The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.

The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.

The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.

Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."

The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.

Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."

The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia

Ed's comment: The new guidance seems like common sense to me. A couple of things stand out as useful reminders, though. The first is to anonymise details of the cases you discuss on vetsurgeon.org, or get your clients' prior permission to discuss their animal in a professional forum. The other is the fact that being disparaging about a colleague online is as much of a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct as if you do it offline. So don't!

The RCVS will be holding two online workshops to give an overview of its 1CPD platform and how to use it most effectively.

1CPD was launched in 2020 with the aim of providing an easy-to-use platform for veterinary surgeons to use to plan, record and reflect on their continuing professional development (CPD).

The workshops, which are taking place on Wednesday 9th December 2020, are designed to help those who are not yet familiar with the platform, or have some limited experience of it but would like some additional guidance.

The first workshop takes place at midday and is for those members of the profession who haven’t yet used the platform. The session will give an overview of how 1CPD works and the benefits of using it for planning, recording and reflecting on CPD. No prior knowledge is assumed, and complete beginners are especially welcome. There'll be an opportunity to ask questions. 

The second workshop takes place at 7pm and is for those who have some experience of using 1CPD but may have further questions, for example, about how to use some of its features such as the planning module and how to best make use of the reflective notes and comments feature.

Both of the workshops will last for approximately an hour each.

Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “We’ve seen fantastic take up of the 1CPD platform in less than a year – with around 65% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons and an amazing 80% of veterinary nurses using it to plan, record and reflect on their professional development. The feedback that we receive has been overwhelmingly positive, with the even the more technically-challenged amongst us finding 1CPD intuitive.

"Although the numbers are very encouraging, there is a cohort of people who have not yet actively engaged with the platform and maybe are unsure about using it or are put off by the thought of having to learn how to use a brand new online system. The aim of these workshops is to guide and reassure those who are hesitant that the 1CPD system is very simple and easy-to-use with lots of useful features. In the long run, it will save you a lot of time and effort when it comes to recording your CPD because it’s there on your phone or tablet, ready to update as-and-when you need to."

Richard Burley, Chief Technology Officer for the RCVS, added: “We are very glad that the 1CPD platform developed by our team here has been so well received. We are continuing to improve and update the platform based on user feedback to improve its design and usability and would welcome any further constructive comments that members of the professions have about it. We do hope you those who are both unfamiliar with the system, and those who have used it but need further advice, can join us for these sessions to find out both how to use 1CPD and how to get the best out of it.”

To sign up to one of the workshops, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/1cpd-online-workshop.

For those who aren’t able to make it on the day, recorded versions of all of the workshops will be made available to watch again after the event.

To download 1CPD as an app for use on iOS (Apple) or Android devices, or to access the web version, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/1CPD

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced the results of the RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections.

A record number of candidates stood in the RCVS Council election this year, and the results were much closer than usual.

Two candidates entirely new to the Council have been elected, one of whom - Amanda Boag - received the highest number of votes. The other - Chris Barker - also did well, coming in third place overall.

Three existing RCVS Council Members have been re-elected for a further four years, and Stephen May, who was formerly an appointed Council Member from the Royal Veterinary College, was also voted onto Council for the first time.

Of the three candidates standing for election to VN Council, one existing Member - Kathy Kissick - has been returned, and one new member - Elizabeth Figg - has been elected.

All successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.

Turnouts for both elections remained low, with just 3,625 veterinary surgeons (15.1%) and 743 veterinary nurses (7.5%) choosing to exercise their right to vote.

By comparison, in 2011 voting figures were 3,887 (15.9%) and 723 (7.6%), respectively.

Veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' use of online and text voting, rather than postal voting, increased again this year from 25% to 30.6%, and 12.9% to 20%, respectively.

Warwick Seymour-Hamilton, a former veterinary surgeon who was removed from the Register in 1994, has had his twelfth application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons refused.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.

However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed. 

As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.

As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.

The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.

He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.

The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.

"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.

"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”

He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.

“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.

"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.

"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.

"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon for submitting a certificate of Clinical Inspection for Veterinary Inspectors ("TB52") for tuberculin tests he had undertaken on cattle, despite knowing that he had not fully complied with the standard operating procedures (SOP) for these tests.

At the outset of the three-day hearing, John Wilson admitted that, when acting as an Official Veterinarian (OV) he had not carried out tuberculin tests on cattle at a Wiltshire farm on 19 May 2011 strictly in accordance with the SOP required by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), an executive agency of Defra.

