View all veterinary jobs
Sarah is a Professor of Veterinary Surgery at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, and leads the Nottingham Equine Colic Project, which works with organisations such as the British Horse Society to raise awareness of the condition.
Sarah's talk, 'Generating an evidence-based educational campaign on colic', will discuss new evidence from the project, and how it led to the REACT colic campaign. She will also be sharing experiences of how the campaign has worked and asking whether we can change people's attitudes and behaviours.
The evening starts at 6.15pm with food and refreshments with Sarah's talk starting at 7pm, after which there will be an update on the College’s latest projects and initiatives. That'll be followed by a question and answer session with senior officers and staff from the RCVS - including RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, and Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council Racheal Marshall.
Dr Connell said: "Thank you to Professor Freeman for agreeing to speak about the colic project which, through its Colic Awareness Week, is helping to raise knowledge of the early signs of colic amongst horse owners, allowing them to get their horses treated in good time and saving their lives.
"I also look forward to talking to members of the profession about some of the issues currently on their minds – the evening is very much led by what those who attend want to discuss – from mental health, to our under care review, to the Practice Standards Scheme. Attending the event can also count to up to three hours towards your continuing professional development (CPD) requirement."
The event is open to all members of the practice team including veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, practice managers and others. The event is free and places can be booked via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/nottingham.
In the afternoon before the event, between 12 noon and 5pm, the College will also be holding a series of free 45-minute Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) surgeries with PSS Lead Assessor Pam Mosedale.
The surgeries are open to both RCVS-accredited practices and those considering joining the Scheme and allows delegates to discuss the assessment process, how to apply for awards, how to meet particular requirements and any other questions they may have about the PSS.
Places at the surgeries are limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. They can be booked at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSsurgeries
The candidates for this year's RCVS Council election have been announced, many of whom will be coming to the VetSurgeon.org forums to lay out their stalls and explain why you should vote for them.
A record number of veterinary surgeons - 14 - are contesting six seats in the RCVS Council election. Veterinary surgeons may each vote for up to six candidates to fill these seats, which fall vacant as elected Council member's terms of office expire at the RCVS Annual General Meeting (6 July). In 2012, five existing Council members are seeking re-election, and nine new candidates are standing.
Of the 42 RCVS Council members, four are appointed by the Privy Council, 14 by the veterinary schools and 24 by direct election; each member serves a four year term. This year's candidates are:
Voting opens from Friday 9 March and all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote should receive their ballot papers shortly. Votes must be received by 5pm on 27 April 2012 and, as in previous years, can be cast online, by post, or by text message
New faces on the RCVS Council include Richard Stephenson, Charles Gruchy and Catherine Goldie. Dr Barry Johnson (first elected to Council in 1985) and Dr Christopher Chesney (first elected in 1996) have been voted on for further terms. Dr Robert Ellis, who has had three previous periods on Council, has been re-elected.
Figures produced by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons show that almost half of the first cohort of newly-qualified vets to sign up to the Professional Development Phase (PDP) have now completed it.
The PDP is a web-based database that enables new graduates to develop, and reflect on, their professional skills during their first year in clinical practice. Completing the PDP became a professional obligation for all newly-qualified vets from 2007 onwards. Of the 636 vets who graduated in 2007, 586 (92%) signed up to PDP and 290 have now completed. Of the 616 vets who graduated in 2008, 546 (88%) have so far registered for the PDP.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Undertaking PDP is a professional requirement for every newly-qualified vet working in clinical practice. The first vets to undertake PDP seem to be taking around 15 months from signing up to signing off. Properly completing PDP counts as the first year's CPD and we strongly recommend that this year's graduates sign up as soon as they have found their first clinical role."
The PDP is also open to any vet returning to practice.
To find out more about PDP requirements, log onto www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp, to enrol, email pdp@rcvs.org.uk.
The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.
32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.
Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists.
Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.
RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.
"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."
