Mr Georgescu faced three sets of charges:
The first was that in April 2024 at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to driving a car when the proportion of the controlled substance Benzoylecgonine (the main metabolite of cocaine) exceeded the specified limit contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act.
He was disqualified from driving for 20 months, fined £634, ordered to pay £254 victim surcharge and £150 costs.
The second and third charges were that he was misleading and/or dishonest with the RCVS when he was asked to provide information about the circumstances leading to his conviction.
In correspondence with the College, he claimed that the incident happened on his day off, when he was in fact due to work that day.
He also submitted – or allowed to be submitted – a false staff rota for the day of his arrest.
The Disciplinary Committee found the charges against Mr Georgescu proven on the basis of the certificate of conviction and his admission, prior to the hearing, that he had given false information.
The Committee then considered whether the three charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered the fact that Mr Georgescu was driving, and intending to work, while he was seven times over the prescribed proportion of Benzoylecgonine allowed to be in in his bloodstream.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “With regard to the impact this conduct would have on right thinking members of the public, Dr Georgescu himself said, when cross examined, that were he standing in the shoes of an owner of an animal he was going to treat that day with the knowledge that he had in his blood more than 7 times the prescribed limit of a prohibited drug he “would not be comfortable for sure” and would cause such persons to “lose trust”.
“Having regard to the above facts and matters the Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the facts relevant to his commission of the offence in Charge 1 were so serious and presented such prospective risks to other road users that it renders the respondent unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.”
Charges 2 and 3 were considered together, with the Committee again finding serious professional misconduct on the basis that Mr Georgescu had set out to lie to the RCVS and had continued and repeated the lie for a period of six months.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating features in his conduct including the fact it was premeditated, entailed sustained and repeated dishonesty, involved wilful disregard for the role of the RCVS as the veterinary regulator and that admissions were only made when he realised he couldn’t sustain his falsehoods any longer.
Finally, having found that all charges were proven and amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee decided that suspending Mr Georgescu from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons would be adequate to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
Paul Morris added: “The misconduct of the respondent is serious but his misconduct falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register.
"He does have insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and there is, in the judgement of the Committee, no significant risk of repeat misleading behaviour.
"The Committee also considers that the respondent will be fit to return to practice after the period of suspension in question.
“The Committee did consider striking the respondent from the Register but determined that this sanction would be unduly punitive and deprive the public and the profession of an otherwise competent veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee has reflected carefully on the question of how long the period of suspension should be and has determined that it should be a period which is not so long that it will result in the loss of the respondent to the profession which he professes to love and in which his referees assert he is a capable and caring veterinary surgeon.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The VetCompass database now holds millions of anonymised veterinary clinical records collected from primary practices and referral centres across the UK.
The records allow researchers to investigate a range and frequency of companion animal health problems and identify important risk factors for the most common disorders.
This research can then be used by veterinary professionals in clinical practice to help improve education and outcomes related to animal welfare.
Dan’s nomination included recognition for VetCompass operating under non-profit and open-access principles and embedding mandatory welfare pathways into all studies.
VetCompass was also recognised for having supported more than 140 research papers supporting broad welfare initiatives spanning breed-related health, extreme conformations, welfare scoring, specific disorders, oncology, disease surveillance, prescribing practices, and more.
Dan said: “I am truly humbled to receive this recognition from the RCVS.
"When I moved from clinical practice to the RVC 15 years ago to develop VetCompass as my PhD project, I could only dream of the untapped potential for practising veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to contribute to cutting edge science and welfare.
"And now the amazing VetCompass team at the RVC have made that aspiration to redefine the clinical evidence base on companion animal welfare a reality.
"I now need to reset even higher animal welfare dreams for the next 15 years.”
https://www.rvc.ac.uk/vetcompass/about/overview
The advice in the new help section has been designed to highlight the shared responsibilities of animal owners and their vet teams, and to support practices by giving this advice for pet owners in a clear and easy-to-read way.
It explains what pet owners can expect from their vet team - and what is expected of them - throughout the different stages of pet ownership.
The information is split into ten sections:
The content in the new resource was informed by the views of the RCVS’s Public Advisory Group (PAG), whose members comprise owners/keepers of companion animals, equine and production animals, as well as other users of veterinary services.
