The changes are designed to make the process more accessible and the College says most were proposed as a result of candidate feedback. They are:
The changes will come into effect from 1 January 2025, in time for the 2025 Stat Exam cohort.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We have been listening to the concerns of various stakeholders, including those who have undertaken the Stat Exam previously and veterinary employers, and we used this feedback to work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to come up with a set of practical, deliverable changes that improve the experience of Stat Exam for all candidates, and hopefully alleviate some of the stress involved around timescales, opportunity and finance.
“These changes will make the exam more accessible, as it will allow candidates to have two attempts at the written papers within the same diet, which need to be passed before being allowed to proceed to the practical exam and it will also help improve accessibility to the exam from the perspective of candidate finances.
www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2019, with the 346 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2019, compared to 308 last year.
Those who were removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
The RCVS says it sent reminders to all MsRCVS, including emails and text messages, reminding them that the fee was due. Letters were sent to those members that the College does not have an email address or mobile telephone number for.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published. Practices are encouraged to check the list to ensure that no employees are named.
The College also wants to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
The Royal College has announced that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute its disciplinary committees separately from its Council has been signed by Defra Minister David Heath, and will come into force on 6 April 2013.
The LRO will amend Part I of Schedule 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA) and require that the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently.
This will ensure that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication, and will bring lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
The LRO will also allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, reducing the workload on the individual Committee members whose primary appointment is to RCVS Council.
The RCVS has been working on the LRO with Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) officials since late 2010, and the Order was based on consultations undertaken by the RCVS and Defra.
According to the College, the Order was commended at every stage of Parliamentary scrutiny as an effective means to address the single biggest deficit of the VSA and to improve how the RCVS regulates the profession. During debate in Grand Committee of the House of Lords on 10 January, the RCVS received considerable praise for its strenuous efforts to modernise under the constraints of the present legislation, and the LRO received unanimous support.
Following the Order coming into force, the first external members will join the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees from July 2013. After a two-year transition period, members of the RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of these committees. Information about how to apply to join these committees will be available shortly.
President Jacqui Molyneux said: "I am delighted the LRO has been made and I am immensely thankful for the hard work of the Defra team and my colleagues in the College. The LRO is the single biggest reform to the regulation of veterinary surgeons since the 1966 Act, and it will bring the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and improve the perception of the independence of the RCVS disciplinary processes."
The hearing proceeded in Ms Kay’s absence as she failed to attend. The Committee heard a number of charges relating to her practising while under the influence of alcohol, breaching undertakings to the College to abstain completely from alcohol, alleged serious clinical failings in relation to the treatment of two dogs, Izzy and Alfie, and making disparaging remarks to a client about other veterinary surgeons (the complete list of charges can be found on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/).
In relation to the first charge, (that in September 2016, while a locum veterinary surgeon at Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group, Great Yarmouth, she was under the influence of alcohol), the Committee heard from a veterinary nurse at the practice who told how on different occasions Miss Kay had appeared to need more assistance than expected, was overly friendly in speaking to clients, was unable to prepare a syringe correctly, and finally, on 14 September 2016, was found asleep in the car with an open can of alcohol by her feet. The Committee also heard from a number of other witnesses from the Haven Veterinary Surgeons Group who also provided evidence of Ms Kay’s behaviour on the day in question. Following deliberations, the Committee found the first charge to be proved.
The second charge related to the breaching of undertakings which Ms Kay had given to the College to the effect that she would abstain completely from alcohol. When samples were taken on 3 August 2017, however, it was found that she had been consuming alcohol in the recent past. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the second charge was proved.
The Committee then turned to the third charge, that in March 2017 Ms Kay had displayed a number of clinical failings when performing surgery on a cocker spaniel, Izzy, belonging to Mrs Debbie Coe. The Committee found the majority of the charges proved, amongst others that she failed to obtain informed consent for surgery, performed surgery in her own home when it was not registered as a veterinary practice and it was not possible to ensure sterility, and that she failed to provide suitable post-operative analgesia to Izzy.
The College then turned to the fourth charge, which concerned her treatment of Mrs Coe’s other dog, Alfie, a Miniature Schnauzer. The charge was that in March 2017, Ms Kay euthanased Alfie in an inappropriate manner, and used a controlled drug without having a registered veterinary premise from which to dispense it. After hearing from an expert witness the Committee found the charges proved.
Finally, the Committee heard evidence relating to the fifth charge, namely that in or around July 2016, Ms Kay made disparaging remarks to Mrs Coe about other veterinary surgeons who had treated Alfie, and that between 17 March and 31 March 2017 she had sent inappropriate texts and voicemail messages to Mrs Coe about the treatment of her dogs and payments owed in relation to this. The Committee thought there was not enough evidence in relation to the voicemails, but found the remainder of the charge proved.