The admitted shortcomings were that on 19 May, the second day of testing, Mr Wilson had failed to confirm the identity of all the animals, failed to inspect the animals digitally (ie using his hands) and had not measured the fold of skin at the injection site of all the animals. The College argued that this was contrary to the directions of the AHVLA and, in subsequently signing the TB52 certificate, he was either dishonest or should have known that the certification was incorrect. Mr Wilson admitted that he ought to have known the certification was incorrect but denied dishonesty, because he believed that he had conducted the test in a satisfactory manner and had correctly identified all the reactors in the herd.

Mr Wilson was a veterinary surgeon of over 40 years experience and unblemished record, and the Committee found his account of events to be accurate and honest. He said the farm involved was unprepared and test arrangements were chaotic, with poor handling facilities, and he would have been concerned for the safety of the animals and their handlers if he had complied fully with the SOP. He had advised the farmer to delay the test but his advice was rejected.

The Committee accepted that the testing had been carried out under exceptional and difficult circumstances. It noted that Mr Wilson had identified a reactor and taken appropriate actions, knowing that the outcome would be the quarantining of the whole herd. He had made no financial or other gain, other than the nominal fee charged for the work. Although failing to comply with the SOP fell short of what was expected of a veterinary surgeon, because of these circumstances, and as he had acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the animals and personnel, these actions did not amount to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee found that, even allowing for these difficulties and concerns, in signing the TB52 certificate a few days later, without any qualification, Mr Wilson ought to have known that it was incorrect, and his actions fell far short of the standards expected of the veterinary profession. They did not however find that he had been dishonest.

The Committee stressed the importance attached to accurate and reliable certification, in maintaining the confidence of the public and the profession, and in ensuring animal welfare.

Professor Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the committee said: "The Committee is aware, as confirmed by AHVLA, that this is a single, isolated event and the first offence in some 40 years of the Respondent working as a LVI [local veterinary inspector] or OV. After considering all the mitigating factors.and, given the exceptional circumstances of this specific case, the decision of the Committee is to reprimand Mr Wilson."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a London-based veterinary surgeon, having found charges related to fraudulent registration not proved.

Miss Maria Becerra Parga was charged with fraudulently entering her name on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, by submitting a registration application in 2005 that contained a forged certificate of good standing from the Distinguished Official Veterinary Association of Lugo, Spain.

The Committee said that, in order to conclude Miss Becerra Parga had acted dishonestly, it needed to be sure that when she submitted the certificate to the RCVS she knew it was not genuine.

Miss Becerra Parga admitted that she did not make any application for the certificate directly to the Lugo Association. She accepted that the certificate she supplied to the College (the number of which was genuine and corresponded to a male veterinary surgeon registered in Spain) was a forgery, and that it contained a reference to her degree, a statement of good conduct, and was dated before she had a need for it; however, she said, this had been given to her by a friend and veterinary colleague and she had understood that she had been given a temporary membership of the Lugo Association for the purpose of registering with the RCVS. She also said that she had left these arrangements to her colleague and assumed that the document she had been given was genuine.

Her colleague, called as a witness by the College, said that Miss Becerra Parga had admitted the fraud to her and she denied that she had given the certificate to Miss Becerra Parga.  Her friend said that she gave no more than general guidance because she knew that Miss Becerra Parga would be guided by a UK company that would arrange for her registration with the RCVS  and through which she would be employed. She thought it possible that she had told Ms Becerra Parga that she needed a letter of recommendation, but she was not sure. 

After careful consideration, the Committee preferred the evidence of Miss Becerra Parga and found her account to be "consistent with her naivety, inexperience and trusting nature" and "was sure that she did not forge the document herself".  It found that to the extent that Miss Becerra Parga read the certificate at all when given it, she obviously did not notice its date or significance. The Committee was not able to say who was responsible for forging the certificate.

The Committee also dismissed an argument RCVS Counsel put forward, that Miss Becerra Parga had neither offered nor made payment for the certificate, and that she had forged the certificate to avoid a payment.  The Committee said it did not find it credible that a veterinary surgeon, in work  with a supportive family, who obviously was easily able to obtain proof of her good character directly from the university if necessary, would have jeopardised her entire career by forging the document, let alone for a small financial advantage. 

The Committee directed that the charges be dismissed.

The RCVS has announced that it is to host an open day on Monday 15 December for those members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions who are interested in joining the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), Disciplinary Committee (DC) or Veterinary Nurse Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC).

In January 2015 the College will be looking to recruit veterinary members for PIC and DC following a legislative reform order last year to reconstitute them separately from RCVS Council. This means that the committees must be made up of veterinary and lay members who are not on Council and members will be appointed on the advice of an independent selection committee.

The RCVS will be seeking to recruit four veterinary surgeons for DC as well as three veterinary surgeons for PIC. At the same time the College will be recruiting two registered veterinary nurses and a veterinary surgeon for VN PIC. Applications are particularly sought from practising or recently retired clinicians.

The Open Day (at Belgravia House from 9.30am to 4pm) will provide the opportunity for those who are interested in applying to hear from current members of each committee about what being a committee member is really like and the type of cases dealt with. Recruitment consultants will also be on hand to explain the hiring process and attendees will have the opportunity to put questions to Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.

Those who are interested in attending the Open Day should contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761 to register an interest or request an agenda.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned Dr Natalia Anna Strokowska for dishonesty in communication and for failing to get permission to share photos on social media.

The Disciplinary Committee considered four charges against Dr Strokowska. The first was that, whilst registered in the 'Practising Outside the United Kingdom' category of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons maintained by the RCVS, she practised as a veterinary surgeon in the counties of Somerset, Shropshire, London, Lancashire and Norfolk between July 2016 and August 2017 when she was not registered as UK-practising. The charges were that her conduct in relation to this was dishonest and misleading to her employer and/or clients.

The second charge was that, between October 2016 and July 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs of and comments about animals being treated at the practices where she worked, without the consent of the owners or the practices. 

The third charge was that, between January 2017 and March 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs, videos and comments about animals being treated at Goddards Veterinary Hospital in Wanstead, without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon.

The fourth charge was that, between July 2017 and September 2017, Dr Strokowska made representations to the practice principal of Barn Lodge, in Lancashire, and/or a student vet working at the practice that she had gained consent for photographs and social media posts when she had not, and that her conduct was dishonest and misleading.

At the outset of the hearing, the Dr Strokowska admitted to having practised as a veterinary surgeon in the UK when she was registered as practising outside the UK, but disputed that she had been dishonest or misleading with regards to this.

She also admitted to the entirety of the second charge and part of the third, but, under the latter charge, denied that she had, without consent, taken a video of an animal being operated on by a veterinary colleague.

Finally, she admitted to dishonest and misleading conduct with regard to part of the fourth charge, but denied that, in July 2017, she informed the practice principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs at Barn Lodge and post these on social media, when she had not been so told.

The Disciplinary Committee went on to consider the facts of the case for each of the charges that remained in issue.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee accepted that she did not have her registration status with the RCVS in her mind while she was working in the UK during the period in question. Accordingly, the Committee did not find her to have been dishonest.

With regards to the third charge the Committee considered the issue of whether the video in question had been posted "without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon".  After examining the relevant evidence (which included the video in question) the Committee determined that the evidence did not support the facts charged and thus that charge three was not proved.

With regards to the fourth charge, Strokowska denied that her conduct in relation to informing the principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs and post these on social media was dishonest or misleading, on the basis that she believed she had permission to take and post photographs on social media. The Committee was not able to be sure as to how she sought this consent and the response provided and so the charge was found not proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee found that it was the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that her registration status was appropriate at the time she was doing locum work in the UK. However she had provided her RCVS registration number to all the practises she had worked for and in the view of the committee there was no intention to deceive anyone. In the judgement of the Committee, her conduct was not sufficiently grave so as to constitute serious professional misconduct.

The Committee, in its judgement, concluded that her conduct in relation to the second charge did fall far short of the behaviour to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee considered that all members of the profession are obliged to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct, and the supporting guidance, in relation to the use of the internet and social media.

Unauthorised posting of photographs of animals being treated by a veterinary surgeon on social media may well cause distress to the owners, and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole, and to the reputation of individual practices.

The aspect of the third charge admitted by the respondent involved posting a photograph with accompanying text of a dog without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered that this was, indeed, a matter of professional discourtesy, but did not consider that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The respondent admitted the fourth charge and admitted that her conduct was dishonest and misleading. The Committee, in its judgement, considered that by choosing to lie in response to a genuine professional enquiry about her conduct, her behaviour fell far short of that to be expected from a member of the veterinary profession, and constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose.

In mitigation the Committee considered that the postings were an attempt to promote the health and welfare of animals; the lack of risk of harm or actual harm to an animal or human; no apparent financial gain from her actions; her youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct; her open and frank admissions at an early stage; her subsequent efforts to avoid repetition; the lapse of time since the incident; and her demonstration of insight into the effects of her postings on some owners.

