View all veterinary jobs
Each candidate will produce a written reply to two questions of their choice, which will be included on their candidate profile webpage ahead of the start of the election.
The 14 candidates who are standing in this year’s election for the three available elected places on RCVS Council are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24.
The three candidates with the most votes will join Council for their four-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
The College says it will only accept one question per person and questions must be decent.
Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will not be passed on to candidates.
You can email your question to: vetvote24@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS is hosting a free webinar at which it will explain changes to the guidance on 24-hour emergency care at 8.30pm on Monday 28 July.
Veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other practice staff are all welcome to attend.
The webinar - 24/7 Emergency Care - A New Emphasis - will be led by RCVS Registrar and Head of Legal Services Gordon Hockey and Clare Tapsfield-Wright, former RCVS Council member and Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee. They will be explaining changes to supporting guidance of the Code of Professional Conduct and their impact on the responsibilities of practices and practice staff, as well as the public.
The changes to the guidance resulted from an extensive evidence-gathering process with both the profession and animal owners in respect of their expectations on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary cover.
The new supporting guidance, which was developed by RCVS Standards Committee after a thorough review of the evidence and approved in principle by RCVS Council in June, now places a greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for the welfare of their animals as well as an obligation on veterinary surgeons to provide more information to clients about their out-of-hours service.
Furthermore, the new guidance will assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from the practice when unnecessary or unsafe. The new guidance will be published online shortly.
To register for the free webinar, hosted by the Webinar Vet, please visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. A recording of the webinar will be made available to listen to again.
John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.
Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.
The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.
Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.
Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15th and 16th respectively out of 16 candidates).
Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.
The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.
Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.
The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.
The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.
Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'
The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.
The Prince's Trust 'creates life-changing opportunities' for those aged 11-30 and Nick has long-held a passion for making a difference to young lives. He has set up three charities for young people: with learning disabilities; who want to campaign to change the world; and who want to break down the barriers to enjoying nature and the outdoors.
Nick has led the RCVS since September 2012. During his tenure, developments at the College include a new Royal Charter, major governance reform, improved regulation of veterinary nurses, the instigation of Vet Futures, the introduction of the alternative dispute resolution service, significant evolution within the Practice Standards Scheme, the refocusing of RCVS Trust into RCVS Knowledge, the launch of Mind Matters, and the recognition of the College as a Great Place to Work.
Nick said: "It has been a great privilege to be CEO of the College and to work with such amazing staff, such a progressive Council and such a decent and caring profession. It is no surprise to me that vets and vet nurses are among the most trusted professionals in this country, and in my view this is due to their professionalism and to the excellence of the Royal College in maintaining and advancing standards. I hope I have played my part in helping the College and the profession navigate through a period of great change and preparation for significant change to come.
"At The Prince’s Trust I will be focused on the next generation, helping to give young people the confidence and purpose they need to make a success of their lives and the world around them. I know from my own personal experiences of school, and the various charities with which I have been involved, how many young people are not given the best chance in life. I cannot think of a better mission to take on."
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "I feel very fortunate to have worked closely with Nick over his five years with the RCVS; he has made a tremendous contribution to the College and our professions. With his energy and drive, he has infused the College with a culture of openness, engagement and dedication and has inspired the team through some impressive achievements.
"Nick’s leadership will enable vets and veterinary nurses to fulfil their potential and it's fitting that he's moving on to a role which benefits the lives of others. Meanwhile, there's a considerable amount of important work being done by the RCVS and I am confident that we have a strong team at Belgravia House to manage this until the new CEO is in post."
The RCVS says its Operational Board will be reflecting on Nick’s successes and the future needs of the College, before developing a specification for the new CEO and a recruitment process over the coming weeks.
A bogus vet who pleaded guilty to a number animal cruelty and fraud offences is being sought by Humberside Police after he failed to appear at court for sentencing.
Jayson Paul Wells (pictured right), 30, of Driffield in the East Riding of Yorkshire, is wanted by detectives in Grimsby after he failed to appear at Grimsby Crown Court.
The RCVS assisted Humberside Police with its original investigation and is publicising its appeal to help locate Mr Wells. Police believe that he may be trading as a herdsman in Nottingham or Cornwall and are keen to establish whether he is currently in either location.
Mr Wells was arrested on 2 October 2013 and charged with the following offences:
Mr Wells pleaded guilty to all offences.
