veterinary surgeon should consider whether the circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify breaching the usual obligations of client confidentiality.
In cases where discussing these concerns with the client would not be appropriate, or where the client's reaction increases rather than allays these concerns, the veterinary surgeon should contact the relevant authorities, for example the RSPCA, SSPCA or USPCA, to report alleged cruelty to an animal.
Such action should only be taken when the veterinary surgeon considers on reasonable grounds that the public interest in protecting an animal overrides the professional obligation to maintain client confidentiality.
A veterinary surgeon may contact the RCVS for advice before any confidential information is divulged (020 7202 0789 / profcon@rcvs.org.uk).
Mr Lomax was found guilty of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court in July 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-month community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, 15-months’ driving disqualification and ordered to pay £1,000 in prosecution costs and victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Lomax declared his conviction to the RCVS in April 2020 as part of his declaration upon renewing his registration, following which the RCVS started its concerns investigation process leading to his appearance before the Disciplinary Committee last Monday.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Lomax admitted the charge against him, which was also accepted by the Committee based on its receipt of the certificate of conviction from Shrewsbury Crown Court.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered Mr Lomax unfit to practise. The RCVS submitted that the nature of the conviction and the devastating consequences of Mr Lomax's conduct, which caused the death of a 64-year-old woman, rendered him unfit to practise.
The College also submitted that his conduct would be considered to have fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession, that it had devastating consequences, and that the conviction would have an impact on the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it.
Mr Lomax’s counsel, who represented him during the hearing, submitted that he did not accept his conduct rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Mr Lomax did accept that the impact of his conduct was devastating.
Mr Lomax’s counsel submitted that there was a significant difference between his conduct and its consequences, as evidenced by the fact he was charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving meaning that, though his standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent and careful driver, it did not fall far below. Nor was there a suggestion that Mr Lomax had carried out a deliberate act, was carrying out any dangerous manoeuvres or was otherwise impaired.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “There is no doubt that the consequences of Mr Lomax’s conduct were serious and tragic for the [victim’s] family.
"The Judge at the Crown Court referred to their loss in detail and it no doubt played a significant part in the sentence he passed, as reflected by his comments.
"The Committee was cognisant, however, of the different role it had to perform.
"A criminal conviction marks a breach of criminal law, whereas a finding of unfitness marks a breach of professional standards.
"When looking at the conviction, the Committee focused on the actual conduct of Mr Lomax and the concomitant level of culpability, rather than the consequences. Whilst it would be artificial, insensitive and inappropriate to ignore the consequences, the Committee was concerned with the conduct.”
He added: “The Committee did not consider that Mr Lomax’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling for the [victim’s] family, in terms of Mr Lomax’s culpability this was a momentary piece of poor driving rather than anything more blameworthy. At its height it was careless driving for three or so seconds.
"In the Committee’s view Mr Lomax’s careless behaviour fell below, but not far below, the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comments on new proposals for bringing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 up to date.
In 2005, following earlier consultations, the RCVS Council called for extensive changes in the arrangements for regulating veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Last year, however, the Government made clear that it had no plans to bring forward amending legislation for the time being.
Council has now considered recommendations for more limited changes in the Act. The report of the Veterinary Legislation Group advises focusing on three priority areas: the composition of Council itself; the composition of the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees; and the jurisdiction and powers of the two committees.
Council would welcome comments on the recommendations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, interested bodies and the public.
"We now know that it will not be easy to get any changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so we need to think very carefully about the priorities and how to achieve them," says RCVS President Sandy Trees. "Before making any decisions, we want to hear views from a wide range of people who are affected by the work of the RCVS."
A consultation paper is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Hard copies are also available from Jeff Gill, Policy Officer, RCVS, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF, j.gill@rcvs.org.uk, 020 7202 0735. The deadline for responses is 21 October 2009.
The RVN Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has removed an Armagh-based nurse from the Register after finding that she'd entered the details of four injections into clinical records when she had no reasonable basis for doing so.
During the four-day hearing, the Committee considered two alternative charges against Ms Tracy Nicholl (nee Wilson) relating to her actions on 3 February 2011, whilst employed by O'Reilly & Fee veterinary surgery, Armagh.
Ms Nicholl was alleged by the College to have administered Dolethal, a pink liquid containing pentabarbitone and used for euthanasia, to a dog called Butch without being directed to do so. It was also alleged that she had made dishonest entries into the dog's clinical records, or had administered drugs without a veterinary surgeon's prescription.