Following the announcement last month of the establishment of a Working Party to review Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) in the undergraduate veterinary degree, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comment from all those involved with organising, providing and receiving EMS.
Opinions are not being sought in response to a set of formal questions, but respondents may like to consider the strengths and weaknesses in the system; problems and possible solutions; and what should be retained and what could change.
Written comments should be sent to Freda Andrews, Head of Education at the RCVS, on education@rcvs.org.uk by 16 February 2009.
This call for input is the first of several phases of activity that will lead to the delivery of a report from the Working Party to the RCVS Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in October 2009. Following this initial information-gathering stage, some individuals and organisations will be invited to deliver their views in person to the Working Party during April.
Draft recommendations will then be formatted for any change to the current system, which requires that veterinary students undertake pre-clinical and clinical work experience placements for at least 38 weeks during their degree course. A further consultation process may follow, depending on the nature of the recommendations, before the paper is finalised.
Dr Barry Johnson, RCVS Council member and Chairman of the EMS Working Party said: "It is over 10 years since the RCVS undertook a major review of EMS, although the requirements and guidelines were revised and updated in 2005 to introduce more flexibility for universities to meet the individual learning needs of their students.
"In recent years, there have been significant changes in the UK higher education system, the veterinary curriculum and the organisation of veterinary schools, and the time is now right for a more substantial review."
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Those veterinary surgeons being audited are being asked to share their records for 2013 to 2015 by either allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the RCVS a copy of their CPD record cards. The deadline for sharing records is Friday 14 October 2016.
The audit is focused on six groups:
If any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant (ie. less than 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period), they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The College says it is also keen to remind veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
More information about what counts as CPD can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, Education Officer at the College, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
Ed's note: Don't forget to claim your VetSurgeon.org CPD certificate detailing time you've recorded reading content and taking part in qualifying discussions on the site. Click 'My Account' and then the 'CPD' tab to view your records and create your certificate.
Professor Susan Dawson (pictured right), Chair of the Mind Matters Taskforce, will introduce the event and will be followed by the symposium’s plenary speaker, Rory O’Connor, Professor of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow and President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention.
Rory's talk: ‘When It is Darkest: Understanding Suicide Risk’ will draw upon his research and work on the psychological processes which precipitate suicidal behaviour and self-harm, an area of expertise that has seen him advise the Scottish Government, as well as other national and international organisations, on suicide prevention strategies.
The next presentation will be from Dr Victoria Crossley from the Royal Veterinary College and Navaratnam Partheeban, co-founder of the British Veterinary Ethnicity & Diversity Society (BVEDS), on their research into the mental health impact of racism and discrimination on Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) veterinary surgeons.
They'll be followed by Professor Neil Greenberg and Dr Victoria Williamson from King’s College London, who will talk about their research into the impact of ‘moral injury’ on the mental health and wellbeing of vets.
The day will then split into different research streams with presentations on a variety of topics including: the impact of cyberbullying and harassment; the wellbeing of veterinary interns and residents; stigma and stress in veterinary nursing; mental health awareness training in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum; and the relationship between ‘patient safety culture’ and staff burnout.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As with previous years the Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium promises to be a very informative and important day in terms of international researchers coming together to share their research, their conclusions, areas for further work and study, and best practice.
"Some of the topics we will be discussing, such as suicide, will be difficult, but research into issues affecting the international veterinary community is a vital first step to putting in place strategies and support mechanisms to help those in need. This is why research will be one of the key strategic priorities for the Mind Matters Initiative and our forthcoming actions in this area will be published later this year in our Mind Matters Initiative Strategic Plan.
“I would like to thank Dr Rosie Allister, a veterinary mental health researcher from the University of Edinburgh and manager of Vetlife Helpline, for putting together an excellent programme.
"As with previous years we are also offering free attendance of the symposium to those who have lived experience of mental ill-health, those who are currently not working, and veterinary and veterinary nursing students. If you have any queries about the event, please don’t hesitate to contact me on l.quigley@rcvs.org.uk to discuss further.”
Registration for those not entitled to a free ticket is £10.
To register for the event visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/events.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
Dr Mostert admitted to his conviction but denied that it rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
He also admitted not disclosing his conviction to the RCVS but denied that it amounted to dishonesty or was misleading and that failing to do so amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee first considered whether Dr Mostert’s conviction affected the public interest, which included the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour for members of the profession.
The Committee noted that the conviction involved dishonesty relating to false statements about the value of goods sent to the USA.
The Committee felt that a conviction for a serious offence involving dishonesty would have a negative impact on public confidence in the profession, and that its reputation would be damaged if proper standards of conduct and behaviour were not upheld.
The Committee also noted that as the products that Dr Mostert imported into the USA were not labelled as coming from a foreign market and were not labelled as needing to be administered by a vet, his conviction also related to animal safety, as anyone who accessed the medications could believe that it was safe for them to be given to an animal.
The Committee then considered Dr Mostert’s failure to declare the conviction to the College on three separate occasions.
Dr Mostert testified that, at the time, he did not believe he had to disclose his conviction as it occurred in a country where he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon.
He also said he had not taken the time to read and interpret the application form accurately.
However, the Committee considered that the wording around convictions on the application and annual renewal forms is very clear and that, as a veterinary surgeon, Dr Mostert would be familiar with such documents.
The Committee considered that it was inconceivable that an experienced veterinary surgeon, making a declaration of this kind to his regulator, would not have understood that a serious conviction in the USA, dating from June 2017, was a conviction that he was obliged to disclose.
The Committee therefore found Dr Mostert’s failures to declare his conviction dishonest.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, noted that in deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the case did not involve any actual harm to an animal or human and that Dr Mostert had had a long and otherwise unblemished career.
However, a key aggravating factor was that the action that led to the conviction resulted in financial gain through the creation of a business enterprise and that Dr Mostert falsely declared the value of goods.
The extent of any financial gain was not known to the Committee, but the business operated on the basis that false declarations were repeatedly made.
Judith said: “After careful consideration the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances, a lengthy period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the case and satisfy the public interest. The Committee has decided that the appropriate length of suspension is one of 18 months.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Buttler was charged with having been under the influence of alcohol whilst at work on two separate occasions. On both occasions, she was working as a locum veterinary nurse.
The first occasion was between 25th and 28th April 2016 in Frome, and the second from 3rd July to 4th July 2016 in Salisbury.
It was also alleged that a prior conviction of drunk driving on 19th November 2013 rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee decided to hear the case in Ms Buttler’s absence as it was satisfied that she had properly been served with the notice of hearing and because she had stated that she was aware of the proceedings but did not wish to engage with the process. The Committee also noted that she had not requested any adjournment.
The Committee heard from five witnesses for the first charge, including three veterinary nurses and one veterinary surgeon. They gave testimony that they had had cause to suspect that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work due to her demeanour, and recalled Ms Buttler repeatedly retreating upstairs to her accommodation during the working day. Further, an open wine bottle was found in Ms Buttler’s accommodation and was observed to have been drunk during the course of her shift. The Committee found the first charge proved.
The Committee heard from four witnesses in respect of the second charge. Two of the witnesses stated that they smelt alcohol on Ms Buttler’s breath while she was on duty, with one of them stating that Ms Buttler had slurred speech and a flushed face at the end of a fourteen-hour shift. The other two witnesses also presented evidence to support the assertion that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work, while the Committee found that Ms Buttler lacked credibility because she had denied having any alcohol on the premises when originally confronted, but later admitted in an email to the College that she had had an open bottle of wine in her bag. The Committee found the second charge proved.
The Committee then considered the third charge, namely the conviction in 2013. The Committee considered the certificate of conviction obtained from the North East Devon Magistrates Court and was satisfied that Ms Buttler had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol as set out within charge 3.