Anyone who is aware of his whereabouts is asked to call Humberside Police on 101 or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed charges of serious professional misconduct against a veterinary surgeon and former employee of Medivet (Watford).
Tomasz Nazimek, who qualified in Poland in 2001 before starting work in England in 2005, was alleged to have charged for the use of a blood pressure monitor during an exploratory laparotomy on a cat called Mitzi, whilst working at the Watford branch of Medivet in June 2009, when he knew, or ought to have known, it had not been used.
Despite his previous signed statements to the contrary, Mr Nazimek admitted at the outset of the hearing that no blood pressure monitor had in fact been used.
Accordingly, the Committee only had to establish whether Mr Nazimek himself had entered the fee for its use into Mitzi's records and, if so, whether this was done dishonestly.
The alleged incident came to light as a result of a covert investigation into Medivet conducted by the television production company Fulcrum TV in 2008/9, and subsequently commissioned by the BBC and broadcast in July 2010 as part of the Panorama programme 'It Shouldn't Happen at a Vets''.
Former dental nurse Alexandra Lee was employed by Fulcrum TV as an undercover reporter to work as a 'trainee veterinary nurse' at Medivet, in order to record audio and video footage of her experiences there.
The case against Mr Nazimek was based partly on a conversation overheard by Miss Lee following the operation on Mitzi, where she maintained that Guy Carter, a senior Medivet partner and veterinary surgeon, told Mr Nazimek (who was sitting at the practice computer typing up Mitzi's records) not to forget to include a fee for use of the blood pressure monitor.
However, Miss Lee's equipment had not recorded this exchange, due to a fault, and her video diary of that day's events was not put in evidence before the Committee. Miss Lee also accepted in evidence that she had not actually seen who entered the fee into the records, but had assumed it was Mr Nazimek.
Despite giving serious consideration to all of Miss Lee's evidence, the Committee found it of limited value.
The Committee considered the statements signed by Mr Nazimek, but prepared for him by the Medivet senior management in December 2009 and October 2010, which stated that he had used the monitor, consulted Mr Carter about charging for it and then added the fee himself.
The Committee also considered a third statement provided to the College (September 2011), in which Mr Nazimek recalled that Mr Carter had priced up the operation himself, but not asked for his input.
When questioned about the discrepancies in his statements, Mr Nazimek told the Committee that he had confused different operations and now knew his earlier statements to be wrong.
He indicated that he had been under pressure from his then employers to sign the statements, that his attempts to change them were ignored by Medivet's managing partners and that he was depressed and under stress at the time.
He was not told that the statements could be in relation to charges against him, or that he was entitled to legal advice when discussing them with his employers.
The Committee found Mr Nazimek's oral evidence to be persuasive, his manner open and his responses under cross-examination frank.
In the absence of satisfactory and reliable evidence to the contrary, and in view of supportive testimonials provided from his current employer and former colleagues as to his honesty and integrity, the Committee found Mr Nazimek's repeated assertion that he did not make a charge for the monitor "entirely plausible" and believed that he told the truth.
Nevertheless, the Committee emphasised that a charge for the monitor had been entered into the records when no such device had been used, which it regarded as unacceptable.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is not satisfied by the evidence so that it is sure that [Mr Nazimek] entered into the records for Mitzi a charge for the blood pressure monitor. [It] believes that [Mr Nazimek] told the truth when giving his evidence and the character references support his honesty.
"In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the charges further and the allegations against [Mr Nazimek] are dismissed."
The RCVS is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct.
The new Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
According to the College, the purpose of the review, which last took place over a decade ago, is to ensure guidance to the profession and the public is clear. For example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.
The RCVS says the new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance. It also includes:
Clare Tapsfield-Wright, Chairman of the Guides Review Working Party said: "Over the decade or so since it was last reviewed, not only has the Guide become unwieldy in places, but the way that regulators in general publish professional conduct rules has changed. Our draft new Code aims to clarify matters and bring us into line with best practice elsewhere.
"Animal owners are increasingly keen to understand the basis of what the veterinary profession considers to be good professional conduct. The new simplified Code should assist with this understanding."
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate document is under development for veterinary nurses, which will share broadly similar underlying principles and will be the subject of its own consultation.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
A paper introduced by the RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson looked at the possibility of the RCVS prosecuting, for example, unqualified individuals undertaking veterinary work and courses falsely purporting to lead to a registerable qualification.
The paper also explored other options, including better educating animal owners about veterinary services and assisting people with concerns about the breaches of the VSA to raise them with the authorities.
Council heard that over the past year, the RCVS had assisted other agencies on investigations of suspected VSA breaches on a number of occasions.
It was considered that the RCVS could consider undertaking its own private investigations and criminal prosecutions when statutory prosecuting authorities did not have the resources to pursue these cases.
However, the RCVS has no statutory powers of investigation, so if it did pursue a private prosecution, it would have no powers to carry out a criminal investigation or compel evidence.
Council members voted for a further paper setting out a draft policy on private prosecutions, as well as what general information regarding breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could be provided to members of the public and the professions.
The mandatory regulation of veterinary practices, including statutory powers of entry and inspection, is one of the main parts of the College's proposals for new primary legislation that would replace the current Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The working group, which is expected to present the details of a Mandatory Practice Regulation system to Council by the end of 2024, will be chaired by RCVS President Sue Paterson FRCVS.
It will include Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS and Practice Standards Group Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, alongside veterinary, veterinary nursing, lay and external representatives.
Sue said: “With over 70% of practice premises currently under its ambit, our Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) has shown how keen practices are to maintain high standards.
"However, it is a voluntary scheme and, as a result, there is no mechanism to ensure standards across all practices, or to ensure change in those rare situations where it is needed.
“At present, the RCVS only regulates individual veterinary surgeons and nurses, and the veterinary sector does not have an equivalent to the Care Quality Commission, which considers human healthcare premises.
"This means that the onus for maintaining standards within the workplace falls on regulated individuals rather than the business structure.
"We will consider what a scheme that puts more statutory responsibility on business owners to maintain standards should look like.
“I look forward to working with colleagues in RCVS Council, VN Council and other veterinary organisations via this group to really flesh out what this regulatory system might look like in the future, to make sure it is appropriate, robust, proportionate and enforceable.
"Establishing these details will also prove invaluable in our lobbying work with government, ministers and MPs.”
It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
The RCVS is to launch a consultation in the New Year on proposals to allow all RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title 'Dr'/'Doctor', and is seeking the views of all members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, and the general public.
The proposals were raised by RCVS President Stuart Reid at RCVS Day in July 2014, with the aims of aligning the UK with international practice, providing greater clarity for the profession and offering reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard.
In his speech in July, Stuart highlighted that most international veterinary surgeons use the title and that, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment. He went on to outline that, of the three main clinical degrees in the UK, ie medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, only veterinary surgeons do not use the courtesy title 'Doctor'.
Stuart added: "given the fact that all continental EU graduates carry the title 'Doctor', there is now a greater chance of confusion for the lay public than previously.
"This is now an opportunity to provide, for those UK veterinary surgeons who wish it, the legitimate use of a title that offers a level of parity with fellow medical professionals."
The key objective of the consultation is to gauge whether the public and the profession are in favour of the proposal, not in favour of it, or don't mind either way. If agreed, the use of the title would be optional, although the College would regulate its use through the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Background information and draft guidance on using the title is available to read on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/doctortitle, from where respondents can follow a link to answer the consultation questions.
The consultation will open officially on Tuesday, 6 January for six weeks (deadline for responses is 5pm on Monday, 16 February) although it is already available to view via the RCVS website, to allow more time for responses over the Christmas and New Year break.
Do you think vets should be called 'Dr'? Discuss here.
Eleven members of staff at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are growing moustaches this month in support of the Movember Challenge, a campaign which raises funds to help combat prostate cancer.
Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager and instigator of the College's participation in Movember 2010, said: "Visitors to the College over the next few weeks shouldn't be alarmed if some members of staff begin to resemble a Village People tribute band. I suggested this to the chaps last week, and was delighted so many were willing to look daft for such a good cause."
According to the Movember website, the aim is simple: "One man dies from prostate cancer every day in the UK. Movember challenges men to change their appearance and the face of men's health by growing a moustache. All MoBros should be clean shaven on 1 Movember and then grow a moustache for the entire month. The moustache becomes the ribbon for men's health, the means by which awareness and funds are raised for cancers that affect men."
The RCVS team - 'All 'Taches Great and Small' - comprises at least one member of every department in the College, so whilst the team as a whole will be raising as much money as it can, the College says it expects interdepartmental competition to get "quite hairy".
