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.
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.
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.
Telemedicine can be defined as any clinical healthcare service that is provided using remote telecommunications services.
The aim of the consultation, which starts on the 13th February, is to receive feedback to help the College develop an appropriate regulatory framework for such services in the veterinary sector. The College’s current Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance is generally concerned with face-to-face provision of veterinary services.
The consultation will consider issues such as who is responsible for veterinary care if it is provided remotely, how 'under veterinary care' is defined in the context of the telemedicine delivery of services, the potential risks as well as opportunities for improving animal welfare that may arise out of new technologies and the appropriate regulation of veterinary services provided directly to clients using new remote technologies.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "We want the UK’s veterinary surgeons to be at the forefront of innovation and to be making use of, and developing, new technology to extend the reach of veterinary services and thereby improve animal welfare.
"However, while the adoption of technology can greatly benefit veterinary services, we also need to develop a regulatory framework that takes into account the questions it poses, for example, in areas such as remote diagnosis and prescribing, to ensure that animal health and welfare is the foremost consideration."
David Catlow, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee that approved the consultation, added: "What we are looking for in this consultation are comments that will help inform a new position for the College on the use of telemedicine. There are questions that need to be answered around the principles of using telemedicine and we hope that we will get the views of a broad range of the profession.
"I would strongly encourage all members of the profession to engage with this survey so that we can build a better picture of how this technology is currently being used, how it might be used in the future and how we can best regulate it."
The consultation questionnaire will be available to complete for six weeks from Monday 13 February 2017 at www.rcvs.org.uk/telemedicine
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Council has decided that the final enrolments for the remaining RCVS Diplomas must be made by 1 November 2012.
According to the College, this is in line with the recommendation made by the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee to Council that the RCVS should speed up the process of phasing out all of the remaining RCVS Diplomas in favour of the increasingly popular European Diplomas.
There are now such small numbers of candidates sitting RCVS Diploma exams that benchmarking and determining a consistent examination standard becomes increasingly difficult, and the examination increasingly indefensible and unsustainable. For example, in each of the past three years, only two candidates have entered the Diploma in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) exam, and there was only one candidate in 2008. Similarly, it is now usual for only one or two candidates per year to sit Diploma exams in Zoo Medicine, Cattle Health and Production or Ophthalmology.
A number of RCVS Diplomas have already been phased out, and new enrolments are no longer being taken in subjects such as Small Animal Medicine, Dermatology, Anaesthesia and Diagnostic Imaging.
Examinations will continue to be held for enrolled candidates (including candidates who enrol ahead of the 1 November 2012 deadline). The last Diploma examinations held in each subject will depend upon when its final candidates complete the pre-examination requirements. For candidates enrolling this year, this means 2019 at the latest.
The phasing out of RCVS Diplomas has been an agreed strategy of Council for many years after the then Education Strategy Steering Group recommended greater convergence with European Colleges in a report to Council in 2002 entitled "A framework for veterinary education and training for 2010 and beyond".
The position of each subject has been under review by the respective subject boards at their annual board meetings for the last few years, and some have already been closed to new entrants.
Professor Mike Herrtage, Chairman of the RCVS Diplomas and Certificates Subcommittee said: "For some subjects, there had been a perception that the European route required the candidate to follow a residency in an academic institution, which could be a barrier to UK practitioners' chances of completing a Diploma.
"However, all the European Colleges allow an alternate training route for practitioners provided the programme is planned and specified at the time of enrolment and approved by the College before training starts."
In some subjects, the European Diploma syllabus may not cover exactly the same ground as the RCVS equivalent - for example, small animal surgery encompasses both soft tissue surgery as well as orthopaedics - but the trend for residency positions in both universities and specialists practices has been to take candidates through the European style programmes, which produces more surgical specialists who thereafter can major in one aspect of another.
Mike said: "Recent experience has shown that many diplomates take the European Diploma first, and this entitles them to apply to join the list of RCVS Recognised Specialists. If they then want to specialise in a narrower field they can do so, by providing supporting data and references to show that they are practising at a specialist level in the area concerned."