Veterinary surgeon and Chair of the RCVS PAG, Louise Allum MRCVS (pictured), said: "The PAG has performed an essential role in helping to inform the content creation for our animal owner help and advice resource, highlighting the need for greater transparency and support, particularly around veterinary fees, treatment options, and what to expect from vet practices.
"Veterinary professionals work tirelessly to provide the most appropriate care for their patients, and we want to support this by ensuring pet owners have access to clear, accessible information about their rights, responsibilities, and the role of veterinary teams to ensure that expectations are managed.
“We are calling upon veterinary professionals to share this resource with clients far and wide, to help owners understand more about veterinary practice and how they can build a successful partnership with their vet team, ultimately leading to better outcomes for pets, their owners and veterinary professionals alike."
The RCVS will be expanding its help and advice section to include further information for equine and livestock owners in due course.
www.rcvs.org.uk/owner-advice.
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
From next month, practices will be required to ask all clients, both new and existing, a series of questions about their personal circumstances.
The most controversial of the new requirements is that clients will be required to show three month's worth of bank statements and payslips, so that vets can decide which treatment will be appropriate and affordable.
Clients will also need to provide their vet with:
RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: "It's really important that vets always take into account ALL the factors that may be pertinent to a clinical recommendation.
"This way, the profession can still offer treatments for animals costing tens of thousands of pounds, but targeted at those who can afford it, such as oligarchs, footballers and drug dealers."
"And with a little luck, maybe with these new rules, the CMA will just quietly go away."
Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.
She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.
There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.
Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.
The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.
Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.
Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.
Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).
Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.
Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.
At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.
Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.
After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.
Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.
In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.
Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.
In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:
The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.
The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.
When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:
The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”
She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.
"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.
“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.
"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”
The project, which is funded by the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative, is designed to find out about current attitudes, beliefs, and alcohol use behaviours of those working in clinical settings within the UK veterinary sector.
Researchers Dr Jennifer Seddon, Olivia Cormier MRCVS, and Dr Emma Davies, from Oxford Brookes University are inviting people aged 18 and over who are working in the UK veterinary sector, including vets, veterinary nurses, practice managers, veterinary care assistants, receptionists, and those undertaking other in-practice roles, who currently drink or have drunk alcohol in the past three months to take part in an online survey which takes no more than 15 minutes.
Olivia said: “Evidence from research conducted in 2009 showed that veterinary professionals may be more likely to drink at risky levels compared to people in the general population.
"There is a vital need for new research in this area, not only so we can better understand what the current situation looks like, but so that we can learn how best to provide tailored support to this group.”
The survey is anonymous and confidential, and no personal data will be gathered or shared with MMI or the RCVS.
After completing the survey, participants can choose to enter a prize draw to win one of three £100 Amazon vouchers.
https://brookeshls.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0pHn8qy4ZIVTTgy
Photo: www.depositphotos.com
Tim, who is Managing Partner of Larkmead Vets and also a Director at the independent veterinary community XLVets, graduated from Liverpool Vet School in 1994 and joined Larkmead Vets in 1998.
He said: “I grew up in the South Yorkshire coalfields and worked in a city centre small animal practice in Wakefield before relocating to Oxfordshire to develop the small animal department of a mixed practice.
"First-opinion veterinary practice has been my life since starting cleaning kennels aged 12.
“I am passionate that whilst what we do is work with animals, how we do it is by working with people: our colleagues and the owners who entrust their animals to our care.
"As a first-opinion vet and practice owner I have had the privilege of growing and developing my practice (team and facilities) to meet the changing needs of our local community.
“At a time of great change for the veterinary profession, with the tantalising hope for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act set against the backdrop of the Competition and Markets Authority’s market investigation of the veterinary sector, it is an opportunity to bring this experience to the heart of our College.
“It was an unexpected honour to be elected to the position of JVP and I thank my colleagues on Council for entrusting the role to me.
"I also reflect on my initial university application which saw a clean sweep of rejections and hope that this can inspire others from the grass roots of our profession to get involved in shaping the future.”
Council also voted to confirm Professor Tim Parkin as RCVS President, Linda Belton as Senior Vice-President and reconfirmed Tshidi Gardiner as Treasurer (subject to her re-election), all effective from July.
Tim will take up his post at the College's AGM in July.
Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows:
Despite being served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors.
The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it.
The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner.
Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee.