When considering whether these all amounted to a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee was concerned about Ms Buttler showing no insight into her drinking, and the repeated nature of the offences. The Committee also considered that being under the influence of alcohol when working as a veterinary nurse was conduct which fell far short of the standards to be expected of members of the veterinary nursing profession.
It therefore concluded that Ms Buttler was guilty of disgraceful conduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Buttler’s conviction (charge 3) rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. The Committee concluded that Ms Buttler had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions in 2013, or learnt any lessons from it. Accordingly, it felt that she continued to pose a risk to animals and the public in the future. The Committee also felt that the conviction undermined the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession because the offence inevitably involved a risk of injury to herself and other road users.
Having found Ms Buttler guilty of misconduct, the Committee went on to consider sanction.
The Committee took into account aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to an animal, the fact that the first two charges involved an element of premeditation, the fact that Ms Buttler was under the influence on more than one shift in each practice, that there is no evidence of insight from Ms Buttler and there is a future risk to animals if she continued to practice unrestricted.
They also considered mitigating factors, including the fact that this is the first disciplinary hearing she has faced, that she did not cause any harm to any animal and that she did not gain financially from her conduct.
In reaching its decision Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Ms Buttler said she had worked for twenty years without any problem and that she was previously of good character. However because there was no evidence that Ms Buttler would not repeat the conduct with regards to working whilst under the influence of alcohol she could continue to pose a risk to animals or the public in the future. The Committee therefore was bound to consider her removal from the register.
"Although it noted from the brief email correspondence Ms Buttler had sent to the College that she said she did not intend to practice in the future, the Committee decided that until she had shown insight into her behaviour in 2016, she remained a risk to animals. It therefore decided that the proportionate action was to instruct the Registrar to remove her name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith."
If Ms Buttler chose to re-engage with the College, she could apply for restoration to the register after ten months.
The follow up service ‘can be provided personally by the veterinary surgeon or practice, or by written agreement with a veterinary services provider which is local to the client (as with the current situation for [out-of-hours] care provision)’.
The new rule comes into force on the 1st November, to allow practices to make any necessary arrangements.
The RCVS Council also decided that the temporary derogation from the usual requirement to conduct a physical examination before an animal is regarded as ‘under care’ be reviewed as a standing item at each subsequent Standards Committee meeting, until the normal guidance provisions are fully restored.
RCVS Council had introduced temporary guidance allowing the remote prescription of drugs for animals not under care back in March, to ensure that animal health and welfare could be maintained during lockdown without risking the health of veterinary teams or their clients.
Since then, the College has twice extended this guidance, because of the ongoing situation.
However the College says it now recognises that many practices are returning more to 'business as usual' and that the guidance and associated flowchart should be updated according.
Consequently, before deciding to prescribe POM-Vs remotely, the updated guidance now requires veterinary surgeons to first consider whether the animal is already under their care; or, if not, whether it is possible to physically examine the animal in order to bring the animal under their care. If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, POM-Vs may still be prescribed remotely providing the guidelines set out in the College’s coronavirus advice hub are adhered to.
Surprisingly, the College says that its surveys of the profession have thus far identified no immediate safety concerns around remote prescribing.
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “The reason for maintaining the possibility of remote prescribing without a physical examination was that we recognised that the current situation is unpredictable, and while the ability for the public to visit practices in person has improved over the last few months, we felt that situations might still arise where that would not be possible, and where access to remote prescribing would be necessary. These could include further local lockdowns, ongoing quarantine arrangements, and the remaining fact that some members of both the veterinary team and the public continue to shield.
“It remains our intention that this guidance will continue to be a temporary measure and may be subject to further extensions or updates given the uncertain nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
RCVS Council will review the position on 8 October, with any changes being effective by 1 November at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the RCVS review of ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover has now resumed, starting with a number of virtual focus groups and consultation with stakeholders within the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
The findings from these focus group discussions will then inform a wider survey to be sent to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in early 2021, along with stakeholder organisations and the animal-owning public. Remote prescribing will continue to form a part of this review.