Veterinary surgeons will continue to have multiple routes to RCVS Recognised Specialist status - including via European Diplomas, which also offer a route for those not in a standard residency position, American Diplomas, the RCVS Fellowship, or other such high level qualifications.
Developed in partnership with the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), the course uses practical examples based on real-life experiences.
The course shows how to assess complaints from a client’s perspective and how building client relationships can help defuse complaints.
Jennie Jones, Head of VCMS, said: "Leveraging insights from the VCMS and involving our entire team with its production has enabled us to develop highly effective materials that ensure veterinary professionals are well-equipped to manage complaints."
The course takes one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
For the study, the RVC interviewed 13 small animal general practitioners, exploring their experience of providing pre-purchase consultations for brachycephalic dogs.
The study revealed a number of barriers to delivering effective pre-purchase consultations and advice about these breeds.
They included limited time and resources, competition for appointment availability, a perception that vets are only there to fix things, public distrust of veterinary surgeons (often over money), fear of damaging vet-client relationships, and the conflicting influence of breeders and the Kennel Club on clients.
Many veterinary surgeons that took part in the research felt that they had little or no power to overcome these barriers which are highly intractable at an individual veterinarian level.
A resulting moral conflict in veterinary surgeons between their perceived ethical and moral responsibilities to animal welfare versus the needs and wants of their clients and businesses was expressed by many vets in the study, and was felt to compromise their professional integrity and autonomy.
The study set out a series of recommendations:
Dr Rowena Packer, Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science at the RVC and lead author of the study, said: “This is the first time that the impact of brachycephaly on the practising veterinary surgeon has been explored.
"Our concerning results highlight the importance of recognising that the brachycephalic crisis is not only negatively impacting animals, but it is affecting human wellbeing too.
“Our study highlights the conflict that vets are experiencing - bound both by their duty of care to their brachycephalic patients, but also to animal welfare at a population level.
"Trying to balance both of these responsibilities in the current working environment is proving very challenging for some, leading to moral distress.
"It is, therefore, essential that we protect the mental wellbeing of vets on this issue as well as from an animal welfare perspective.
“As the brachycephalic crisis continues to prevail, the support of leading veterinary organisations is vital in providing a united voice regarding the known harms of brachycephaly and support in facilitating PPCs to ensure vets are protected, and potential owners are fully informed when it comes to acquiring decisions.”
Dr Dan O’Neill, Assoc Prof of Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and co-author of the study, said:
“Over the past decade, the RVC has generated a vast evidence base revealing the true extent of the serious health issues of dogs with brachycephaly.
"This new study now focuses RVC research towards protecting the wellbeing of practising veterinary surgeons who are also shown as victims of the brachycephalic crisis.
"The clear message here is that we all need to ‘stop and think before buying a flat-faced dog’.”
The course offers practical tips and is also designed to help vets understand their obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct when discussing costs with clients.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: “Discussions around the costs of veterinary treatment are not always easy and can sometimes give rise to misunderstandings or lack of clarity between clients and veterinary teams.
"We recognise the challenges these conversations present and the pressures veterinary professionals face.
“Meanwhile, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation has highlighted that animal owners are not always satisfied with the level of information they receive in order to make an informed choice about treatment options.
This course supports the development of veterinary surgeons’ and veterinary nurses’ communication skills so that they can discuss treatment costs more transparently with their clients, helping to reduce potential misunderstandings and build trust.”
The course takes 45 minutes to complete and features an interactive scenario as well as expert video advice from experienced veterinary surgeons.
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.
For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.
The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.
At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”
In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.
Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”
She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.
“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Five graduates from St George's University School of Veterinary Medicine (SGUSVM), in the Caribbean island of Grenada, have passed the Statutory Membership Examination of the UK's Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
According to the University, SGUSVM graduates have traditionally demonstrated impressive pass rates on this rigorous exam, but this year's 100% pass rate by SGU students - compared with an overall 44% pass rate for candidates overall - is an exceptional result for SGU students, and only the second time it has been achieved in the school's history.
In order to practice veterinary surgery in the UK, all graduates with foreign or Commonwealth qualifications must pass the RCVS examination. The exam consists of two days of written papers, followed by clinical, oral and practical exams at a UK veterinary medical school. Thirty-five St George's graduates have passed into the RCVS since the School's inception in 1999.