It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to five of the sub-charges which the Committee therefore found proven.
She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.
After hearing a wide range of evidence, both written and oral, from Ms Bowler, the College, from clients and from an expert witness, the Committee found all charges proved except for four sub-charges.
On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account.
In mitigation:
In all, the Committee decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.
When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this.
It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.
It then went onto consider whether a sanction of ‘suspension’ was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.
The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.
Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.
“The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.
“Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.
“The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.
“These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest.
"It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.”
The sessions are:
https://www.bsavacongress.com/programme
Mrs Cole pleaded guilty to fraud in July 2024 at Crawley Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, 20 days rehabilitation activity and a £187 victim surcharge.
The College opened its own disciplinary investigation against Mrs Cole after receiving the certificate of conviction, which related to more than £13,000 of pet insurance fraud.
It then proceeded with the hearing in Mrs Cole’s absence as she had not responded to any of the communications sent to her by the College on the matter.
Having found the charge against her proven by the certificate of conviction, the Committee then determined that the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct… was plainly dishonest and contravened a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"She abused her professional position in order to commit the offence.
"The dishonest conduct in this case related directly to the respondent’s professional life, as she was working as a veterinary nurse when she completed and submitted the fraudulent claims.
“Her conduct also constituted a breach of the trust owed to her employer and to the insurance company to which her dishonest claims were submitted.
"She put her professional colleagues at risk as their names were used on the clinical records which purportedly supported her dishonest claims.
“Her misconduct was repeated and sustained over a period of many years.
"Her modus operandi was sophisticated and premeditated.
“The respondent’s conduct clearly had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public trust in the profession.
"A member of the public would be rightly appalled to learn that a veterinary nurse had abused her position by submitting false claims in this way.”
The Committee found that there were no mitigating factors, and that aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of Mrs Cole’s fraud, the clear breaches of trust in respect of her colleagues, her clients and the insurance companies, the significant financial gain made from her fraud and the fact that the fraudulent activities were sustained and repeated over a period of four and a half years.
Kathryn added: “Taking into account the gravity of her misconduct, the need to maintain standards of probity in the profession, especially in relation to practice records and the submission of insurance claim documents, as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the Committee has resolved to direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register.
Reasonable adjustments can include changing working arrangements and providing equipment, services and support.
The campaign will address common myths and misconceptions surrounding reasonable adjustments and highlight the legal obligations of leaders and managers around implementation.
The campaign, which will run until the end of July, is being launched after an RCVS/British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BCVIS) survey concluded there is a need to increase awareness about reasonable adjustments, promote wider discussion and equip organisations with the information they need to implement them.
The research also indicated that improved knowledge of legislation is needed, with communication also being raised as an important issue, so that individuals feel empowered to ask for the support they need.
MMI Lead, Rapinder Newton, said: “Our ‘Let’s talk adjustments’ campaign will support people to have these important conversations by sharing information, educational resources and guidance on good practice.
"It will also provide examples of different types of adjustments, including examples that are specific to the veterinary context.
“We know that physical and mental health are deeply interconnected.
"Reasonable adjustments can support both physical and mental health but also helps to safeguard mental health through allowing individuals with disabilities to thrive.
“We will be keeping people updated on the campaign, which has its own dedicated section on the RCVS website, via the RCVS social media channels, as well as providing information in RCVS newsletters, so do keep an eye out for this over the coming months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/leadership-diversity-and-inclusion/reasonable-adjustments-campaign/
Photo courtesy: https://depositphotos.com
The 4% increase was approved by the Privy Council and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
Dr Tshidi Gardiner, RCVS Treasurer, said: “As with last year, RCVS Council recognises that we are living in difficult economic times, and have tried to keep the fee increase to a minimum.
"However, it is important that we increase fees in line with inflation, as well as take into account additional related costs, to ensure we are fulfilling our regulatory remit to the best of our abilities and meet our strategic priorities.”
Veterinary surgeons need to pay their annual renewal by 1st April and will be sent their fee notices within the first two weeks of March.
Anyone who has not paid their fee by 1st May will incur a higher fee charge of £36, with non-payment by 1st June risking removal from the Register and ineligibility to practise.
As part of the annual renewal process, all individual vets will also need to log into their online MyAccount to confirm their registration and contact details and declare any convictions.
Anyone who expects to encounter any difficulties in paying their fees should contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0722.