The Committee considered the available sanctions in order starting with no further action. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate where the serious professional misconduct found in this case involved dishonesty, even given the mitigating factors relating to that as outlined above, nor in view of the repeated nature of the social media posts without owner consent.

The Committee determined that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.

Dr Strokowska was reprimanded for her serious professional misconduct in relation to her admitted failure to obtain necessary consent for posts on social media and her dishonesty in communication.

She was warned that she should in future be fully aware of, and comply with, the provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, in particular as it relates to the use of social media, including the need to ensure that she has obtained all the necessary consents from all relevant parties.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to accept undertakings from Cardiff-based veterinary surgeon Adrian John Westwood that he requests the removal his name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and agree never to apply to be restored to it.

Dr Westwood, who now lives in Australia, had been referred to the Committee in relation to a number of charges against him relating to the treatment of a cat at his former practice in Cardiff in October 2015.

He was not present at the inquiry and had requested that his solicitor, Tony Wilson, act on his behalf.

Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee that the hearing should be adjourned contingent on a form of undertakings being accepted. These undertakings were that Dr Westwood’s name be removed from the Register with immediate effect and that he never apply to be restored to the Register under any category.

The application was granted by the Committee, taking into account a number of factors. These included the fact that Dr Westwood has retired as a veterinary surgeon, that he has closed his practice and returned to his home in Australia with no intention of returning to the UK, and that animal welfare and the reputation of the profession have been protected as Dr Westwood will no longer be in practice.

The Committee noted that there were several precedents for concluding cases in such a manner, and that the application was not objected to by the complainant or opposed by the College.

Dr Westwood’s name was removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons with immediate effect as of Monday 14 August 2017.

Dr Marthinus Ryk Botes has been struck off after he carried out total hip replacements (THR) on four dogs which did not uphold the animals’ health and welfare and without consulting with their owners about alternatives (including more conservative treatment options) and gaining their informed consent to carry out the procedures.

Dr Botes faced a total of nine charges against him, relating to performing (or recommending) inappropriate total hip replacements on five dogs without adequate investigation and without getting informed consent from the owners.

One of the charges also related to a failure to keep adequate, clear and detailed clinical records in relation to the five dogs. 

Dr Botes denied the first two charges which were later dismissed because the owner did not attend the hearing and counsels agreed that it would not be in the public interest to pursue them. 

Dr Botes admitted the other seven charges and that they amounted to serious professional misconduct, and they were therefore found proven by the Committee.

In considering whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee considered an expert report from Professor John Innes, RCVS Specialist in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) and Mr Midgley, RCVS Advanced Practitioner (Small Animal Orthopaedics). 

Ian Arundale, Chair of the Committee, said: “In coming to its decisions, the Committee took into account Professor Innes’ opinions that it was not reasonable for Dr Botes to have carried out the THR without sufficient investigation into Kilo’s pain; that the THR undertaken in respect of Sora was not in the animal’s best interests; and that it was ‘entirely unnecessary’ to recommend the THR in respect of Penny.

"In addition, the Committee has found that both THRs performed in respect of Daisy were not in her best interests.

"Thus, in the Committee’s view, Dr Botes’ actions and omissions did not ensure the animals’ health and welfare.”

The Committee took into account that the THRs in question were a source of financial gain, that Dr Botes’ conduct was repeated over a considerable period of time and that he was in an increased position of trust and responsibility because of perceived expertise in small animal orthopaedics and its education.

However, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, that Dr Botes has indicated some insight into some aspects of the charges in his written communications to the College, in his witness statement dated 29 December 2021, and in his admissions at the start of this inquiry.

The Committee then considered what would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, hearing from several character witnesses including Dr Midgely, who was put forward as Dr Botes’ proposed supervisor if the committee agreed to a postponement with undertakings.

When making their decision, the Committee took into account the fact that Dr Botes had been suspended from the Register in 2008 for six months for serious professional misconduct over the care of a dog that had been involved in a road traffic accident.

The Committee considered a postponement of judgment with undertakings, which was submitted by Dr Botes’ counsel.

However, the Committee took the view that a postponement would not be appropriate because the failings were not in limited aspects of practice but were wide-ranging, covering the fundamental requirements of any veterinary surgeon.

In the Committee’s view, this would mean nothing less than direct supervision, where Dr Botes’ practice was directly monitored on a day-to-day basis would be sufficient to protect animals, clients, and to uphold the wider public interest.