The introduction of the new Level 3 Diploma in Veterinary Nursing has seen an increase in numbers of both students and training practices, according to statistics released today by the RCVS.
Since January, the RCVS has approved over 30 more Training and Auxiliary Training Practices, bringing to a total of 1,559 the number of practices approved for veterinary nurse (VN) training. Scope for practices to train student VNs is increased through the emphasis on Auxiliary Training Practices (aTPs), an option for practices without the full facilities or caseload needed for student training. Students at aTPs complete their in-practice training at other aTPs or full Training Practices. Of the 31 new practices approved since January for student training, eight are aTPs.
The number of VN students enrolling with the RCVS has also increased, with almost double the number enrolling in January 2011, compared with January 2010. There were a total of 1,168 student enrolments in the 12 months from 1 February 2010, compared with 1,121 enrolments in the same period from 1 February 2009.
Libby Earle, Head of the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Department said: "The Level 3 Diploma has been in place for little more than six months, yet VN student numbers are already up. This bodes well for the supply of qualified, competent registered veterinary nurses demanded by veterinary practices, and for those keen to enter the veterinary nursing profession."
The qualification was introduced when the government abolished the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) system last summer, forcing a change in the vocational qualifications for VNs. The resulting Level 3 Diploma is designed to better meet the needs of practices, colleges, and students themselves.
Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:
Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.
She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.
She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.
In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.
In 2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.
Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months.
Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.
The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.
The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.
In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.
The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.
"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.
"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.
"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.
“This is a case involving serious malpractice.
"It was sustained over a period of time.
"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.
"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.
"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.
“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
It's the final call for comments on the draft new RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, as the consultation closes on Friday, 24 June 2011.
The new draft Code, which is intended to replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, was produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee.
The new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.
New requirements in the Code include compulsory continuing professional development, the RCVS Health Protocol and more on clinical competence. It also contains an updated declaration to be made by veterinary surgeons, which gives increased emphasis to animal welfare.
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation.
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate consultation will open shortly on a draft RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.
"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.
"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”
Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.
The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487
More meetings are planned for later in the year:
If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk
The DC heard how, in December 2022, a labrador called Bella had been stolen from its owner.
That same month, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, according to news reports telling him they'd taken the animal because it had been abused.
Dr Kashiv performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.
Although there was no suggestion that Dr Khashiv had been involved in the theft, it was alleged that he knew the animal had been stolen.
In January 2024, after pleading guilty, Dr Kashiv was convicted of removing the microchip, contrary to section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.
He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85.
Dr Khashiv faced four charges at the RCVS disciplinary hearing, the first being that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second charge was that in July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv had been made subject to a 5-year Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders.
The third charge was that Dr Kashiv’s conduct with regard to the microchip was dishonest, in that he removed it to conceal the labrador’s identity.
The final charge was that Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador and his conduct was thereby i) misleading and/or ii) dishonest.
From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four.
However, he initially denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.
In a later submission, Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Committee found no mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.
In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four.
The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction.
The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.
The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a cover-up so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice.
The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.
In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse findings of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.
In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”
He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.
"This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
"However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.
“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv.
"The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided.
"However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15069309/Vegan-vet-Animal-Rebellion-activist-steal-pet-dog.html
The RCVS President and Principal of the RVC, Professor Stuart Reid, has announced that he is to run the London Marathon on 26 April, in aid of the RVC Animal Care Trust, the Veterinary Benevolent Fund (VBF) and Mind.
The RVC Animal Care Trust will use the funds to assist the student bodies at all of the UK veterinary schools. The VBF, through Vetlife, the Vet Helpline and the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme, offers specific assistance to members of the veterinary team. Mind has been working with the profession and the veterinary schools at all levels in developing approaches to mental health and wellbeing.