Taking all into account, the Committee found that Ms Kay’s conduct had fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the veterinary profession and concluded that her conduct clearly amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to protect animals and to send a clear message to the Respondent, and to all veterinary surgeons, of the unacceptability of the conduct identified in this case. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided that removal from the Register is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case."
Ms Kay has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
Colonel Neil Smith has been elected Vice-President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. He takes up office at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.
Neil graduated from the Royal Veterinary College in 1989, and was commissioned into the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) with the intention of staying for four years. Twenty-two years later, he is now the Director Army Veterinary and Remount Services, effectively the Chief Veterinary Officer for the Army and head of the RAVC, which currently has over 35 Veterinary Officers.
He has held a mixture of clinical, staff and command positions, and has worked in the UK, US and Germany. He has Masters' Degrees in Food Science, Defence Administration and Defence Studies. He has also worked part-time in small animal practice (including the Blue Cross, of which he is now a Trustee), and was heavily involved in the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001.
First elected to Council in 2004, Neil was re-elected in 2010 after a short break. He has served on Education, Advisory, Preliminary Investigation and Planning and Resources Committees, and on VN Council (currently Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Awarding Body).
He has also previously been President of the RVC Student Union Society, the RVC Alumnus Association, Southern Counties, and the Association of Government Veterinarians. He is currently a Council member of the Central Veterinary Society, and has previously sat on the BVA's Veterinary Policy Group.
Neil said: "I am honoured to have been elected as the next Vice-President. The College is about to go through some significant organisational changes, not least because of the proposed legislative reform order. However, I aim to ensure that we remain focused on our primary role in safeguarding the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care. The functions of the RCVS are quite diverse, and I am keen that we try to enhance both the profession's and the public's understanding of our remit, including our responsibility for educational, ethical and clinical standards."
Jacqui Molyneux has been confirmed as President, and Dr Jerry Davies as Vice-President, effective July 2012.
The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions.
Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.
The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law.
However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law.
The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding."
The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."
The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.
The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Musculoskeletal therapists currently have their work underpinned by an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which allows them to treat an animal under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has first examined that animal.
The College says it has recognised that there has been confusion over whether musculoskeletal therapists need a veterinary referral for maintenance work, such as massage, in a healthy animal. This may lead to delays in animals receiving maintenance care.
The new guidance, found in Chapter 19 (www.rcvs.org.uk/unqualified) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, sets out the existing rules for musculoskeletal treatment of illness, disease or pathology, and clarifies that healthy animals do not need a veterinary referral for maintenance care.
The guidance stresses that musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team, and that any animal, including healthy ones, should be registered with a veterinary surgeon and referred to a vet at the first sign of any symptoms that may suggest underlying health issues.
The guidance also says that vets should be confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified; indicators of this can include membership of a voluntary regulatory body with a register of practitioners, and associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a complaints and disciplinary process.
In March 2019 the RCVS published the Review of Minor Procedures Regime (www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/report-to-defra-on-the-review-of-minor-procedures-regime-and/) which noted that the existing exemption order was not suitable for underpinning the work of musculoskeletal therapists, and recommended that this be remedied by reform of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, alongside regulation by the RCVS through Associate status for musculoskeletal therapists.
This would allow the RCVS to set and uphold standards for musculoskeletal therapists in a similar way to veterinary nurses, giving further assurance to both the veterinary professions and the public. The recent Legislation Working Party Report recommendations builds on that recommendation, and is currently open for consultation at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.
The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.
The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.
Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."
The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.
Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."
The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia
Ed's comment: The new guidance seems like common sense to me. A couple of things stand out as useful reminders, though. The first is to anonymise details of the cases you discuss on vetsurgeon.org, or get your clients' prior permission to discuss their animal in a professional forum. The other is the fact that being disparaging about a colleague online is as much of a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct as if you do it offline. So don't!
There are 10 candidates standing this year and vets can vote for up to three of them until 5pm on Friday 21st April 2023:
The biographies and statements for each candidate are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July 2023.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com stating which election they intend to vote in.
Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.
At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).
Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).
In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.
However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.
The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.
Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.
A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.
She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.
Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.
The Committee found the admitted facts proved.
The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.
Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.
Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.
"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”
As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.
The awards were:
Queen’s Medal - to Dr John (Iain) Glen MRCVS (pictured right) who, at AstraZeneca, was responsible for the discovery and development of the anaesthetic drug propofol, one of the world’s most common anaesthetics for medical and veterinary use.