It would be impracticable to formulate undertakings capable of effectively addressing these issues.

The Committee also noted that the disgraceful conduct was serious and there was a pattern of sustained and persistent misconduct.

The Committee therefore did not believe that no further action, a reprimand or a warning were appropriate or proportionate outcomes.

The Committee also considered whether suspension was appropriate but concluded that there was a real risk of repetition of the behaviours outlined in the charges, and so the Committee was unable to conclude that Dr Botes would be fit to return to practice after a period of suspension.

The Committee therefore decided to direct that Dr Botes should be removed from the Register indefinitely.

In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on Dr Botes both professionally and financially, and took into account his witness statement in this regard.

Ian Arundale added: “In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”

Dr Botes has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Kate Richards has been elected by RCVS Council to become its Junior Vice President with immediate effect and President from July.

Kate’s election means that, come July and subject to ratification by RCVS Council, the offices of RCVS President, Senior-Vice President and Junior Vice-President will all be held by women for the first time in the College’s 177-year history.

A graduate of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Kate was a farm vet for 15 years, a partner in a 15 vet practice in Aberdeen. She then moved to the pharmaceutical industry as a veterinary advisor before joining the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). From there, she moved into non-veterinary Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles in several Whitehall departments including the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. As a senior civil servant she was Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland, handling a diverse policy portfolio and working across Whitehall, including No.10 Downing Street and the Devolved Administrations.

First elected to RCVS Council in 2015 for a four year term and again in 2020, Kate has previously served as Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee and RCVS representative on the UK co-ordination group for the Federation of Vets of Europe (FVE). Currently Vice Chair of the Education Committee, member of the Registration Committee and the Environment & Sustainability Working Party, Kate is an appointed veterinary member of Veterinary Nurses’ Council.

Kate is a qualified Official Veterinarian (OV), a Non-Executive Director on the Moredun Foundation and Scottish Agriculture College (SAC) Commercial Boards, a veterinary advisor on a Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) mental health project and on the Council of the Association of Government Veterinarians. She’s a member of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Veterinary Public Health Association. A Council member of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (2004-10), Kate served as a Trustee of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation (2014-17).

Current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will become Senior Vice-President, and joining Kate and Mandisa on the Officer team will be Dr Melissa Donald, who last month was elected Junior Vice-President for 2021-22. Current Senior Vice-President Dr Niall Connell was recently elected RCVS Treasurer.

The vacancy in the RCVS Officer team arose following Professor David Argyle’s decision to resign from Council in March, meaning that Council needed to hold two votes in quick succession: one at its scheduled meeting in March for the 2021-22 JVP position; and one today for the current JVP vacancy.

Kate said: “I am delighted to be elected JVP. It’s been an exceptionally challenging year for those in all walks of veterinary life, including students aspiring to join our profession. It will be an honour to lead the RCVS as its tenth female president, working with veterinary colleagues as well as reaching out to allied professionals acknowledging that there will be challenges to navigate as well as triumphs to celebrate.”

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed the Registrar to remove Laura Padron Vega, a former Official Veterinarian, from the Register for dishonestly backdating certificates in order to avoid new animal welfare regulations.

Miss Padron Vega faced four charges. The first and second alleged that in February 2016, for the purposes of an application to the Food Standards Agency for a Certificate of Competence under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015, she backdated two separate veterinary witness certificates to 7 December 2015. The third charge alleged that her acts of backdating were misleading, dishonest and in breach of the RCVS Principles of Certification.

The fourth charge against Miss Padron Vega was that, between September 2015 and February 2016, she failed to fulfil her duties as an Official Veterinarian in respect of: failing to prepare herself for the implementation of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015; failing to have regard to the information provided to her by her employers about the regulations and their implementation; failing to take any steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations; and failing to identify that two individuals were not licensed to slaughter in accordance with the regulations.

The Committee heard that the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations were introduced on 5 November 2015 which placed the responsibility on slaughtering operations not to permit animal welfare abuses and required certification by a veterinary witness regarding compliance.

The new regulations required existing slaughter licence holders to apply for a Certificate of Competence before midnight on 8 December 2015 or they would not be permitted to continue operating even with experienced operatives.

During the hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted charges 1 and 2, admitted that she had been in breach of the Principles of Certification and admitted the fourth charge against her.

However, she denied she had backdated the certificates in a misleading or dishonest way, maintaining that she had done so by mistake.

In considering the facts of the case, however, the Committee rejected this argument and, taking into account that she had been responsible for veterinary certifications in the UK since 2001, found that her conduct was knowingly misleading and dishonest.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges she admitted and the charges found against her constituted serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.