"In spite of ourselves, reputations are at stake here," admits Simon. "We're a mixed-ability team, so it will be interesting to see who sports the best tache at the end of Movember. This is no trivial hirsute."
Lending his support to the team's efforts, and off to something of a head start in the facial forestry department, is RCVS President Peter Jinman. He said: "I'm impressed that so many of the gents on the staff have taken it upon themselves to support The Prostate Cancer Charity in this way. If it's true that eight out ten chaps really do prefer whiskers, they should raise a decent amount of money."
Anyone wishing to support the All Taches Great & Small team in their bristling endeavours should please visit their fundraising pages (via www.rcvs.org.uk/movember). Donations can be made to individual MoBros, or to the team as a whole.
The RCVS has announced that it is to trial a new alternative dispute resolution scheme for users of veterinary services who have complaints which aren't serious enough to call into question a veterinary surgeon or nurse's fitness to practice.
The College says that although it is obliged to investigate all complaints, currently it can only deal with the most serious of complaints raised against a veterinary surgeon's or registered veterinary nurse's fitness to practise. This means that many of the 800 or so complaints received every year by the College's Professional Conduct Department are closed with no further action.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, said: "It was clear from our consultations last year for the First Rate Regulator initiative that many animal owners who had made complaints were dissatisfied and frustrated with the fact that we were unable to take their, often very legitimate, concerns any further.
"It is for this reason that we decided to launch a trial in order to determine how we could develop an alternative scheme that, through conciliation, would try and resolve these disputes in a way that would be acceptable to both parties.
"Although this trial is small-scale we hope that it will provide the framework for a permanent ADR scheme which I believe would both increase consumer confidence in the profession and help maintain and preserve its reputation.
"We hope that the profession will actively support the trial, and any future scheme, as a way of resolving those intractable disputes which we know can hang over veterinary surgeons and practices and that they recognise that, ultimately, what is good for the consumer can be good for the profession."
The trial will be administered by the Ombudsman Services, an independent and not-for-profit complaint resolution service, and limited to no more than 150 concerns raised about veterinary surgeons in regards to the treatment of a small animal. In most cases concerns referred to the trial will have no arguable case for serious professional misconduct. The trial is free to the users and voluntary, and consent will be sought from both parties before the concern is referred to the Ombudsman Services. The costs of the trial will not exceed £120,000.
Recommendations will be determined through conciliation between both parties and the Ombudsman Services will only be able to suggest, rather than impose, a solution that each party is entitled to accept, or not. Solutions could include, for example, financial accommodation up to the small claims court limit of £10,000 (although the average recommendation is around £100), the issuing of an apology or other practical action to remedy the situation.
The Ombudsman Services will be assisted in its investigations by veterinary advisers who will provide guidance on clinical and other veterinary matters.
The results of the trial, which will end in May 2015, will be presented at the June 2015 meeting of RCVS Council where steps will be considered for the development of a permanent scheme.
More details about the trial can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
RCVS President Jerry Davies has apologised to the profession for its overspend on IT and development works at Belgravia House.
In fact, the apology was made to a meeting of BVA Council back on 7th December. VetSurgeon.org understands the College thought the apology would be widely promulgated shortly thereafter, and only later realised that this hadn't happened.
As a result, the College has now decided to publish Dr Davies' presentation in full.
At the meeting, Dr Davies set out more background about the two RCVS projects under review, explained the decisions taken at the time and the finances involved.
He also described how Professor McKelvey's recommendations were being actioned, alongside those of the College's Governance Review Group which were already underway.
Dr Davies reiterated that the College had always intended to publish the report in full, but that external legal Counsel had advised that to do so would be unlawful under the Data Protection Act.
According to the College, it was not possible to redact the report to an acceptable extent, as the personal data in question were referred to throughout a large proportion of it.
However, Dr Davies did apologise to the profession, saying: "In closing, I would like to emphasise that I, as President of the RCVS, am sorry for what has happened, but I hope you will appreciate that steps are being taken, in particular the setting up of the Audit and Risk Committee, to strengthen governance within our College."
Defra has rejected the RCVS petition to protect the VN title, saying that criminalising the use of the term 'veterinary nurse' by other animal carers in a veterinary setting would be unduly harsh.
In rejecting the petition, which had gained nearly 22,000 signatures, Defra made the point that the term is often used colloquially, without intention to deceive or mislead, without undertaking unqualified practice, and without risk of harm to animals.
Noting the existing legal framework which exists to make sure that animals in veterinary care are only treated by trained and qualified individuals, Defra said it would not be in the public interest to prosecute individuals for colloquial use of the term.
BVNA President Sam Morgan said: "The BVNA are very disappointed to read the Government’s response. We feel that they have overlooked the emotions of the British public towards animal welfare and maintenance of trust within the veterinary profession. With no restriction on the use of the title it is confusing for the general public and for the veterinary profession. We hope that this response increases public awareness of the issues faced. As the representative body for Veterinary Nurses, BVNA will continue to work alongside the RCVS and BVA to raise awareness of this campaign and to encourage anyone who is interested to sign the petition."
The RCVS said that whilst the response was disappointing, it was heartened to be asked to work with the Defra to find new ways of bolstering the veterinary nursing profession.
A significant part of this work will be a review of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which allows certain minor acts of veterinary surgery to be delegated to veterinary nurses. The RCVS says it hopes that Schedule 3 can be simplified to give VNs more clarity and confidence over what tasks they can undertake, and augmented to strengthen the role of VNs in areas such as anaesthesia.
BVA President Sean Wensley said: “Veterinary Nurses are an essential part of the veterinary team and deserve full recognition for their roles. The VN Title campaign has received strong support from across the sector and with MPs, so it is disappointing that Defra has decided not to recommend that Parliament give legal protection to the hard-earned title.
"Given the current Government’s deregulatory agenda, this response does not come as a surprise yet nor does it signal the end of the campaign. Defra have stated that if this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. We therefore ask anyone who supports the campaign but has not yet signed the online petition to do so now.
"In the meantime BVA and BVNA will continue to work with RCVS on the VN Futures project, taking a long-term view on the role of veterinary nurses and seeking to prepare for their future within the profession."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.
Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.
After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.
The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.
In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."
The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust is offering a bursary for one delegate to attend the Veterinary Biomedical and Pharma Sciences (VBMPS) Congress on 15 and 16 October 2012 at the ICC in Birmingham.
Members of the RCVS with an interest in 'one health' are eligible to apply. Entrants are asked to explain, in no more than 400 words, their interest in the concept of one health and why they should be granted a bursary.
Entrants should also demonstrate how they would disseminate their learning from the event to the wider veterinary community.
Entries should be sent to grants@rcvstrust.org.uk by Monday 3 September 2012, and the winner will be notified within two weeks.
The bursary winner will be given a delegate pass worth £175 for entry to the conference and admission to all scientific sessions. Reasonable transport costs and accommodation will be reimbursed.
Further details are available at http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants-and-collaborations
At a hearing in April Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him, which related fraudulent claims for the treatment of animals, two of which were fictitious, where he arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account.
Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee Chair Paul Morris said: “The Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the respondent’s dishonest conduct will have severely undermined the confidence of the public in the veterinary profession and, further, that his conduct fell far short of the standards and conduct properly to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee is satisfied that this conduct by the respondent brought the profession into disrepute.”
The proceedings were then adjourned to allow a psychiatric report and other mitigation to be prepared.
At its resumed hearing on earlier this month, the Committee considered what sanction to impose.
The Committee found that aggravating features of his misconduct were that it was premeditated, carefully planned and sophisticated in that it involved the creation of numerous and extensive false clinical records to support his fraudulent claims.
It also considered the fact that he implicated an innocent professional colleague who worked alongside him at the practice, that he abused the trust placed in him by clients, that the dishonest conduct was repeated and that it involved significant financial gain in excess of £13,200 to be further aggravating features of his conduct
In terms of mitigation, the Committee accepted that he had made early admissions regarding his conduct to his employer and the College and accepted responsibility.
The Committee also heard that he had made attempts at remediation involving repayments of some of the sums lost by the practice and insurers.
It also considered positive testimonials from family and professional colleagues and the fact that Dr Johnston had taken significant steps to deal with the gambling addiction that was at the root cause of his misconduct.
Having considered all the evidence, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of 2 years on the condition that Dr Johnston agree to undertakings including refraining from any form of gambling, subjecting himself to a close regime of support and supervision, and repaying some of the sums he had defrauded.
Paul added: “In reaching this conclusion the Committee wishes to make it clear that it has taken an exceptional course in this case.
"Ordinarily conduct of the type covered by the charges which this respondent has accepted will merit the imposition of a sanction of removal from the Register or a period of suspension from the Register.
"In this instance the Committee has found it possible to take the course that it has because it is satisfied that the respondent was, at the time, suffering from a recognisable psychiatric compulsive addiction… and that the fraudulent attempts by the respondent to obtain funds with which to gamble would not have occurred but for this psychiatric condition.
“The Committee further considers that the undertakings offered by the respondent will serve to reduce the risk that he will relapse into gambling again, for his conduct will be closely monitored and he will accept continuing support and guidance from the organisations currently assisting him.
“The Committee is also satisfied of the requirements that neither animals nor the public will be put at risk by this proposed course of action; that the respondent has demonstrated insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and that there is currently no significant risk of repeat behaviour; that his practicing standards are not in need of improvement so long as he continues to fulfil his CPD obligations; that the undertakings offered are capable of being met, are appropriate and are measurable; that there is evidence that his underlying medical problem is being appropriately addressed, will be monitored and reported on; and that he has responded positively to the opportunities for support and counselling which have been offered to him.”
If Dr Johnston fails to comply with his undertakings the Committee will reconvene and consider the charges with the full range of sanctions at its disposal.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "We understand that this is a concerning situation for many in the profession who are worried about the impact of the shortage of isoflurane on both elective and emergency operations.
"We are also concerned to hear that some vets are worried that they may be disciplined by the RCVS for clinical decisions and outcomes that may arise from the shortage, and so we are keen to stress that we understand that members of the profession can only do their best under the circumstances presented to them and that, provided they can clinically justify the decisions they have made, keep detailed notes, gain informed consent and follow the prescribing rules, then there is very unlikely to be an issue of professional misconduct."
If you have questions about the shortage in relation to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, you can contact the RCVS Standards and Advice Team on 020 7202 0789 or advice@rcvs.org.uk.
For further information about the shortage and alternative sources and products, the RCVS recommends visiting the Veterinary Medicines Directorate website: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/veterinary-medicines-directorate.
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
The College says the aim of the programme, which will replace the current Professional Development Phase (PDP), is to ensure that new graduates are fully supported in their new role and able to progress from day one competencies into confident and capable independent practitioners.
The new programme builds on the results of the Graduate Outcomes Consultation, a consultation which reported in 2019 to gather the views of the profession with regards to day one competencies, the PDP, extra-mural studies and clinical education for general practice.
The Graduate Outcomes consultation found that the profession felt that support mechanisms for new graduates needed to be strengthened, and the proposal to develop this new programme of support was approved by RCVS Council in January.
The first of the two working groups is the EPA Working Group, which is tasked with assisting the development of a bank of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). EPAs describe the everyday professional tasks carried out by vets in practice, covering a wide range of areas of clinical and professional practice which graduates and their mentors can access to build into their own e-portfolio.
The second working group is the Mentor Working Group, which will assist in shaping the role of the mentor in the new programme and create a training package for workplace mentors.
Sue Paterson, Chair of RCVS Education Committee said: "It is incredibly important for us to have input from veterinary surgeons who are working in general practice as they are well positioned to comment on how the development programme can effectively support graduates on a day to day basis."
The College is looking for veterinary surgeons working in practice and who have an interest in helping new graduates gain the best possible experience to join as members of these new working groups. It would be beneficial for applicants to have experience with mentoring and/or workplace training.
Successful applicants would be required to visit the RCVS for three half-day meetings over the period of a year and the RCVS would cover travel and subsistence expenses. There would be an additional time commitment to review and feedback on material via email.
Those general practitioners who are interested in applying should email Britta Crawford, RCVS Education Manager, via b.crawford@rcvs.org.uk giving a brief description of their current position and why they feel they would be an asset to the working group. The closing date for applications is 6 March 2020.
From 31 October 2008, veterinary surgeons will again be allowed to charge animal owners for writing prescriptions, when a three-year ban on such fees comes to an end.
The Supply of Relevant Veterinary Medicinal Products Order 2005 was introduced by the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to implement recommendations from a 2003 Competition Commission inquiry into the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines, which, among other things, found that prescription charges were against the public interest. It was hoped by the DTI that the move would benefit consumers by providing for pharmacies and other suppliers to have an opportunity to establish themselves as competitors to veterinary surgeons in supplying prescription-only veterinary medicines.
Although veterinary practices will be able to make a charge for writing a prescription from 31 October 2008, one thing does not change: practices must not charge different fees for other services or veterinary medicines to those who take a prescription and those who do not.
Jill Nute, RCVS President said: "The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) will monitor the reintroduction of prescription charges and has indicated that the level of monitoring will be proportionate to the perceived need - how well the market is working.
In addition, the RCVS will monitor complaints that relate to prescription charges and meet with the OFT to review the situation in six months time. Care must be taken to ensure that prescription fees are calculated sensibly, or the zero-fee ruling may be reintroduced."
The OFT has advised that veterinary practices must not agree between themselves what constitutes a suitable fee: it is prohibited by competition law.
General guidance for members of the profession is available on RCVSonline (Advice Note 15): www.rcvs.org.uk/advicenotes. Guidance for members of the public is also available online at:
http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/thinking_about/560042/
Other Competition Commission recommendations, such as displaying a price-list of the ten relevant veterinary medicinal products most commonly prescribed during a recent period, have been enforced since 2005 via the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and will remain in place.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon who qualified in 1969, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At the hearing, which had originally been listed for seven days, Geoffrey Raymond Oliver, 68, was charged with serious professional misconduct over allegations of his inadequate treatment of two dogs and a cat (belonging to three different clients) between 2010 and 2012; inadequate record keeping; failures to deal honestly or properly with his clients; and, failure to heed advice from the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee about the importance of proper communication between veterinary surgeons and their clients.
However, before the Committee heard evidence on any aspect of these charges, Mr Oliver lodged his application for adjournment. The Committee therefore made no findings on the charges, and emphasised they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, him.
The Committee noted that there had been no adverse findings against Mr Oliver during his professional career, that his practice was now closed and that he had no intention of returning to practise in the future. Should he subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertaking.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have incurred considerable time and costs - dissented from the proposed course of action.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has concluded that no useful purpose would be served were it to insist on a full hearing [and it] would be a disproportionate waste of...resources [to do so]. The Committee is satisfied that [granting the adjournment application] protects the welfare of animals and...is in the public interest."
The Committee then accepted Mr Oliver's undertakings, including the removal of his name from the Register with immediate effect.
Professor Lees added: "So that he is in no doubt about the matter, the Committee reminds [Mr Oliver] that, when referring clients of his former practice elsewhere, he should be careful to avoid giving them any advice about the diagnosis or treatment of their animals."
Ms Hickman was charged with leaving three dogs, two of which had undergone surgery the day before and one of which was in for monitoring, unattended for more than three hours on 8th November 2022, after falling asleep.
She was then charged with falsifying clinical records to suggest she had made the relevant clinical checks and offered them water when in fact, she'd been asleep.
The final charge was that her actions in falsifying the records were dishonest and misleading.
At the start of the hearing, Ms Hickman admitted all of the charges.
As the charges had been admitted, the Committee considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it noted sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses that relate to making animal health and welfare a veterinary nurse’s primary concern, the need to provide veterinary nursing care that is appropriate and adequate, and the need to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was in no doubt that the respondent’s failure to monitor properly three patients in an overnight ward in a hospital and the subsequent creation of false records to suggest that appropriate monitoring had taken place amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Committee found that an adverse health condition had influenced the conduct that had led to the disciplinary hearing – including that she had unintentionally fallen asleep while she should have been monitoring the animals – and so considered this a mitigating factor.
Also, by way of mitigation, the Committee considered that Miss Hickman had fully appreciated the implications of her conduct and expressed remorse at the impact it could have on the public’s trust for the veterinary nursing profession.
It also took into account positive testimonials from current and previous employers, her hitherto unblemished career, and the fact that there was no longer any risk of repetition.
However, in terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that it was a case involving dishonesty, and dishonesty which had not been admitted to the RCVS at an early stage.
In addition, it noted that the conduct involved a risk of injury to animals and a breach of trust towards the owners of those animals.
Dr Peaty added: “The Committee was satisfied that a significant period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, serve to maintain the reputation of the profession and promote and maintain proper standards of conduct.
"The Committee considered that a period of suspension of six months was sufficient to satisfy this public interest.”
Miss Hickman has 28 days from the sanction being announced to appeal the Committee’s decision.