Honorary Associateships - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Professor Stuart Carter, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Liverpool’s Institution of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences. The second was awarded to Anthony Martin, a philanthropist with a particular interest in supporting national and international charities working with the veterinary profession to improve animal welfare.
Impact Award - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Alison Lambert, the founder and owner of veterinary business consultancy Onswitch which helps veterinary businesses create customer-centred practice so that pets, horses and livestock receive the best care. The second was awarded to Dr Gwenllian Rees for her involvement in the Arwain Vet Cymru (AVC) project, a collaborative national antimicrobial stewardship program for farm vets in Wales.
Inspiration Awards - Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS was nominated for her leadership role at the BVA during the early stage of the coronavirus pandemic. The second award went to Professor Mandy Peffers, a Wellcome Trust Clinical Intermediate Fellow in Musculoskeletal & Ageing Science at the Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences at the University of Liverpool.
The International Award was posthumously awarded to Emeritus Professor Michael Day, the prolific researcher and writer.
A new award this year is the Compassion Award, which was given to David Martin MRCVS for his work helping practitioners identify the signs of non-accidental injury.
Another new award this year is the Student Community Award, given to Jack Church, who - on top of his studies - has been volunteering on a covid ward, and Lavinia Economu, for her work to inspire young people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and different socio-economic backgrounds into the veterinary professions..
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS, RCVS President, said: “I am so impressed by the breadth and depth of the awards nominations that we received this year which demonstrate the very best that the veterinary professions have to offer.
“From veterinary students to veterinary surgeons and nurses who have been practising for decades, all our award winners demonstrate that veterinary professionals and veterinary science has a profound and positive impact not only on animal health and welfare but also wider society. I am immensely happy and proud for them all and look forward to formally being able to present them with their awards later this year.”
A formal awards ceremony, hosted by Mandisa, will take place on Thursday, 23 September 2021. Further details on the event and how to attend will be published later this year.
For the research, Which? conducted an online poll of 1,009 pet owners who had had an issue with their vet in the past two years.
It also conducted qualitative interviews with 14 owners who had complained.
The most common reasons for complaint were:
Of the 1009 pet owners who had experienced some kind of problem with their vet, 57% did NOT make a complaint, 33% because they did not want to fall out with their vet.
Pet owners who wish to complain about veterinary services have three options: to complain directly to their practice, to use the voluntary Vet Client Mediation Service (VCMS), or to raise a 'concern' with the RCVS.
The Which? report found that of those who did complain to their practice, 35% were not happy with the outcome and 31% with the way it was handled.
Which? found that although the VCMS reported a high resolution rate of 84% in 2022-23, its interviewees had found it a bit hit or miss.
Finally, Which? found the process of complaining to the regulator flawed by the fact that the threshold for the College to progress a 'concern' is set so high, because College has no jurisdiction at a practice level, and because it has no sanctions to use in enforcing consumer law.
The report recommends that:
Full report: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/complaints-and-redress-in-veterinary-services-a5z611X9tZzf
CommentI loved the regal response from the RCVS to The Guardian about the case studies in the Which? report: “the facts presented in the case studies do not completely align with those reported to us”.
That aside, surely the big issue here is not so much that consumers have little way to complain effectively.
That is important, of course, but isn't it more important to consider what they are complaining about, which in the main is MONEY.
Driven by the advances in veterinary medicine, the innate desire of vets to provide the best possible care, anthropomorphising pet owners saying they want 'the best' for their fur baby (without necessarily having the wherewithal), corporatisation and society's changing expectations about working conditions, prices have been going up at a rate far outstripping inflation.
Increasing prices have of course been accompanied by an increase the standards of care and the range of clinical equipment.
But the question everyone must ask is at what point the cost of veterinary care for a dog outstrips the benefits of owning one?
These complaints are the canary in the coalmine.
Mr Fioletti was found guilty of the murder of Stephanie Hodgkinson at Bournemouth Crown Court in January, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 15 years.
The hearing for Dr Fioletti took place on Thursday 6 June, with the Committee deciding to proceed in his absence after Dr Fioletti said in correspondence that he did not want to attend the hearing nor be otherwise represented.
The Committee found the facts of the case proven by the certificate of conviction and went on to consider whether the conviction rendered Dr Fioletti unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Aggravating factors in terms of fitness to practise included the fact that it was an offence involving violence and loss of life and the injuries caused by Dr Fioletti to Ms Hodgkinson.
The sentencing remarks, which were cited during the disciplinary hearing, also made clear the devastating impact that Dr Fioletti’s actions had on Ms Hodgkinson’s family, including her two young children.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that, when consideration is given to the ferocity of the attack on Ms Hodgkinson and the number of stab wounds she suffered, when taken together with the finding by the sentencing judge, who presided over the trial, that the respondent “represent[ed] a significant danger to any female with whom you find yourself in a relationship”, members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way and would be concerned at the risk the respondent posed to some members of the public.
“This Committee considers that the offence of murder is so inherently deplorable and shocking that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession; and is certainly liable to bring the profession into serious disrepute and undermine public confidence in the profession.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Dr Fioletti.
In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, Mr Morris said: “The misconduct in this case relates to a savage, sustained and ferocious attack with a weapon on a defenceless woman in her own home.
"His victim trusted him to be in her home.
"He knew that she was the mother of two young sons, of whom she had custody, and to whom he knew she was devoted.
"He would have known that the effect of his attack on her would have devastating consequences for her sons and her other close relatives – and it did.
"This conduct constitutes disgraceful conduct of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.
“The Committee also considers that the misconduct raises serious concerns about the reputation of the profession in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.
"This was abusive and controlling conduct of the worst kind and conduct of which the respondent had been guilty of in past relationships, as the sentencing judge found.
"Such acts by their very nature run contrary to the very essence of the practice of the profession of veterinary surgery, which is intended to protect and enhance the welfare and well-being of animals and of work colleagues.”
In mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Fioletti had no previous criminal history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee found that only complete removal from the Register was appropriate in this case.
Paul added: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"The respondent’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.”
The Committee expressed its condolences to the family of Stephanie Hodgkinson for their incalculable loss.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
This pilot was originally launched in February 2017 to trial proposed changes to CPD, which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
Some 115 veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses volunteered, with 60 attending an induction days at the College’s office last year.
The College says the response to its proposals was largely positive, and at its meeting on 2 November 2017 RCVS Council agreed to an extension of the pilot for a further six-to-nine months, in order to increase the breadth of views on the changes and gather further evidence on its impact.
The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s 2016 consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others.
The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
Shona McIntyre MRCVS, a teaching fellow in small animal medicine at the University of Surrey and the practitioner representative on the CPD Pilot Working Group, said: "As a general practitioner involved in the initial phase of the CPD pilot I was thrilled that we had so many from the profession engage with the consultation, and later with the pilot.
"By extending the pilot further we are looking to get an even wider range of views on board and fine-tune how we will be asking members of the profession to engage with the reflection element of the proposals. We are looking for a mix of those who support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them and I can only encourage those not yet involved to consider signing up for the extended pilot and make their voice heard."
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Naila Hassanali, RCVS CPD Officer, via cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
Volunteers will be supported by RCVS staff throughout the trial.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available on the College website: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpdconsultation/.
The first part of the charge was that, between 3 November 2014 and 10 December 2016 he did not provide CPD records to the RCVS requested in four separate letters dated November 2014, September 2015, November 2015 and November 2016. The second part of the charge was that, between 11 December 2016 and 26 July 2017, he did not provide the RCVS with his CPD records despite requests.
Dr Zukauskas admitted to the charge against him at the outset of the hearing.
The Committee considered whether Mr Zukauskas’ failure to respond to requests for his CPD records constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that he had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not responding to the repeated requests for information from the College, although the Committee noted that there had not been total silence. Mr Zukauskas had made email contact on at least two occasions in response to RCVS letters and gave evidence that he had attempted to phone the authors of the letters. The Committee also noted that in early February 2017 Mr Zukauskas had made repeated attempts to give the RCVS access to his online CPD account, which he had been updating to reflect CPD work that he had undertaken.
Mr Zukauskas’ explanation for his failure was that he had not fully appreciated the importance of the letters, that his English was poor, and that he failed to obtain appropriate advice about the content of the letters until recently. It was only in a witness statement dated 27 July 2017 that he finally disclosed his full CPD records.
The Committee noted Mr Zukauskas' admission in his evidence that his English was not good, particularly in light of the obligation, brought into the Code in February 2016, for veterinary surgeons to be able to communicate effectively in written and spoken English.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "From that date, if not earlier, the respondent should have been concerned to understand English sufficiently well to address the correspondence from the College. Whilst the Committee did not consider that his conduct in this respect amounted to disrespect, it did consider that he had shown a disregard of his obligations.
"At all times he could and should have made appropriate efforts to respond to the correspondence from the College and obtain appropriate advice. In effect he put off dealing with these matters and put his head in the sand."