The Committee found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to charge 4 in particular Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has found that the respondent failed to read even those emails which her employer sent to her which were marked ‘urgent’ or ‘OV importance high’. She must have known that her employers were directing attention to some new statutory scheme for she was provided with PowerPoint slides in that regard which she could read at any time of her convenience. The Committee has been driven to the conclusion that the respondent did not even bother to read those slides for, had she done so, she would have known that she needed to apprise herself of the requirements of the impending new statutory scheme. 

"The respondent’s failings in this regard are little short of extraordinary, especially given her obligations as Lead OV for FAI Farms. The total abdication of her responsibility to understand the requirements of the Regulations governing the slaughterhouse operations constitutes, in the judgement of this Committee disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The Committee then went on to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. In terms of aggravating features the Committee noted a lack of insight into the gravity of her conduct, that her conduct undermined in the most serious way public confidence in veterinary certification, and that there were animal welfare implications on her conduct as a number of chickens had to be removed from the slaughterhouse and alternative arrangements made because an auditor from the Food Standards Agency found that it was not compliant.

In mitigation the Committee considered that, despite the potential risk of harm, there was no actual harm occasioned to animals, that Miss Padron Vega has had a long and otherwise unblemished career and no previous issues with the RCVS and that she had admitted some of the charges against her.

Stuart Drummond added: "Ultimately, the Committee was driven to the conclusion that the public’s desire to see the implementation of the highest certification standards in relation to activities which impact on animal welfare and public health, and which did not occur on 3 February 2016, must outweigh this particular veterinary surgeon’s desire and need to continue in practice. This is not a conclusion which the Committee has arrived at lightly. On the contrary, it has reached this decision because it has been driven to the conclusion that it would be failing in its public duty to protect the wider public interest in the maintenance of standards of honesty and right conduct in a member of the profession.

"It is, therefore, the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register and it directs the Registrar accordingly."

Miss Padron Vega has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

The RCVS has announced it will be launching a new nine-month alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial this autumn which will be administered by the law firm that runs the General Optical Council’s ADR scheme.

Nockolds Solicitors was approved as the new administrator of the ADR trial by RCVS Council at its June 2016 meeting at Cardiff City Hall. The company was identified and approved by the RCVS Operational Board as meeting its requirements, a decision which the RCVS says has been welcomed by the Veterinary Defence Society and the British Veterinary Association, as well as receiving lay and consumer support.

The current trial, which was launched in November 2014 and is administered by Ombudsman Services, will come to a close by 1 October, when the new trial with Nockolds will start.

Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive and Secretary, said: "In order to be able to make an informed choice about how we wish to design and implement a permanent ADR scheme we wanted to ensure that we have as many different options and as much data as possible. It is very important that we get the permanent scheme right and this is why Operational Board made the decision to have a second trial. It was also clear that satisfaction levels from consumers for the previous trial were lower than we would have liked and that we therefore need to explore other options.

"It is important to note that this will not just be a re-run of the first trial with a different administrator – there will be some significant differences between this and our first trial with Ombudsman Services.

"First, this will be a truly alternative process as consumers will be able to access the trial directly rather than having to go through the College’s concerns process first.

"Second, this will be a process of mediation meaning that expert advisors from Nockolds will facilitate communication between the complainant and the veterinary surgeon to try and find a satisfactory solution to the concern."

The trial will be promoted to both the public and the profession as an alternative to the College’s formal concerns investigation process and participation in the trial will be voluntary. There will also still be a panel of veterinary advisors overseeing the trial and helping staff at Nockolds with any clinical queries they may have.

Jennie Jones is a Partner at Nockolds and will head up the trial. She said: "We are committed to providing a service that mediates complaints to find a fair, efficient and proportionate resolution. We are looking forward to working with everyone involved in veterinary profession to develop an effective mediation service that can be accessed by both the public and members of the profession.

"The service will focus on finding effective and practical resolutions. Understanding the root cause of the complaint and re-establishing effective communication are the crucial first steps in mediation and helping the parties to find a solution they can both accept. Over the coming months, we will be working with the RCVS, representative bodies for the profession and consumers to launch the service.

"In addition to mediating complaints, we will share insight in mediation and complaint resolution to inform practitioners and stakeholders and to enhance standards at veterinary practices. This enables complaint analysis to be used to help improve client care, avoid complaints and maintain trust and confidence in the profession."

A bespoke website for the trial will be set up in time for the launch on 1 October 2016.