Ms Nicholl was alleged to have administered the Dolethal via a fluid bag and giving set on the morning of 3 February, which she denied. The Committee found that, although a veterinary surgeon believed that she saw pink fluid in the line, uncertainties in the surrounding circumstances made the Committee unable to be sure the line contained pink liquid. Expert and forensic evidence revealed Butch had received Dolethal, but not the route of administration or the timing. Therefore the Committee could not be sure Ms Nicholl administered the Dolethal and dismissed this charge.
However, the Committee found that Ms Nicholl did enter on Butch's clinical records that four drugs had been injected, when she had neither administered them nor been told that the drugs had been administered. Although she denied making the entries in evidence submitted to the hearing, in evidence from an interview with the College on 11 July 2011 she had admitted this and her initials were on the record entries.
The Committee noted these injections would be chargeable, and was satisfied the public would regard making these incorrect entries as dishonest. As Ms Nicholl was a highly experienced, senior nurse who also lectured to veterinary nursing students, the Committee was sure she knew she was acting dishonestly. Further, she had breached her responsibilities to clients by failing to maintain accurate case records, and the entries raised potential animal welfare issues. In mitigation, her actions affected no animal's actual welfare, and there was no evidence that Ms Nicholl had made any financial gain or repeated her conduct.
Ms Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "In addition to the fact that the charge involved dishonesty, there were a number of other aggravating features. The Respondent has not demonstrated any recognition of the seriousness of the record entry allegation, specifically the importance of keeping proper records ... It is in the wider public interest and to protect the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession that the Respondent's name should be removed from the Register."
Ms Nicholl is the first Registered Veterinary Nurse to be struck off since the introduction of the title.
The protesters, which VetSurgeon.org understands comprise six veterinary surgeons and 30-40 pet owners, started their march in Parliament Square and are now bearing down on the RCVS Headquarters in Horseferry Road.
The campaigners are, we are told, protesting against the RCVS position statement on complementary and homeopathic veterinary medicines.
No word yet on how the College proposes to defend itself from the hoard; certainly no sign of any cauldrons of boiling oil atop the battlements, nor any riot police yet in evidence.
More news as it happens. VetSurgeon.org has a photographer on the ground ...UPDATES
1:00pm: The protesters have arrived at Belgravia House. A couple of protesters are armed with umbrellas, presumably to guard against the ever-present risk of overdose. It's getting messy: we're hearing that they've blocked the pavement. Wait up. Someone has emerged from the College to speak with them. Well hello, Mr President.
1:01pm: We were hoping that some of the protesters might, I dunno, handcuff themselves to Belgravia House or something. But after a tense standoff lasting over 36 seconds, it looks like the protest is petering out already. Apparently they've started dispersing to the park opposite.
1:02pm: Yup, they've all gone off to the park now. This may go down as one of the shortest protests in history.
1:16pm: Word has it they've headed off to the White Horse and Bower.More photos of this momentous occasion to follow ...
1. The seasoned campaigner is always careful to choose any banner that appears over their head with great care.
2. It was a beautiful march. A big march. The bigliest. Haven't seen that many people on the street since Donald Trump's inauguration.
3. The RCVS headquarters under siege.
4. Millie the dog (perhaps better called 'Millie the anecdote') illustrates the flawed thinking behind homeopathy.
5. Nobody told this campaigner than homeopathy wasn't banned in the first place. You can get it from any tap.
6. RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, presumably wishing he'd taken the day off work.
7. It took some hours moments before the crowd dispersed fully and life in London was able to return to normal.
3.43pm: The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has issued a statement following the march, which says:
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons today met a delegation of around 40 animal owners and veterinary surgeons who wished to voice their concern about a recent position statement by RCVS Council on the use of complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy.
President Stephen May and CEO Lizzie Lockett received a copy of an online petition that was set up following the statement, which has since received around 15,000 signatures, including around 11,000 from supporters in the UK.
Stephen and Lizzie also took time to hear accounts and stories from the supporters, and to listen to the points they wished to raise.
In view of the cold, wet weather, the College had laid on some hot drinks for all the visitors, and invited the delegation inside, but these were declined.
Stephen said: "We were pleased to be able to meet our visitors today and to receive their petition, although it was a little tricky trying to answer questions on a busy London pavement!
"We continue to recognise that homeopathy and other complementary therapies are popular amongst some animal owners and certain members of the veterinary profession, as indicated by today’s delegation, but it is worth reiterating that the RCVS Council statement does not ban their use.
"What it does state, is that in order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary, rather than alternative, to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based on sound scientific principles.
"This is similar to the position that we have held on complementary therapies for many years, but we will always be happy to receive and consider scientific evidence that demonstrates their efficacy."
I wouldn't hold your breath.
All photographs ©2017 Under licence to London News Pictures Ltd. +44 208 088 1155
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons and nurses that there is one week left till the deadline for nominations for the 2012 RCVS and RCVS VN Council elections.
Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the RCVS on or before 31 January 2012.
Prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, manifesto and photograph for inclusion in the RCVS News Extra election specials.
Nobody may nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make a nomination.
Full details and guidance notes for both elections are available online from the RCVS Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil12) and VN Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil12).
Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may also be requested from Mrs Gabriella Braun (020 7202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2012 elections.
Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day in July, to serve four-year terms, and will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees (a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for your professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
The RCVS is looking to recruit two veterinary surgeons as part-time Postgraduate Deans, to help oversee new veterinary graduates during their Professional Development Phase (PDP).
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "The PDP is an online recording system to guide new graduates as they work towards achieving the "year one competences" - the competences expected of a new graduate who's had about a year's experience in practice. Postgraduate Deans monitor PDP participants' progress and respond to their queries, and ultimately sign-off the graduates once their PDP is complete."
The roles have become available as two of the current post-holders, Stephen Ware and Professor David Noakes, wish to hand over to new colleagues. Both Stephen and David have served as Postgraduate Deans since 2007, when the PDP first became a requirement for all new veterinary graduates.
Stephen said: "Being a Postgraduate Dean gives you the opportunity to assist new graduates in the early stages of their career. It is also a way to encourage employers to take a responsible attitude towards new vets, particularly during their first job or two."
Postgraduate Deans are expected to spend up to 20 days a year working mainly online from home, and attend occasional meetings at the RCVS in London. They need experience of general practice, and to be used to dealing with and advising students, or employing and supporting new graduates. A sympathetic understanding of the challenges faced by newly qualified veterinary graduates is also required.
Further information about the role can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jobs, and information about the PDP, including a preview, at www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp.
Applicants should send a brief CV, and a covering letter setting out their relevant experience, to education@rcvs.org.uk by 7 March 2011.
Vet Futures has published the results of a survey of the profession in which only half of veterinary surgeons who graduated within the last eight years say their career has matched their expectations.
The online survey gathered views from 892 veterinary students (via the Association of Veterinary Students) and 1,973 veterinary surgeons who had graduated within the last eight years, during May and June this year.
Although 37% of graduates reported that their working lives had met their expectations, and a further 13% said it had exceeded them, this left 50% partly or wholly unsatisfied. Furthermore, 10% said they were considering leaving the profession entirely.
The RCVS and the BVA say the results should be a “wakeup call” to the profession.
Vets who have been qualified for five years or more were least optimistic about the future, rating their opportunities for career progression less positively than more recent graduates. They were also least likely to feel that their degree had prepared them for their current work. Meanwhile, only 34% of students felt that their degree was preparing them ‘very well’ for the work they wanted to do.
73% of students intended to work in the UK, with most aspiring to work in small animal/exotic or mixed practice, although one in 10 was as yet undecided. Of the students, 45% said they wanted to become practice owners or partners. Clearly the reality is proving less enticing, because only 25% graduates shared the same aspiration. In addition, nearly double the number of graduates said they wanted to work outside clinical practice (18%), compared to students.
When looking for a job, the three factors that both graduates and students agreed would have the greatest influence on their choice of career were intellectual satisfaction, location and a supportive environment.
This last requirement chimes with the fact that among the most popular suggestions for improvement to the veterinary degree were compulsory modules on managing stress, personal development and work-life balance, alongside more teaching of business and finance skills, and extra-mural studies (EMS) placements in a wider range of settings, such as industry.
BVA President, John Blackwell, said: “The drop off in career satisfaction for vets during this crucial first eight years in practice is something we can’t afford to ignore. It points to frustration over career development opportunities and dissatisfaction with support available in practice. For the veterinary profession to remain sustainable, and an attractive career choice for the best and brightest, we need to address these issues with some urgency.”
RCVS President, Dr Bradley Viner, said: “We clearly need to address the disconnect between expectation and reality for many recent graduates. Reviewing the educational foundation of the profession is a thread that runs through many of the proposed actions that will be outlined in the Vet Futures report due this autumn. The teaching and assessment of non-clinical skills – both as part of the undergraduate curriculum and within postgraduate education – will be important, as will be the promotion of non-clinical career pathways.”
The survey also covered issues such as students’ aspirations in terms of the type (size, ownership, sector) of practice in which they would like to work, and graduates’ future career plans. It also considers attitudes from both groups with respect to new technology.
The full research report “Voices from the future of the profession,” can be read at www.vetfutures.org.uk/resources.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is warning veterinary surgeons to be on their guard after it came to light that a fraudster is charging a £150 'non-refundable application fee' for an RCVS 'internship' which does not exist. Apart from anything else, the RCVS does not offer internships.
Information about the fake internship has been sent to individuals registered with German website http://www.vetcontact.com/. It includes details about the Royal Veterinary College and the RCVS, but is basically fiction. It refers to a made up 'RCVS Hospital' in the 'Flint Hills of London'.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "So far, only a handful of veterinary surgeons - all based overseas - have contacted us regarding the internship and queried the request for a non-refundable 'application' fee, although we are concerned that others may have been caught out.
"We would advise any veterinary surgeon to think twice before paying for a third party to facilitate an application for any placement or internship, and reiterate that the RCVS does not offer any such programmes."
The College is following up the situation with http://www.vetcontact.com/ and, if appropriate, will notify the police. In the meantime, anyone who is concerned that they may have fallen victim to the hoax should contact the RCVS Professional Conduct department on 020 7202 0728.
The RCVS has announced that its current Treasurer, Dr Bradley Viner, will be the College's next Vice-President after he was elected to the post at RCVS Council last Thursday.
Dr Viner has been an elected member of Council since 2005 and Treasurer since 2010 and will take up his latest position at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting - on 11 July. He replaces Professor Stuart Reid, who Council confirmed as President for 2014-15, and will take up his new role in July.
During his time on Council Dr Viner has served on all of the major committees with the exception of the Disciplinary Committee. Outside of Council he runs a group of practices in North West London and is Vice-Chairman of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.
In his manifesto he set out the nature of his Vice-Presidency, stating: "My personal ethos is very much based upon continual improvement. It is only by having the confidence to discuss openly how things could have been done better that an organisation can learn how to improve.
"I also recognise the vital importance of good communications: with Council; the profession at large; Government; and with other interested organisations. I intend to do my utmost to communicate with them as effectively as possible."
At the same meeting of RCVS Council, Colonel Neil Smith, the current President, was confirmed as Vice-President from July, subject to his re-election in this year's RCVS Council elections.
In addition, Chris Tufnell was re-elected as Chairman of the Education Committee, while David Catlow was elected Chairman of Standards Committee, also subject to his re-election in this year's RCVS Council elections.
A petition to protect the title Veterinary Nurse has received an impressive 1,285 signatures, including many from veterinary surgeons, and an official response from HM Government.
The petition, which was started by VetNurse.co.uk member Nick Shackleton Dip AVN (Surgical) VN on 6th June last year, explained: "The title veterinary nurse at present is not a protected title. A lot of people who work in practice call them selves veterinary nurses, when they have no theoretical training in such a position. As qualified nurses we feel that this issue should be addressed so that the general public are no longer confused as to the qualification and hopefully make them more aware of the hard work it is to gain the qualification. As we are heading for autonomy within the profession I think it is right and fitting that the title should be protected."
The Government response, whilst predictably noncommittal, did at least seem to recognise the issue: "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) maintains the Statutory List of veterinary nurses. In order to qualify, nurses must undergo a two-year period of vocational training which is assessed at work and through examination by the RCVS Awarding Body.
On being added to the Statutory List they are entitled to undertake a range of veterinary treatments and procedures on animals under veterinary direction. Only listed nurses are entitled to use the post-nominal letters 'VN'. The RCVS are introducing new arrangements for 'registered' veterinary nurses which provides greater accountability and transparency for those nurses whose names are entered on the register. These arrangements run in parallel with the Statutory List.
Some veterinary practices may employ staff who do not carry out the duties of a veterinary nurse but possibly use that title or wear a uniform which might imply that they are a trained veterinary nurse. We appreciate that there are issues surrounding best practice that the RCVS and the Veterinary Nursing Council to address.
It is generally accepted that the arrangements for regulating veterinary nursing could be modernised. This would, in due course, help provide greater protection for the title of veterinary nurses. Although Defra currently has no plans to undertake a fundamental review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, we are regularly in touch with the RCVS to better understand its priorities for regulatory reform.