Stuart said: "As President of the RCVS and Principal of the RVC I feel that I am in a privileged position and I would like to take every opportunity to help break down the stigma associated with mental health and wellbeing, and to raise what I can to assist these three excellent charities in dealing with what is, sadly, a major issue for us.
"Most of all, I am doing it for the nine people I know personally who are no longer with us, and the many more who have found, and will find, help in time."
If you'd like to help Stuart meet his sponsorship target of £10,000, you can sponsor him at: uk.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartReid.
Ms Padron Vega had also been found to have failed in her duties as an OV by being unprepared for, and unaware of, new regulations. She also did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
Ms Padron Vega originally applied for restoration in December last year, at which time the Disciplinary Committee had concerns about her keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills needed to return to practice, and decided to adjourn for six months to allow her to prove that it was appropriate to restore her name to the Register.
At the latest hearing, Ms Padron Vega sought to address the concerns that the Committee had raised about her professional development. In addition to the documentation she provided in her original restoration hearing, which included positive testimonials from colleagues, she provided evidence of her continuing professional development (CPD).
This included a letter from her previous employer, who confirmed she had more recently worked for them as a Certification Support Officer from February to March 2021, where they received positive feedback on her conduct.
The documentation also included a letter from another practice confirming that Ms Padron Vega had been offered a position of employment with them, and a separate letter from practice veterinary surgeon, Dr Khan MRCVS, confirming that he would be her mentor. Dr Khan also confirmed that she had been coming to the practice for work experience and he considered her to have good working knowledge of current medicines used within the practice. He further outlined in his letter what CPD support the practice would be providing for Ms Padron Vega as part of her employment with them.
An additional piece of evidence was a testimonial from Dr Max Rutana MRCVS who confirmed that Ms Padron Vega had worked unsupervised for a period of three weeks, and that he found her clinical notes during this period to be satisfactory and they received no complaints about her conduct from clients.
Ms Padron Vega also submitted CPD documentation which confirmed she has taken a Certification Support Officers’ course and examination in mid-December 2020.
In response to questions from the Committee about her small animal practice experience and how long she had been shadowing Dr Khan for, Ms Padron Vega explained that she had completed 80 hours of shadowing with Dr Khan and that in her future employment under his mentorship, he would be available to support her. She also explained that her job offer was evidence that she would continue to be trained in the relevant area of veterinary work.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “During the hearing, we heard evidence from Dr Khan who provided reassurance of Ms Padron Vega’s continued professional development with his practice and the ongoing supervision that she would be under. He explained that the supervision would last at least three months.
“The Committee’s view is that Ms Padron Vega accepts the findings of dishonesty that were made against her at the original Inquiry hearing. In her Reflective Statement, she acknowledges that veterinarians have a professional responsibility to ensure the integrity of veterinary certification, that she is now aware that when signing documents as a veterinary surgeon they need to be approached with care and accuracy. Further she has undertaken a CPD course on this very ethical issue and has passed the examination set at the end of that course. The Committee is confident that Ms Padron Vega is unlikely to repeat the conduct which resulted in her being removed from the Register. It is the Committee’s decision that she should be restored to the Register.”
The RCVS has brought out a new publication to help members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions understand their legal and professional obligations regarding controlled drugs.
Controlled Drugs Guidance is a consolidation of existing advice and guidance on controlled drugs from a number of organisations including the RCVS itself, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the Home Office. The guide also gives details of the existing legislation concerning controlled drugs, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated regulations.
The guidance provides advice on a variety of topics to reflect the common queries the RCVS Advice Team receives, such as storage, destruction and disposal; keys and keyholders for controlled drugs cabinets; controlled drugs in vehicles; and veterinary nurses administering controlled drugs.
The publication also deals with specific controlled drugs such as ketamine which, on 30 November 2015, was rescheduled to a Schedule 2 controlled drug, meaning that it is now subject to the same strict storage, prescription, dispending, destruction and record-keeping requirements as other medicines in this Schedule.
Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: “We hope that this publication will help members of the profession navigate the often complex legislative and professional requirements regarding controlled drugs, as well as imparting best practice advice on how they should be stored and disposed and so on.
"This publication has also been endorsed by our colleagues in the Home Office, VMD and BSAVA and, because this is an area that is subject to regular change, we will make sure to keep it up-to-date as and when the regulations change."
The publication is available to download from the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS Charitable Trust is offering two 'Blue Sky' grants of between £10,000 and £20,000 for basic or pure research intended to advance veterinary science.
Applications may be made for either an 'open' grant or a Robert Daubney Fellowship. Both are open to academic staff and students within UK veterinary schools. However, the Robert Daubney Fellowship is granted specifically for research within the fields of virology and helminthology, and has additional criteria including that applicants must be on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons, and hold a postgraduate veterinary qualification.
Cherry Bushell, the Trust's Director said: "This funding is offered for veterinary scientific research projects which meet our interests in innovation and development. In particular, pilot projects aiming to show a 'proof of concept' as a first stage of a more substantial project will be looked on favourably - if the project can then attract support from major funders this is likely to have more impact over the longer term."
The Trust aims to develop mutually beneficial partnerships with grant recipients, and innovative and exciting projects which can respond to these objectives through the grant-giving process and beyond are also preferred.
Further information, including full application criteria, is available from www.trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants. Preliminary applications should be made via the head of a UK veterinary school, and submitted to the Trust by 20 May 2011.
The competition is open to all UK-based undergraduate veterinary students and offers them the opportunity to work as a team to brainstorm, develop and present an innovative idea to a board of industry professionals.
Students can enter either as a single applicant or as a group (of roughly five members), with single applicants then being placed in a group with other applicants from their university. There can be more than one team representing each university.
Each student’s project can cover any aspect of veterinary health innovation. The RCVS suggests potential projects might include: innovations within veterinary education, innovations to improve sanitation and hygiene, innovations to improve veterinary-public communication and innovations to improve patient safety.
Entries must show how they have improved upon – or extended beyond – current expectations of best practice in their chosen area.
Each applicant will receive support from one of the Association of Veterinary Students’ (AVS) Vet Futures Ambassadors, as well as a mentor session with a chosen industry professional to guide them on their project.
Teams will need to submit three components for judging: a log of their progress throughout the project (which can include social media updates using the hashtag #ViVetStudentInnovation), mentor engagement and feedback, and a five-minute video ‘business pitch’.
The three finalist groups of the competition will be invited to present their pitch to a board of industry professionals at a ‘Dragon’s Den’ style event held at the RCVS ViVet 2019 Innovation Symposium on Tuesday 1 October 2019 in Manchester.
The winning and runner-up groups will then be selected and will be presented alongside the ‘mentor’s choice’ award. The Mentor’s Choice award will be selected by the team mentors. The prize will be awarded to an individual who shows excellence and enthusiasm within their work on the project.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership & Innovation (pictured right), said: "This competition provides a great opportunity for veterinary students to engage with their fellow classmates across different fields of study and to work on projects that could genuinely make a difference to animal health and welfare and the way veterinary services are delivered. Teams will receive one-on-one mentoring and will be guided through the innovation process, developing skills that will be useful throughout their careers. We look forward to seeing the three finalist teams presenting at the RCVS ViVet Innovation Symposium in Manchester on 1 October."
Zoe Skinner, Vet Futures Student Representatives Team Leader, said: “This competition is a great opportunity for veterinary students to receive mentoring from experienced veterinary professionals and form contacts within our profession. It gives students a way to work together as a team and allows them to learn how to produce and develop innovative, problem-solving concepts as well as skills in delivering presentations. These are all important aspects of our career ahead, which will look brilliant on our CV’s.”
ViVet is now accepting registrations for the competition for the 2018/19 academic year. To enter, applicants must submit an online registration form. For further information, email info@vivet.org.uk.