The RCVS sets no quota for this Statutory Membership Examination, meaning those who meet the standards will pass, regardless of the number of candidates sitting the exam.
Austin Kirwan, St George's Associate Dean of UK and Ireland Clinical Affairs stated: "St George's School of Veterinary Medicine once again produces an excellent set of results with a 100 percent pass rate for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Membership Examination for those SGU students who sat the examination. This is a credit to the school in the quality of education it provides, but also an indication of the calibre of person SGU attracts in its student cohort - outstanding success abounds by thinking beyond."
Presenting the graduates with a membership certificate at the Ceremony of Admissions at Belgravia House in London, RCVS President Dr Jerry Davies said: "I was delighted to welcome so many of this year's successful candidates to the College. Whether newly graduated or long qualified elsewhere, all of those registering today have succeeded in meeting the educational and professional requirements that enable them to call themselves veterinary surgeons and to practise in the UK."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses will be able to try their hands at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons code-cracking competition at the London Vet Show at Olympia on 24-25 November.
At the RCVS breakfast session on the Friday morning (8.30, part of the Business Stream), President Dr Jerry Davies will unlock the secrets of the proposed new Codes of Professional Conduct for vets and VNs.
To promote this breakfast session, the RCVS is inviting visitors to come to its stand (J90) to solve photo enigmas, using clues provided to decipher a series of words that appear in the proposed new Codes. The winner will be in line to receive a pair of super sleuthing video glasses.
VNs who missed BVNA Congress can also get their hands on a 50th anniversary commemorative chocolate medallion by visiting the RCVS stand.
Coffee and pastries will be served at the morning session on Friday - there's no need to book, just turn up.
The online book invites veterinary surgeons to leave written messages of condolence, and pictures.
The book will be available until Monday 3rd October.
Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, President of the RCVS who will be attending the Queen’s state funeral on behalf of the College, said: “I, along with my colleagues in the Officer Team and on RCVS and VN Councils, were greatly saddened to learn of the death of Her Majesty the Queen last week.
“As our Patron and benefactor since her accession to the throne 70 years ago, as a keen supporter of the veterinary professions who had many interactions with its members, and as an animal-lover, we were keen to give veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses the opportunity to leave messages of condolence, anecdotes about meeting Her Majesty, and tributes for her many years of duty and service to this country.
“After it closes, we plan to save a digital copy of the online book in the RCVS historical archives for posterity.”
Any nurses who have not received the original email should contact communications@rcvs.org.uk.
The review, announced earlier this year, was recommended to RCVS Council by its Standards Committee following its exploration of the implications of new technologies for both animal health and welfare and veterinary regulation.
The main areas under consideration include the provision of 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon.
The initial stages of this review had been drafted for Standards Committee to consider at its meeting on 9 September, where the outline timetable was also discussed.
Standards Committee Chair Melissa Donald, said: "This is set to become one of our most fundamental reviews of RCVS guidance in recent years.
"Considering the complexity of the issues in question, and their importance to animal owners and the professions alike, it is vital that we allow ourselves enough time to ensure this review is as thorough and comprehensive as possible.
"We have a clear responsibility to seek, understand and, where we can, accommodate the opinions and experiences of as many different people from within and around the professions and the public as possible. I would urge my fellow vets and vet nurses to please find some time to consider these issues very carefully over the coming weeks and months, and to send us their views."
The review will comprise several stages and is expected to take around 12 months to complete. The outline timetable, which may be subject to change, is as follows:
October 2019 – January 2020: six-week Call for Evidence, followed by independent qualitative analysis of all evidence received
February – March: Select Committee-style meetings and independent qualitative analysis of additional evidence gathered [NB this stage is subject to Standards Committee requirements, depending on the evidence gathered.]
April – June: Consider all evidence and draft any new policy
July – August: six-week public consultation on draft policy
September – October: independent review of consultation responses, and production of any proposals for change
November 2020: Finalise any proposals for change and publish any new guidance
To support and promote the various stages of the review the College is also planning a programme of stakeholder engagement, and will also provide regular updates on progress to both Council and the wider profession.
Members of the professions and the public will be able to follow the progress of the review via the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare