View all veterinary jobs
During her two-day hearing, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard that Ms Vockert had been convicted under Animal Welfare Act 2006 at Bournemouth Magistrates Court in April for, by her own admission, failing to protect two dogs she owned from pain, suffering, injury and disease, by not adequately grooming them.
The prosecution had been brought by the RSPCA after one of her dogs, a Shih Tzu named Happy, was taken into care by the local Council in September 2014 as a stray.
The dog was examined by Chris Devlin MRCVS who reported at the time that the dog’s coat was in an "appalling state, with multiple mats of hair all over his body" and with "evidence of faecal and urinary soiling on the fur around the rear end", which constituted clear signs of neglect. The dog was anaesthetised and treated by Mr Devlin for an eye condition and was also given a full body shave. The dog made a full recovery after these operations.
Council employees discovered that Happy belonged to Ms Vockert and referred the matter to the RSPCA who started an investigation into his condition. When two RSPCA inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home in September 2014 they observed a Cocker Spaniel named Millie which had severely matted fur. There were no concerns about any of the other dogs owned by Ms Vockert.
The two inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home the next day by appointment and were told by Ms Vockert that Millie had been euthanased. Millie’s body was subsequently taken to Professor Kenneth Smith MRCVS and Claire Muir MRCVS for a post-mortem examination. In their report following the post-mortem, they observed Millie’s hair coat to be "extensively matted and given the growth of hair over the collar and claws, it is likely that the hair has not been clipped for an extremely long period... and is likely to have restricted the dog’s ability to walk. In addition, a large amount of faecal material has become matted within the hair coat and this finding strongly suggests that this dog was neglected."
As a result of her prosecution by the RSCPA, Ms Vockert was fined £620, ordered to pay costs of £300, a victim surcharge of £62 and a deprivation of animal ownership order was made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Disciplinary Committee considered that the failure to groom extended over a period of months and that any conviction on the part of a veterinary surgeon relating to animal welfare was an extremely serious matter.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The College submitted that the conviction of a veterinary surgeon for an animal welfare offence, of necessity has the potential to undermine both the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.
"In such circumstances, the respondent’s conviction fell far below the standard to be expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering Ms Vockert’s sanction, the Committee took into mitigation her long and otherwise unblemished career both in the UK and Germany, her guilty plea to the RSPCA conviction and the fact she made no attempt to challenge the College’s submissions in relation to her fitness to practise.
However, it also took into account a number of aggravating features, particularly the fact there was "actual neglect of the welfare of two animals, over a protracted period of time, which resulted in pain, suffering and discomfort. This aspect of the case is made more serious because the two animals in question belonged to the respondent, who is a practising veterinary surgeon with access to the drugs and equipment necessary to groom the dogs."
Ultimately, the Committee decided that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Acting Registrar to remove Ms Vockert’s name from the Register.
Ian Green, summing up, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct which led to the conviction, involved a departure from the most basic and pivotal principle of the Code [of Professional Conduct], which states that the first consideration when attending to animals is health and welfare.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case."
The survey was carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), which sent it to 5,572 veterinary surgeons who graduated from a vet school in the EU (excluding the UK) and who are registered as veterinary surgeons in this country, as well as around 100 non-UK EU-trained veterinary nurses.
The survey asked a range of questions about how these individuals felt that the vote to leave the EU had affected them, how they felt about their future working in the UK veterinary sector and how they felt the College had dealt with the issue of Brexit.
3,078 people (including 19 veterinary nurses) responded to the survey – a response rate of 55.3%. The average age of the respondents was 36. 60% were female and 87% were working full-time.
The largest group of respondents (22%) qualified in Spain. 14% qualified in Italy, 10% in Poland, 9% in Romania, 7% in Portugal, 6% in Germany and 6% in the Republic of Ireland.
The remaining 26% qualified in 18 different countries, each of which accounted for fewer than 5% of EU registrants. Although these figures relate to country of qualification and not the nationality of the individuals, in 91% of cases these were the same.
The majority of respondents (78%) worked in clinical practice. Of the 603 who did not work in clinical practice, 38% worked for the Food Standards Agency, 21% worked for the Animal and Plant Health Agency and 18% worked in higher education.
The main findings of the survey were:
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "This survey makes the strongest possible case that the Government must act fast to reassure our EU colleagues in practices, universities and industry that they are welcome to stay in the UK.
"EU vets and vet nurses make a massive contribution to the UK veterinary sector and the health and welfare of animals and humans.
"Beyond this commitment we will also be lobbying the Government that, after we leave the EU, suitably qualified vets from overseas are prioritised for UK work visas or equivalent, particularly if they are working in public health and the meat industry.
"I have written to Michael Gove, the new Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, outlining our position and our Brexit Principles and have invited him to visit the RCVS at Belgravia House to discuss these further. I hope that he accepts our offer so that we can have some constructive talks on these matters.
"On a personal note, I am very sorry to see that a significant proportion of respondents had experienced prejudice at work. This is simply not acceptable and we, as a regulator, have been conscious that ‘anti-foreigner’ rhetoric in the country at large could have an effect on hard-working and talented members of our profession, which is why we raised the matter in our letter to the Prime Minister last year."
The findings of interviews with a sample of non-UK EU-graduated veterinary surgeons working in the UK will be published over the summer. Meanwhile, over the next two years, IES will also be carrying out two further pieces of research that will track the opinions and intentions of non-UK EU-graduated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over time as Brexit policies are formed and the future status of non-UK nationals made clearer.
To read the IES report and the College’s three Brexit Principles in full, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.
Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.
The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.
There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest.
The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.
As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.
The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.
The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.
However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.
In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.
The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.
The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.
Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.
In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.
"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.
"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.
"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."
The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.
The RCVS has announced that the Code of Professional Conduct has been updated to restrict - from April 2016 - the use of the word specialist and its derivatives in veterinary practice marketing and promotional materials, except when referring to an RCVS Recognised Specialist.
Alternatives for practitioners who want to describe a special area of expertise in their marketing materials, but who are not on the RCVS list of Specialists include: 'Special interest in ...', 'Experienced in ...', 'Advanced qualifications in ...', or, for those who hold the status, 'Advanced Practitioner'.
The College says the changes will also apply to European Veterinary Specialists fully recognised by the European Board of Veterinary Specialisation, who will now need to join the RCVS list if they wish to use the title in the UK. However, European Specialists will be offered a simplified application process and a 50% reduction in the fee, because their revalidation is carried out by their specialist European college.
The College has also extended the deadline for new applications for Specialist Status to 30th September 2015. The deadline for re-applications by existing RCVS Specialists remains 14th August 2015.
In addition to changing the Code, the College has also amended Chapter 23 of its supporting guidance ('Advertising and publicity') to give more detailed advice on use of the terms 'specialist' and 'specialising in' in the context of advertising and referrals.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "Specialist status is not easy to achieve. Those who hold it have achieved a postgraduate qualification at a minimum of Diploma level and have satisfied us that they make an active contribution in their speciality, for example, through publishing academic papers.
"The change to the Code of Professional Conduct is therefore intended to ensure the integrity of the specialist list and title, so that those who do not have RCVS-recognised qualifications, experience and expertise do not claim or imply they hold such a status.
"These changes will benefit the public and, ultimately, animal welfare by clearly identifying those who have specialised knowledge and skills. They should also aid members of the broader profession in the UK when they are deciding who they should refer cases to.
"We recognise this represents a significant change which is why we have allowed a 'bedding in' period before the change comes into force, as well as extending the deadline for applications."
To find out more about applying for Specialist status, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/specialists. The List of RCVS Specialists is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/listofspecialists. Details of the updates made to the Code can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcode. These changes have also been reflected in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct app which can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/codeapp.
All Schedule 2 controlled drugs (with the exception of quinalbarbitone) and certain Schedule 3 controlled drugs are legally required to be stored in a locked container which is compliant with the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973; however, the College considers it advisable for all Schedule 3 controlled drugs to be stored in the controlled drug cabinet.
Controlled drug cabinets must only be accessed by a veterinary surgeon, or another nominated responsible person at the practice. In the case of a nominated person who is not a veterinary surgeon removing controlled drugs from the cabinet, the legal and professional responsibility remains with the veterinary surgeon whose direction they are under.
The College’s full guidance, including advice on use, location, and design and construction of cabinets, can be found in the Controlled Drugs Guidance and the Practice Standards Scheme Manual. Many police forces in the UK also have Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers who offer advice on various matters, including safe storage.
To download the Controlled Drugs Guidance, which includes further guidance on areas such as storage and destruction of controlled drugs, please visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/publications/controlled-drugs-guidance/
To access the PSS Manual, visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/
Contact details for Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers by area can be obtained from the Association of Police Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers: http://www.apcdlo.org.uk/contact.html.
The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of six months for issuing two false horse passports, having found him to have been “consciously dishonest”.
At a hearing which concluded on 15 July, Andrew Dominic Illing, Director of the Chapelfield Veterinary Partnership, Norwich, admitted charges of backdating the passports of two different horses on 1 May 2008, to indicate that they had been vaccinated on 24 April 2008 against equine influenza and equine influenza and tetanus, when he knew that the vaccinations had not been carried out on that date.
The Committee heard that, whilst on a routine visit to a local livery yard on 30 April 2008, a junior veterinary surgeon at the practice, Ms Charlotte Alice Mayers, had been pressured to backdate the equine passports of two horses, owned by Mrs Scriven and Mrs Kippen respectively, because their booster vaccinations had been carried out beyond the 12-month window prescribed by the Horse Racing Authority. Ms Mayers had declined to do so and had brought the passports back to the practice to seek the advice of its Director, Mr Illing.
Ms Mayers explained to Mr Illing, both in a note and in discussion with him, that the boosters had been administered outwith the prescribed period and that she had told the owners that she was not willing to backdate the passports, one of which she had already signed. The DC heard that Mr Illing had told Ms Mayers “not to worry about it” and that he would deal with the situation. It did not surface until the livery yard manager later made a complaint, that Mr Illing had in fact signed the second passport and backdated both to 24 April.
In mitigation, Mr Illing said that he had been under considerable stress at the time, as he had been dealing with a protracted and difficult disciplinary meeting concerning a senior veterinary colleague. As a consequence of this, the Committee heard from Mr Illing’s practice partner that Mr Illing was required to take on more work than he was already performing, which was already 10-15% more than the other three vets in the practice. In addition, Mr Illing had been in a degree of pain at the time, following a knee injury. The Committee also heard evidence from a veterinary surgeon who testified to Mr Illing’s good character; and received many written testimonials.
In reaching its decision, the Committee held the view that: “the public must be able to trust certificates which are signed by members of this profession. If the public cannot trust the authenticity of such certificates, the Committee considers that public confidence in the profession would be undermined, and undermined in a very significant way.” It also cited the obligations of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in terms of the integrity of veterinary certification, and the ‘12 Principles of Certification’, as agreed by the RCVS, the British Veterinary Association and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The Committee considered many factors when making its final decision. It did not accept that stress overbore Mr Illing’s normal way of dealing with certification, particularly where he had had a period of overnight reflection before taking the action that he did. However, it felt that the most troubling feature in his decision to backdate the certificates was that, in advising Ms Mayers on a difficult ethical issue, Mr Illing had “set a disgraceful example and wholly failed to provide her with the support to which she was entitled”. Furthermore, in backdating a certificate that Ms Mayers had already signed, he was putting her integrity at risk.
Alison Bruce, chairing the Committee, commented: “It is only by upholding the importance of each and every certificate issued by a member of the veterinary profession that public confidence in such certificates can be maintained.” She went on to say: “Without significant mitigating circumstances, false certification will result in removal from the Register. In Mr Illing’s case, having regard to all the evidence, both the oral and written testimonials, and taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances detailed above, the Committee has decided to suspend Mr Illing’s name from the Register for a period of six months.”
In a statement given to the Veterinary Record earlier this year, the College said:
"In 2017, our commitment to equality for our LGBTQ+ employees, members of the professions and other stakeholders, was cemented when we became a Stonewall Diversity Champion, with the aim of ensuring that all people in the community are accepted, without exception, within the veterinary professions.
In subsequent years this commitment has been demonstrated by the establishment of our Diversity & Inclusion Group, for which LGBTQ+ representation is a key component and has been incorporated into both our internal and external diversity and inclusion strategies.
Focusing on our internal diversity and inclusion strategy, the insight from Stonewall and our internal LGBTQ+ group, has aimed to make the RCVS a safe space for people from the LGBTQ+ community by creating a fully inclusive workplace.
These insights have also fed into the profession-facing work of the Diversity & Inclusion Group and its strategy.
After six years as a Stonewall Diversity Champion, we have decided this year not to renew our contract with the organisation, on the basis that we feel we no longer need to work with an external organisation to continue to deliver on our commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
The RCVS will continue to demonstrate allyship and be a safe space for all groups within the LGBTQ+ community, as demonstrated by the fact we are creating a staff network representing RCVS colleagues from marginalised communities.
We may in future decide to work with another accredited organisation, but until the staff network is in place, no decisions have been made. For example, we have recently brought in a staff policy regarding how best to support RCVS employees who are going through the process of gender reassignment, reiterating the current legal position, how to report experiencing or witnessing transphobic discrimination, as well as advice for colleagues supporting those undergoing gender reassignment and those who have family members going through the process. We are grateful for Stonewall for working with us over the past six years and helping us, through its Workplace Equality Index, to finesse our policies and procedures in relation to LGBTQ+ rights and issues and drive forward our agenda to be a diverse and inclusive workplace and regulator."
The RCVS Operational Board has announced that it will ask Council to review its decision to remove postgraduate postnominals from the Register, following the largely negative response from the profession to the idea, including a petition from Derbyshire surgeon, Victoria Lilley.
The original decision was made by Council in June 2012 as part of a package of measures aimed at developing clarity around postgraduate skills and knowledge.
The College says that the removal of postgraduate postnominals from the Register was intended to help dispel confusion amongst the public and some members of the profession about the level of various qualifications, by introducing the Advanced Practitioner status alongside the existing Specialist list.
Chairman of the Operational Board, CEO Nick Stace, said: "Over the last few days we have listened to the disquiet amongst the profession - which has included direct contact with staff and Operational Board members, a petition and discussion on fora and social media - and feel that we should address some misunderstandings but also give Council the opportunity to review the decision at its 5 June meeting.
"Many good points have been made by members of the profession and I am pleased that the Operational Board has agreed to reflect on them and consider whether there is a better way to achieve the clarity we were seeking for the public and the profession.
"The introduction of Advanced Practitioner status is a positive move for both the profession and the public, and underlines the College's commitment to lifelong learning.
"It is important to have the profession's support for the direction we are taking in advancing standards across the sector."
The College has also provided some Q&A's concerning the original decision made by Council in 2012, as follows.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from a former Kent-based veterinary surgeon, Warwick Seymour-Hamilton.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his equipment and facilities such that it evidenced a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on Friday 18 March was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s fourth application for restoration, with previous applications being submitted but refused in July 1995, June 2010 and January 2015. However, as the Committee made its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not admitted as relevant to its decision.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he currently works as a herbalist and naturopath for humans and wished to be restored to the Register so he could include animals in his research. He had completed a course in herbal and naturopathic medicine at the College of Naturopathic Medicine in Dublin in 2010, and told the Committee that he believed that being restored to the Register would lend credence to his endeavours to secure funding and other support. He stated that he did not intend to work again in a veterinary practice.
However, the Committee rejected his application on a number of grounds, including the impact on animal welfare should Mr Seymour-Hamilton be restored to the Register; the length of time he had been off the Register and the fact that he was therefore not up-to-date with contemporary veterinary practice and professional conduct; and that his efforts to keep up-to-date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice were insufficient.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee is concerned about the length of time that has passed since he last practised and the paucity of the evidence he has provided to establish that, if permitted to return to practice, he would be able to attain the professional standards required of a modern veterinary practitioner, either as regards surgical capabilities/competence or as regards his knowledge of currently available veterinary medicines."
She added: "This Committee’s obligations and duties are to see that the interests of animal welfare are properly protected by ensuring that only those who are properly trained, knowledgeable and experienced are permitted to treat animals and that public confidence in the standards of the profession are maintained. The risks attendant on a restoration of this applicant to the Register are, in the judgement of this Committee, plain and obvious. Accordingly, this application is refused."
The Practice Standards Group, which comprises representatives from all of the key veterinary and veterinary nursing organisations, has updated the standards of the Practice Standards Scheme and a draft of the new Manual is now available for comment.
The Scheme is a voluntary accreditation programme that aims to promote and maintain high standards of facilities and care within UK veterinary practices. When it was launched in 2005, a commitment was made that the standards would not change for five years, unless new legislation (such as the Veterinary Medicines Regulations) required it. Following a detailed review of the standards, to ensure they continue to be relevant to current veterinary practice, proposals have been made by the Group for new standards to be implemented during 2010.
Jill Nute, Chairman of the Practice Standards Group said: "It is unlikely that any already-accredited practices will be required to invest in additional facilities or equipment to meet the new standards.
"Instead, greater emphasis has been placed on clinical outcomes and training. For example, performance review has been introduced for all clinical staff, including the Professional Development Phase for new graduates. We are keen to hear feedback on the proposed new standards."
One recommendation is that the 'tiers' should be dropped. The categories will retain their descriptive names, for example, Small Animal General Practice or Equine Veterinary Hospital. Feedback suggests that clients, and the profession, found the tiers to be misleading.
The layout of the Manual has been revamped, to include guidance that was previously available online. Guidance for each relevant standard can now be seen at a glance. There is also an icon to indicate if documentary evidence will be required by the inspector. In addition, the new format clarifies the derivation of each standard, so that legislative requirements are distinguished from those required under the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and those indicated by better practice.
Membership of the Scheme continues to grow, with 126 applications to join the Scheme in the first six months of this year, representing 264 premises, compared with 61 applications in the whole of last year. There are currently 2,351 practice premises under the ambit of the Scheme - approximately 50%.
The draft new Manual is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations.
Hard copies are available from Eleanor Ferguson, Practice Standards Scheme Manager: e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0720.
The deadline for comments is 31 August 2009. Responses will be considered by the Practice Standards Group at its September meeting and thereafter by Council in November.
The first is that the College will allow veterinary surgeons and nurses to carry over some of the CPD hours they have accrued in 2019 into 2020, to smoothen the transition to an annual hourly requirement.
Vets will be allowed to carry over 25 hours and VNs 10 hours of accumulated CPD from 2019 through to 2020.
This will apply once, in 2020 only, and is only applicable to vets and VNs who have been CPD-compliant from 2017 to 2019 and have a surplus number of hours to carry over.
Secondly, the College is going to allow vets and VNs to take a six-month 'CPD pause' for planned periods away from work, such as parental leave, and exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or unforeseen changes to family responsibilities, without the need to make up the hours when they return to work. This will reduce the burden on vets and VNs returning to work after a break.
RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements said: "We hope that these changes to the CPD policy will support vets and VNs to make the transition to an annual hourly requirement.
"We received a sample of feedback from some members of the veterinary professions regarding the move to annual hourly CPD requirements and these additions have been introduced support members during this transition and to mitigate some of the concerns raised."
For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit our dedicated page: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.
At the meeting, which took place last Thursday, Council members were asked to decide how to proceed with three specific proposals on reforming the disciplinary system:
Acknowledging some of the concerns that have been raised about changing the standard of proof, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: “The RCVS is now one of just a few regulators that still uses the criminal standard of proof in determining the facts of a case. We have sought these changes as part of our ongoing aim to develop a compassionate and forward-looking disciplinary system with the protection of the public absolutely at its heart, whilst also acknowledging the huge toll the process takes on the mental health of veterinary professionals.
"Research that we carried out into the impact of changing the standard of proof indicated that it would not lead to a major increase in cases being referred from the Preliminary Investigation Committee to the Disciplinary Committee. Importantly the number is likely to be very low because the standard of proof only applies to proving the facts of a case; the judgement as to whether proven facts amount to serious professional misconduct will follow the same process as at present.
"We estimated that during 2019, there could have been just two more cases brought to DC under a altered standard of proof, with an additional three cases that were borderline but probably wouldn’t have proceeded any further. Conversely, we also estimated that three cases that did go to DC during 2019 would probably not have done, had the ‘Charter Case Committee’ option been available.
"Ultimately, the aim of the RCVS in regulating the veterinary professions is to protect the public and animal welfare as well as upholding the reputation of the professions. We believe these changes will better achieve that aim."
The consultation on whether to change the standard of proof as well as to introduce the Charter Case Protocol and ‘mini-PICs’ is now planned for later this year.
Further information about the proposals, including some of the arguments for and against changing the standard of proof, can be found in the papers for RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/4-june-2020/ (pages 70-97).
Stuart Jackson, from Carterton, Oxfordshire, and Austin Kirwan from Ormskirk, Lancashire are the first candidates to achieve the RCVS postgraduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP), since the change-over to a modular award system in November 2008.
Both vets were assessed for the award through Middlesex University, and will receive designated Certificates in Veterinary General Practice - CertAVP (Vet GP).
There are currently 400 veterinary surgeons signed up for Certificate modules and - as long as they maintain an annual enrolment with the RCVS - these candidates have up to ten years to complete the full qualification. Vets can pursue a broad-based general CertAVP, or by selecting specific modules and taking an overall assessment, gain a more focused, designated CertAVP. With either option, all the modules the vet passes are listed on the Certificate. Individual module assessments can also be taken and used to fulfil continuous professional development requirements.
Freda Andrews, Head of Education said: "We congratulate both of these veterinary surgeons on their success and hope that this marks the start of further modular postgraduate qualifications being awarded. The Certificate structure allows enrolled veterinary surgeons to take up to ten years to complete the qualification. To complete the assessments within two years, as these vets have done, is very challenging."
Stuart Jackson, Principal of the Jackson Veterinary Clinic in Oxfordshire, said: "I am proud to be one of the first to complete the new Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice. I initially decided to undertake the new course because it is the first, and long overdue, postgraduate qualification that specifically recognises general practice as an important part of our profession. Although some of the content is unfamiliar to some, the structure as a whole is well designed and provides a refreshing analysis of the everyday routine of being in practice. It has provided an increased understanding of both clients and staff and has resulted in a better and happier place to work."
More information about the CertAVP can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts.
The Strategic Plan was developed throughout the course of 2016 with input from a number of stakeholders including RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, key committees and College staff. Most importantly, the evidence for change came from the wide and deep consultations that took place within Vet Futures, the joint RCVS and British Veterinary Association project that aims to help the veterinary profession prepare for and shape its future.
The other four ambitions described in the plan are:
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO, said: "The hallmark of our 2014 to 2016 Strategic Plan was getting the basics right by clarifying our identity, improving our core functions, setting out our service agenda and strengthening our foundations. The plan gave us a firm foundation to build upon and improved levels of confidence in the College from stakeholders which has allowed us to be more ambitious and outward-looking with this new plan.
"Within the new plan there are challenging ambitions and stretching objectives that address some of the big issues affecting the veterinary team, whether that’s playing a more global role post-Brexit, the importance of embracing new technology, or the pressing need to consider culture change within the profession to ensure it continues to grow and learn.
"I would ask each member of the profession to take a look at the Strategic Plan and I am very happy to receive comments and feedback on the plan by email at nick@rcvs.org.uk."
To download the Strategic Plan, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The first MRCVS to be killed in the First World War has been honoured with a portrait at the College's offices in Belgravia House - 100 years after his death.
The portrait of Lieutenant Vincent Fox, who was from Dundalk, Co Louth, and was an alumnus of the then Royal Veterinary College in Dublin, was presented by his great grand-nephew, James Tierney, and received by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey.
Lieutenant Fox, a member of the former Army Veterinary Corps (AVC), was killed in action by a shell on August 26 1914 during the Battle of Le Cateau in northern France in which British and French forces fought to impede a German advance. He is now buried in the nearby Commonwealth War Grave Cemetery at Caudry.
Paul Watkins, a veterinary surgeon and military historian, conducted the research into Lieutenant Fox, his career and his deeds in the First World War, with the help of his family. He said: "The family story was that he had been found dead in a church with no mark or scars on him and, in fact, this turned out to be completely true.
"The church where he died was in the village of Audencourt in northern France where a dressing station had been set up for the wounded.
"The key issue was that, in the absence of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Lieutenant Fox was ordered to take charge of the medical treatment of the men using his skills as a veterinary surgeon. I'm sure he did his very best under such extreme circumstances but he would have been very ill-equipped."
Talking more generally about the role of the AVC during the First World War, Dr Watkins said: "The AVC made very significant contributions to the war effort because there were so many horses and mules deployed. They would have been responsible for a range of tasks from husbandry - and educating other soldiers on husbandry - to the treatment of injured animals."
In total, some 67 veterinary surgeons are believed to have been killed in the First World War - of whom 34 died from disease, 24 died as a result of wounds and nine were killed in action.
On presenting the portrait, which was drawn by artist Dave Gleeson based on a photograph of Lieutenant Fox, Mr Tierney, from Dublin, said: "I am very pleased that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accepted this portrait as future generations of vets will be able to see it here and learn about my great grand-uncle's story.
"He has become my hero because he died while trying to save human lives and, for me, that's a huge source of pride.
"While his story is very interesting, however, it's not just about him. There are 66 other names on the RCVS First World War memorial and they all have a story to tell as well."
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, added: "We are very pleased to receive this portrait of Lieutenant Fox in recognition of the sacrifice he made during the First World War. The fact that he died while tending to his wounded fellow soldiers demonstrates the caring nature of the profession and the wider contribution to society made by veterinary surgeons.
"In this centenary year I would also like to commend the contribution made by members of the profession as a whole during the war."
Throughout the centenary the RCVS Knowledge Library blog - written by Clare Boulton, Head of Library and Information Services - will be updated with stories about the conduct of veterinary surgeons in the First World War. Visit rcvsknowledgelibraryblog.org to see the updates.
The WikiQuiz project - a free online question and answer tool which enables vets, vet students and vet nurses to test their knowledge - is now online thanks to £4,770 of funding from the RCVS Trust.
WikiQuiz is a new resource to enable vets and students to structure and direct their learning, and links directly to information on WikiVet, the free research and academic collaboration resource put together by over 40 academics, veterinary surgeons and students from the Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh and Nottingham, and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). However, unlike its namesake Wikipedia, WikiVet is designed to be an accurate, peer-reviewed source of information for the veterinary profession and tailored to the undergraduate veterinary curriculum. Some of the material is also of interest to veterinary nurses, in particular those pursuing advanced professional qualifications.
Nick Short, Head of E-Media at the RVC said: "WikiQuiz is purpose-built for vets and students to structure and direct their learning. The questions and answers in WikiQuiz will help vets and veterinary students and work out what topics they might need to study, and link them directly to relevant information published on WikiVet.
"The Wikipedia concept is familiar and popular with students and vets; however, the information on the site can lack quality and relevance", he continued. "In creating WikiVet, we've used the look and feel of Wikipedia - but by making WikiVet available only to veterinary students, surgeons and nurses, introducing a peer-review system and appointing an editorial board to oversee the site, we can ensure the information published is relevant and accurate.
"We are hugely grateful to the RCVS Trust for supporting this project."
Cherry Bushell, RCVS Trust Director said: "Veterinary undergraduates and veterinary surgeons alike need to be able to assess where there are any gaps in their knowledge as part of planning their learning and development. The WikiQuiz resource helps them to do this.
"Using good quality online tools and information can save vets and students valuable time - which is one reason why we chose to support WikiQuiz. The WikiVet project also fits very well with the online Library services provided to vets, veterinary nurses and students by the Trust."
Veterinary surgeons, students and nurses can apply for a free log-in to WikiVet at http://www.wikivet.net/.
A quick survey of VetSurgeon members1 has found that of those that didn't vote in the 2011 council elections, 37.9% 'did not believe that voting in the RCVS elections will have any impact on my working life'
However, as Wynne Richards pointed out, decisions made by the RCVS, or which have involved the RCVS have had a seismic impact on the profession over the years, things like:
... and so on, and so on.
So perhaps the issue is not whether or not the College is relevant to the working lives of its members. Clearly it is. More to the point, the College and its Councillors need to find ways to engage more with the profession and better demonstrate how the decisions it takes on the issues of the day will impact on its members.
This message is further hammered home by the 26% of voters who didn't vote because they: 'considered the candidates' manifestos / forum posts, but did not feel that any of the candidates deserved my vote'. Again, if the councillors had concentrated on explaining why their work would make a difference, perhaps that number could have been improved.
Of the remainder, 21% 'forgot', 8.7% 'didn't have the time to consider who to vote for, and vote', 4.9% gave other reasons. Again, all things which might be improved if members felt that the RCVS was relevant to their working lives.
1% 'weren't aware that the elections were taking place'.
One wonders if that 1% knows that Clement Attlee is no longer the Prime Minister.
1. VetSurgeon Poll 6th May - 8th August 2011. 103 respondents.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS has announced that the Codes of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses have been updated to state that you should not refer to yourselves or others as 'veterinary nurses' unless registered.
In fact, the change occurred back in June last year, but was only announced via RCVS News and as a one-liner within the 'Overview of decisions made at RCVS Council'.
The announcement raises the pretty fundamental question of what ARE veterinary surgeons and RVNs to call their unqualified colleagues, if not veterinary nurses? How indeed are those unqualified staff working in veterinary practice to describe their job title to their friends, down at the pub?
VetSurgeon.org sought to clarify the situation with the College, and the first point to make is that the new part of the CoPCs refers only to the use of the words 'veterinary nurse' when used in conjunction. The words 'nurse' or 'nursing' are not protected at all.
The College says that it is not within its remit to instruct veterinary surgeons or registered nurses as to how they should address unqualified staff, but suggested: 'Care Assistant' or 'Auxilliary'.
However, Ben Myring, RCVS Senior Policy and Public Affairs Officer said: "There is nothing to stop someone calling themselves a 'nursing assistant' or a 'head nurse'".
The Codes of Professional Conduct obviously apply only to those who are regulated by it. The title 'veterinary nurse' in unprotected in law and can therefore be used by anyone else.
So, the immediate implications seem to be as follows:
Do you have any other suggestions as to how unqualified nursing staff should be styled? Post them below.
There are nine candidates standing in this year’s elections, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Dr Linda Belton MRCVSAt a glance: Equine clinician. Director of George Veterinary Group, a 40-vet independent practice. Wants to safeguard veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom and prevent it being eroded as a result of corporatisation.
Dr Niall Connell MRCVSAt a glance: After a career largely in small animal charitable practice, Niall had to retire from clinical practice as a result of MS. Has been a council member since 2013 and now RCVS President-elect. By all accounts, something of a national treasure. Wants the College to: "regulate compassionately in partnership with our profession".
Mr John C Davies MRCVSAt a glance: Small animal practitioner who, having had his fingers burned in a failed joint venture arrangement and parts of his election manifesto redacted by the RCVS (it can be read in full here: http://www.johndaviesvet.com), now campaigns for justice, integrity, accountability, freedom of speech and due diligence at the College and in the wider profession.
Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVSAt a glance: Small animal locum practitioner who was first elected to council in 2015 after successfully lobbying for changes to the CoPC Guidance following Chikosi. An all round good egg. Argues passionately against changes to the Code of Conduct to allow remote prescribing of POM-Vs.
Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVSAt a glance: Widely-published equine practitioner and past-pres of BEVA, BVA and WEVA. In favour of RCVS regulation of para-professionals. Argues that whilst technology is to be welcomed, diagnosis and prescribing must be restricted to animals 'under our care'.
Professor John Innes FRCVSAt a glance: RCVS Specialist in small animal orthopaedics (with 85 peer-reviewed papers to his name) and Referrals Director at CVS. Pledges to speak as an independent veterinary surgeon - not a corporate representative - if elected. On record as being pleased that the proposed RCVS telemedicine trial was delayed pending further consultation. In favour of 'nurse practitioner' becoming a regulated option for RVNs.
Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVSAt a glance: Single-issue candidate with a 23-year history of standing for election to draw attention to the supposed evils of commercial pet foods. Based in Australia. 2000-1 outsider.
Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVSAt a glance: 15 years in farm animal practice before taking up various positions in industry and government. Champions a healthy work-life balance, fair pay, workplace flexibility and supportive work practices.
Mr Peter Robinson MRCVSAt a glance: A long career in independent farm, equine and small animal practice, followed by a stint in sole practice in Dubai. Has been on Council for 4 years. Like Jo Dyer, argues that when it comes to remote prescribing and telemedicine, "we must not change the standards of ‘under our care'."
Ballot papers and booklets containing candidates’ details and manifestos have been sent by post to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a unique link to a secure voting site has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services, which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we saw another very strong turnout for the RCVS Council election with over a fifth of the profession casting votes. The turnout was again helped by regular email reminders and the fact the voting website can be easily accessed by just clicking on a link.
"I would like to remind the profession that, following last year’s changes to our governance structure after a Legislative Reform Order was passed through Parliament, you can now only choose up to three candidates. I do hope members of the profession take this opportunity to influence the governance and policies of the RCVS."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS has announced that it will be holding a free lunchtime webinar next week about its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial and its outcomes.
The webinar, titled ‘Who ADRs wins’, takes place at 1pm on Monday 7 December via The Webinar Vet and will be presented by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and RCVS Council member Niall Connell who was part of the Advisory Panel to the ADR trial.
The trial, which has been administered by Ombudsman Services, began in November 2014 in order to develop a system that addresses the many concerns received by the RCVS about the conduct of veterinary surgeons which it cannot deal with under its statutory powers.
During the webinar, Gordon and Niall will explain the roles of Ombudsman Services and the Advisory Panel, as well as examine the outcomes of some of the concerns handled by the trial.
They will also discuss the future of the ADR scheme. Following the presentation, listeners will have the opportunity to put their questions to the speakers.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/the-rcvs-alternative-dispute-resolution-scheme to register for the webinar. A recording of the webinar will be made available shortly after the event.
The RCVS is to launch a new badge for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) at the British Veterinary Nursing Association Congress later this week.
The launch ties in with the 50th anniversary of veterinary nurse training, and highlights the fact that RVNs, while qualified to the same level as their listed colleagues, stand apart because they additionally agree to account for their professional practice and keep their skills and knowledge up to date.
The non-statutory RCVS Register of Veterinary Nurses was introduced in 2007, and RVNs abide by a code of professional conduct, commit to continuing professional development and, from 1 April this year, can be taken to task via a disciplinary system.
The new badge builds upon the old version but with the word 'registered' underneath. Plans for a more dramatic departure from the existing badge were dropped when the College saw the affection in which veterinary nurses held the traditional antique silver and red-enamel badge, introduced in 1984.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council said: "There is currently no legislation to protect veterinary nurses' title and area of work, but we have not stood still and the Register shows a real commitment to developing our status as professionals. We need to ensure this commitment is recognised by clients and others in the veterinary team, and hope the new badge will make it easier to identify who is professionally accountable."
All those veterinary nurses qualifying since 2003 automatically became registered and those qualifying earlier could choose to do so. Currently there are 8,682 registered veterinary nurses, and 1,463 remain on the unregulated list.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned a Clwyd-based veterinary surgeon on charges relating to falsifying prescriptions to obtain drugs for her own use.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mrs Alina Grecko admitted that in 2009 she had written out three prescriptions for her own use whilst working as a veterinary surgeon at Greenfield Veterinary Surgery, Holywell, Clywd, and that this amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee found this to be the case, and said she was right to admit it. The Committee also said this was deliberate wrong-doing on three separate occasions and involved an obvious breach of Mrs Grecko's legal duties in relation to prescription which was bound to diminish the profession and public confidence in it. It was also a flagrant breach of the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
In the Committee's opinion the charge was a serious one; it involved falsehoods and disregard of legal obligations and of the profession's standards, as well as compromising another professional - a pharmacist. In mitigation, however, the Committee accepted that the offence involved no harm to any animal or person, nor risk of harm except to herself; nor was there financial gain. Mrs Grecko was a young and relatively inexperienced veterinary surgeon, and the Committee's view was that the offence was the result of her not thinking straight at a time of great stress in her personal and professional life, rather than a clearly thought out course of deliberate conduct. It was in no doubt that Mrs Grecko was genuinely remorseful about her behaviour and had insight into its seriousness.
The Committee also considered evidence relating to the circumstances in which the prescription came to be written. It accepted the general case that the original idea of self-prescribing did not come from Mrs Grecko; however, the Committee did not find that she had been encouraged or persuaded; the most that could be said was that Mrs Grecko had taken up a casual suggestion that she might write the prescription herself.
When deciding on sanction, the Committee took into account both the facts of the particular case and the mitigating factors. It reiterated that the primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish the Respondent but to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and said the sanction applied must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the Respondent's conduct, and weigh the public interest with the interests of the Respondent. The Committee also said that in a case involving the writing of false prescriptions the importance of public confidence in the profession and of upholding the standards of the profession mean that the Committee would normally feel that at least a suspension from the Register should be imposed.
Having given anxious consideration to the question whether that course could properly be avoided in this case, the Committee felt able to take an exceptional course and the sanctions it has imposed are that the Respondent will both be reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct. It directed that these sanctions will remain on her record indefinitely.
Eight veterinary surgeons have put themselves forward to compete for the three available places. They are:
The RCVS has uploaded each of the candidates’ biographies and election statements on to its website, at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote20.
The elections will start from Monday 16th March when the ballot papers and candidates’ manifestos will be posted and emailed to all members of the profession who are eligible to vote.
All votes, whether postal or online, must then be cast by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020.
As with previous years, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to get a better idea of why each candidate is standing by taking part in 'Quiz the candidates' and submitting a question which will then be put directly to the candidates.
Each candidate for both elections will be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers.
Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election starts.
The College says only question per person is allowed, and any which it deems offensive, inappropriate, misleading, libellous or otherwise unlawful will not be distributed to the candidates.
Vets should email their question to vetvote20@rcvs.org.uk or send it to the College’s Twitter account @theRCVS using the hashtag #vetvote20 by midday on Friday 28 February 2020.
COMMENT
With the veterinary profession facing two of the biggest regulatory changes seen in most people's lifetimes, namely changes to the rules over remote prescribing without performing a physical examination and a possible change to the standard of proof used in disciplinaries, there has never been a more important time to make sure that practising veterinary surgeons are properly represented on Council. Nor has there been a time I can remember when a protest vote would represent such a shocking waste. Don't forget, you don't need to use all your votes. Use them wisely.
The deadline for candidate nominations for the RCVS and VN Council elections is fast approaching - so please hurry if you plan to stand.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council, and two on the VN Council, due to be filled in the 2010 election, but candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence. We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards - and, like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients."
The elections will be held in March, and decided by all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who use their vote. The results will be announced early in May, with those elected taking their seats at RCVS Day in July and serving four-year terms.
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members' expenditures on hotels and travel are reimbursed. Their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council can be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk). All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.