Regarding his failure to respond to requests between December 2016 and July 2017, Ms Karve added: "This caused the College a considerable amount of concern and extra work. Had he done so much earlier, much of this matter would have been avoided. The respondent was once again in breach of his obligations."
Having found Mr Zukauskas guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against Mr Zukauskas, taking into account the fact that the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee had recently suspended a veterinary nurse from the Register for a period of two months having found her guilty of similar charges.
In mitigation the Committee considered a number of testimonials from colleagues and clients, his hitherto long and unblemished career in the United Kingdom, and his open and frank admissions and subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of his behaviour. Language problems were also considered as an explanation for why the situation had occurred. However, it also considered the aggravating factor that the misconduct was sustained over a period of time and that there was unacceptable disregard for the obligations he had to the College as a veterinary surgeon.
In summing up Ms Karve said: "The Committee has determined to impose a reprimand. In doing so it acknowledged that the respondent has shown considerable insight into his behaviour. He had acknowledged that he has needed help in communicating with the College. It noted that he is a good and proficient veterinary surgeon in the work which he undertakes. He expressed remorse for his behaviour. He has carried out sufficient CPD and since December 2016 has been communicating with the College. The Committee considers it unlikely that he will transgress again.
"The Committee has decided that it is appropriate in this case to add a warning to the decision to impose a reprimand. It is mindful of the fact that other veterinary surgeons registered with the College have a duty to discharge their CPD obligations and they honour those obligations. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent has involved a considerable amount of work and expense for the College."
The warning was that in future Mr Zukauskas must respond in a timely and appropriate manner to any communications from the RCVS.
Nominations will remain open till 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2023 and the elections will take place in March and April 2023.
RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald, a member of RCVS Council since 2016, said: “I am a general practitioner by background, and so having the opportunity to serve on Council and be at the heart of decision-making that has a real and consequential impact on how we as vets work and conduct ourselves, has been a real privilege.
“In my six years on Council I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in fascinating debates and discussions, to represent the RCVS and its activities at country fairs and congresses, and to talk to and get the views of peers and colleagues from across the UK.
"Serving your profession in the RCVS is a fantastic opportunity and I would recommend anyone who wants to have a real say and impact on the future of the profession to stand for next year’s Council elections.”
The full eligibility criteria, info and FAQs for vets who want to stand can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil23.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council can also contact Melissa Donald for an informal conversation about what it means to be an RCVS Council member: president@rcvs.org.uk.
There is also an opportunity for prospective candidates to attend a meeting of the RCVS Council on Thursday 19th January 2023 at the University of Nottingham Veterinary School, as an observer.
Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you'd like to go.
Freda Andrews, the Director of Education at the RCVS, has announced her retirement from the position on 2nd April after nearly 16 years at the College.
Freda joined the RCVS as Head of Education in September 1999 and became Director of Education in 2013, with strategic responsibility for both veterinary and veterinary nursing education.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: "We will miss Freda for her professionalism, her encyclopaedic knowledge of all things related to veterinary education and her attention to detail, but she leaves behind a team that is stronger-than-ever and a considerable legacy for the profession as a whole.
"Under her watch the Education Department has seen a significant number of achievements. This includes the introduction of the Professional Development Phase which has helped veterinary graduates develop their confidence and competence during the first few years of practice and the accreditation of the University of Nottingham's School of Veterinary Medicine and Science - the first new UK vet school in 50 years."
Freda's responsibilities as Director of Education will now be split between Christine Warman, Head of Education, and Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing.
Freda said: "I have really enjoyed working with such a fascinating profession and I think that through working very closely with our colleagues in the vet schools, as well as with practising vets, veterinary education has made some significant advances. For example, there is more focus now on communication and professional skills and greater alignment of accreditation standards internationally, to name but two things.
"I am sad to leave but I know that the future of veterinary and veterinary nursing education has been left in the very safe hands of Christine and Julie and their respective teams."
Dr Corsi consulted with Kika's owners about the management of her pregnancy at the end of November 2017, finding at least 4 puppies on an x-ray taken at the time.
The first of five charges against Dr Corsi was that on the 14th December, after being advised by Kika's owners that the dog had produced two live puppies and one dead puppy the previous night, she failed to advise them that Kika needed an immediate veterinary examination.
The second charge was that, having been telephoned for a second time by the owner, she still failed to advise the owners that Kika required an immediate veterinary examination.
The third charge was that, following an examination of Kika that afternoon, and having ascertained that Kika required a caesarean section to remove one undelivered puppy, Dr Corsi failed to perform the caesarean section that day and advised the owner that Kika could undergo the caesarean section (at the practice, performed by her) the next day (or words to the effect).
The charge also stated that she failed to advise the owner that Kika’s health and welfare required the caesarean section to be performed that day; and that she failed to advise them that, if she or another veterinary surgeon at the practice could not perform the surgery that day, Kika needed to be referred to the out-of-hours clinic so that the caesarean section could take place on the 14th December.
The fourth charge was that Dr Corsi failed to recognise that Kika’s health and welfare required a caesarean section to be performed on 14th December.
The fifth charge was that, on 16th December 2017, having been telephoned by the owner at about 5pm and having been informed that Kika was weak and had not been eating post-operatively, Dr Corsi failed to advise the owner that Kika should be presented urgently for a veterinary examination.
The Disciplinary Committee considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the owners of Kika and Dr Corsi, and from Mr Maltman MRCVS who was called as an expert witness on behalf of the College and Mr Chitty, who was called as an expert witness on behalf of Dr Corsi.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee found all aspects of the first and second charges proven in their entirety.
The Committee found the majority of the third charge not proved, with the exception of the fact that it found that Dr Corsi did advise the owner that she could undertake the Caesarean section on 15 December 2017.
In light of the Committee’s findings in respect of the aspects of charge three that were not proved, charge four was also found not proved.
Finally, the Committee considered that charge five was found not proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct either individually and/or cumulatively.
Committee Chair Cerys Jones said: "In light of the evidence of both parties’ experts, the Committee was of the view that there was a risk of harm or injury resulting from Dr Corsi’s failure - the Committee decided that this was an aggravating factor.
"However, the Committee took into account that, at the time of both calls, Dr Corsi had a rationale for her decision, that she asked appropriate questions and received answers which led her to make what she considered to be a reasoned assessment.
"She had also made arrangements in both calls to be kept updated either at a pre-arranged time or sooner if Kika’s condition changed. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that, while this was an error of judgement, it did not fall so far short of what was expected as to amount to disgraceful conduct."
Therefore, the Committee decided that while Dr Corsi’s conduct in Charges 1 and 2 demonstrated a departure from professional standards, the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The full decision can be read here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Recent changes in the way veterinary schools teach clinical and practical skills, coupled with increasing financial pressure on students and new graduates, have triggered the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to review its guidelines for Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) and clinical education.
A requirement has been in place for the last 75 years that veterinary students ‘see practice' for at least 26 weeks in their clinical years.
The purpose of EMS has always been to ensure that veterinary students have the right mix of practical and theoretical teaching and understand the realities of commercial clinical practice before they graduate. This objective does not change, but the College's Education Policy and Specialisation Committee believes it is now time to look again at what is covered in the clinical curriculum of the undergraduate degree to ensure that guidelines are kept up to date.
EMS was last reviewed in 1996, but in the interim veterinary schools have introduced new ways of teaching practical and clinical aspects of the curriculum. There has also been an increase in the role played by the veterinary schools' own first opinion practices.
In addition, having to carry out EMS not only restricts students' capacity to work during the holidays, but often incurs substantial travel and accommodation expenses. With students facing increasing amounts of debt, the financial impact of EMS needs to be reviewed.
The review group, which will be chaired by RCVS Council Member and practitioner Dr Barry Johnson, will gather evidence from a broad range of stakeholders. It aims to make a report to Council by the end of 2009.
The RCVS has published a new video which explains the Professional Development Phase (PDP) and highlights the support it provides for new veterinary graduates as they develop their Year One Competences.
In the video, Victoria Henry MRCVS - who works at Mandeville Veterinary Hospital in Northolt - speaks about how the PDP has helped her move from being a newly-qualified graduate to becoming a confident practitioner. She said: “It’s a massive transition coming out of vet school and going into practice – you suddenly have all the responsibility and it’s all on you. The PDP gives you goalposts to work towards and flags up the areas you don’t have much practice in; it helps you to reflect on what you’ve been doing and assess yourself.”
Jeremy Stewart, the Head Veterinary Surgeon at Mandeville Veterinary Hospital, talks about how the PDP helps employers to support and develop graduates like Victoria by building their confidence and helping them gain the experience they need for practice life.
The video also highlights the support available for graduates undertaking the PDP and features Julian Wells, one of the five Postgraduate Deans who help graduates undertaking the PDP by providing advice on any issues they may encounter, checking their progress and confirming when they have completed it. He also describes how the PDP helps graduates to understand the mentoring role in practice, which they can then provide to new graduates as they progress through their own careers.
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, said: “With 859 new UK graduates having just joined the Register, we thought this video would be helpful in setting out why the PDP can be so crucial in helping to build the confidence and experience of new graduates, as well as the fact that it can easily be incorporated into day-to-day work.”
More information about the PDP is available by visiting www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp or by emailing pdp@rcvs.org.uk.
Veterinary surgeons who wish to sign up to the Professional Development Record can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk
Tramadol has become a controlled drug and has been added to Schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001
The change to the regulations, which was made by the Home Office means that the drug is now subject to special requirements when writing prescriptions.
The RCVS says practitioners should also note that:
Although tramadol is exempt from Safe Custody Regulations, the RCVS advises that all Schedule 3 controlled drugs are locked away.
The Home Office has also reclassified ketamine as a Class B controlled drug. However, it remains under Schedule 4 (Part 1) of the 2001 Regulations meaning that the legal requirements for supply, storage and record keeping remain the same.
The RCVS therefore continues to advise that practice premises should:
Further details about the specific requirements for controlled drugs can be found in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s Guidance Note No 20 – Controlled Drugs.
Practice premises can also contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department for further guidance on 020 7202 0789 or profcon@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS Charitable Trust, has announced a complete rebranding that includes a change of name - RCVS Knowledge - and the refocus of its mission on supporting the flourishing evidence based veterinary medicine (EBVM) movement across the globe.
For the past 50 years, the charity has been known as a small funder of veterinary research and the home of the only freely-accessible library for the practising veterinary community in the UK.
Nick Royle, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge said: "RCVS Knowledge is a name that encompasses our three core offerings: historical knowledge represented by our valuable Historical Collection, present knowledge, represented by our library, and future knowledge, represented by the new evidence based veterinary medicine project, which is underpinned by our grants programme."
The RCVS Knowledge re-launch goes further than a mere name change, and comes as the charity refocuses its efforts to become a global intermediary for EBVM, a direction reached following a period of consultation, and on the back of a successful symposium on the subject held at the end of 2012.
Nick, a former CEO of the human evidence based medicine resource, The Cochrane Collaboration, said: "Today, veterinary surgeons and nurses are required to take account of an ever-increasing pool of scientific data, the owners' values and preferences, and their own clinical expertise when making clinical decisions. RCVS Knowledge is ideally placed to generate, collate and distribute this information to support evidence based practices. We aim to develop tools to assist practitioners to quickly make well-informed treatment decisions."
As part of the new direction, the Historical Collection will be made accessible and available online, following a start-up grant from the Wellcome Trust. Clare Boulton, Head of Library and Information Services, said: "The Collection contains priceless and fascinating material, covering topics such as early horse-care and management, veterinary expeditions of discovery through Africa, and research that made the British Cavalry horses of 1914 the finest in the world. But this is just the beginning. If you have relevant experience or some funds that could help us, please get in touch."
Meanwhile, RCVS Knowledge's Library and Information Service will be re-designed to make it much more than shelves of journals, but rather a resource with the capacity to steer first-rate care and innovation, and an information engine capable of driving evidence based veterinary medicine at a global level.
The Grants and Awards program, for which the former RCVS Charitable Trust has been known, will be redesigned to celebrate professional excellence, and to address gaps in veterinary knowledge. Nick said: "We are aware of the responsibilities that veterinary surgeons and nurses face every day and feel we are in a position to support their decision making. We would like to urge every veterinary professional with an interest in EBVM, a curiosity about the history of their profession or a need to access up-to-date research to get in touch, so that we can keep you up to date with developments."
The new RCVS brand has been highly commended in the 'Brand Development' Category of the Membership Communication (MemCom) Awards.
The new look, which was launched last year, aimed to clarify the role and function of the College, with the strapline 'Setting veterinary standards' and a professional new livery of blue and gold.
The award was made at a presentation at the Institute of Directors on 17 May, and the judges' citation said: "[The rebrand] sought to overcome a remote and stuffy image whilst at the same time seeking to underline that it is the only Royal College that is primarily a regulatory body acting in the public interest," adding that "to put this into second place took a remarkable entry".
The top award in the category was taken by the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, with its book 'Watching Waterbirds', endorsed by the TV celebrity Kate Humble.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "Design can be subjective but the important thing is what it communicates. We are delighted to have received this commendation in recognition of the work we have done to ensure the role of the College is clearer for both the public and the profession."
The petition follows the news that IVC is to launch its own telemedicine service, joining three others already in the game, at least one of which is pushing for a relaxation of the rules surrounding the prescription of POM-V medicines.
For clarity, veterinary surgeons are currently allowed to remote prescribe medicines for animals that meet the definition of 'under his care' (i.e. seen immediately before, or "recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe").
In other words, there is nothing to stop bricks and mortar practices offering video consultations and prescribing medicines to those of their existing clients that they have seen recently enough.
What Shams and the BVU are petitioning against is the idea of allowing companies staffed by veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines for animals that they have never seen in the flesh.
They argue that remote prescribing will:
First and foremost risk animal patient welfare and herd health
Create a two-tier system of care within the profession
Break down the practice-based vet-client relationship
Disrupt veterinary services due to complications related to out-of-hours emergency cover, transfer of patient and patient histories etc. of remotely treated patients
Cause clients to face increased costs by paying for telemedicine consultations and then requiring examination and treatment in practice
Negatively impact the financial condition of veterinary practices and professionals.
These all seem very possible consequences of allowing remote prescribing, indeed some have already come to pass in the world of human medicine following the launch of Babylon.
The counter argument is that remote prescription will improve access to veterinary care as people don’t have to flog down to the practice for a flea treatment and the cost of a consultation is reduced. There is surely truth in that.
The other point that is fundamental to this debate is the type of drug being prescribed remotely. With so many small animal parasiticides having already gone OTC, is it really necessary to talk to a veterinary surgeon before buying a POM-V flea treatment? Perhaps not.
However, that doesn’t necessarily present a case for remote prescribing such drugs; if they don’t need veterinary input, then you could equally argue they just need reclassifying.
So, should you sign this petition? Well, I think so, yes. Remote prescribing will come. It’s inevitable. But given the risks, surely the pragmatic starting point is to trial remote prescribing amongst existing clients of bricks and mortar practices, and only if that is successful to broaden it to non-clients of bricks and mortar practices.
If both those proved successful, and with technology advancing in the background, it might then be sensible to look at whether non bricks and mortar practices could remote prescribe. But that’s quite a big ‘might’.
Meantime, you can sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-stop-authorising-prescription-of-pom-v-without-physical-examination-of-the-patient
You can discuss the petition with Shams here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/nonclinical/f/6/t/28273.aspx
The RCVS Day held last Friday saw the investiture of Professor Stuart Reid as the new President for 2014/15, the formal adoption of a new Royal Charter that recognises veterinary nurses, and a smorgasbord of awards.
Professor Reid, who graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1987, began by outlining three things he wants to pursue during his term in office:
Jacqui Molyneux then stood down as Vice-President, replaced by Dr. Bradley Viner, who in turn was replaced as Treasurer by Amanda Boag.
After approving of the minutes of last year's RCVS Day and the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for 2013, members of the College were then asked to vote on a motion to adopt the new Royal Charter. The motion, which was proposed by Professor Reid and seconded by Robin Hargreaves, President of the BVA, was passed unanimously. The proposed new Charter was delivered to the Privy Council that afternoon. According to the College, approval should be given later this year or early next.
Introducing the new Charter, Professor Reid said it would better define the objects of the College, provide a clear framework for the existing functions of the RCVS and give Council the power to create new classes of associate.
However, the greatest impact of the new Charter will surely be felt by veterinary nurses, as it formally recognises them as professionals and associates of the College for the first time. Professor Reid said: "Words like 'historic' should be used sparingly, but on this occasion it is justified. We now have some 12,000 veterinary nurses on the books, nine-tenths of them being registered veterinary nurses. Yet the present Charter does not so much as mention their existence.
"The new Charter gives the RCVS a formal duty to keep the Register of Veterinary Nurses and makes the Veterinary Nurses Council responsible for setting standards for their training, education and conduct."
After adopting the Charter, David Bartram, Mandisa Greene and Susan Paterson were formally welcomed on to Council. Amber Richards was welcomed onto VN Council, which Neil Smith is also joining.
Outgoing President, Neil Smith, then conferred a range of awards including:
Nick Stace, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the RCVS, then gave an update on what the College had achieved in the last year. Among the achievements he noted was the introduction of a new system to reduce the time it takes to process complaints; the imminent launch of the new Advanced Practitioner status; and the development of a new Practice Standards Scheme, due to come into force next year.
He said: "In addition, we have listened and responded to fair criticism from the profession, including a very productive evidence-gathering session on 24/7 emergency care, which has resulted in important changes.
"I believe listening and responding is a sign of strength and confidence. We do not seek to be popular but to be sensible in how we regulate and respectful in how we carry out our Royal College duties."
He also outlined how he wanted the RCVS to be a "force for good" in the world by supporting the very best veterinary practitioners and ensuring that the public feels properly protected.