In previous years, candidates were only asked to provide manifestos, which often contained information that wasn't especially relevant to whether or not they should be elected to Council.
Now, they are asked to share their reasons for wanting to be elected, what they can bring to Council and what experience they have.
That should make it much easier for voters to pick the right candidates, which is no bad thing because there are 20 vets standing this year, a record since electronic records began in 1997 and 1 more than the previous best in 2014.
This year’s candidates are:
Louise Allum MRCVSSam Bescoby MRCVSAndrew Clemence MRCVSTshidi Gardiner MRCVSReginald Godwin MRCVSPaddy Gordon MRCVS Danielle Greenberg MRCVSGerard Henry MRCVSRichard Hillman MRCVSBenjamin Kennedy MRCVSDarren Partridge MRCVSMartin Peaty MRCVSAlison Price MRCVSPeter Robinson MRCVSJennifer Simmons MRCVSSadie Spencer MRCVS Mary Thomas MRCVSWilliam Wilkinson MRCVSLara Wilson MRCVS
and the inevitable Tom Lonsdale MRCVS.
The full biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote25.
The four candidates who get the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the College’s Annual General Meeting on Friday 4 July 2025.
Simon Wiklund, Assistant Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “We are glad to see such a large number of veterinary professionals putting themselves forward as candidates for this year’s elections.
"It is worth noting that any future governance changes, including RCVS and VN Councils becoming all-appointed bodies, are contingent on new legislation and, until that happens, we will continue to hold our annual elections.
“You may have also noticed some differences with this year’s elections, particularly in terms of the candidate statements.
"This is thanks to a change to our election scheme, which provides greater flexibility about how we run our elections, and the information that we can ask the candidates to submit.
“This means that, rather than asking candidates for a broad manifesto statement, we’ve asked them to answer key questions that are relevant to the role of a Council member, including what skills and experiences they can bring to the table.”
Ahead of the elections, RCVS will be running its ‘Quiz the candidates’ initiative in which veterinary surgeons can submit questions to the candidates standing in their respective elections, in order to better understand them and their views.
However, due to the additional information now included in each of their statements, this year candidates will only answer one question of their choice each.
Before submitting questions to the candidates, please note the RCVS will only accept one question per person. Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will be rejected by the Returning Officer and not be passed on to candidates.
Veterinary surgeons can submit a question to the RCVS Council candidates by emailing vetvote25@rcvs.org.uk.
The course offers practical tips and is also designed to help vets understand their obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct when discussing costs with clients.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: “Discussions around the costs of veterinary treatment are not always easy and can sometimes give rise to misunderstandings or lack of clarity between clients and veterinary teams.
"We recognise the challenges these conversations present and the pressures veterinary professionals face.
“Meanwhile, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation has highlighted that animal owners are not always satisfied with the level of information they receive in order to make an informed choice about treatment options.
This course supports the development of veterinary surgeons’ and veterinary nurses’ communication skills so that they can discuss treatment costs more transparently with their clients, helping to reduce potential misunderstandings and build trust.”
The course takes 45 minutes to complete and features an interactive scenario as well as expert video advice from experienced veterinary surgeons.
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
However, when asked by VetSurgeon.org which audience - veterinary professionals, it's staff or the public - it was referring to, or what threats to safety and wellbeing were posed by X, the College refused point blank to answer.
So the real motivation remains unclear.
On the one hand, it could be a ridiculously over-sensitive move to protect its unknown audience from opinions that its staff find objectionable.
On the other hand, it could perfectly well be argued that short form social media reduces every discussion or debate to "I'm effing right and you're effing wrong", which is not appropriate for a scientific profession.
Equally, one could also argue that engaging in polarised debate online is not terribly good for one's wellbeing.
Or one could just argue that it's a terrible platform owned by a strangely meddlesome and interfering American.
However, given the College's strange refusal to expand on the reasons for its withdrawal, the first explanation seems more likely.
But who knows?
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-statement-on-x-formerly-twitter/
Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.
She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results.
The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.
Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.
Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.
The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.
It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.
The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.
“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.
"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.
"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.
“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.
"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.
“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.
In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.
Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans 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 best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.
“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.
“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.
"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”
Clare (pictured) who is currently the General Dental Council’s Interim Executive Director for Legal and Governance, will be joining the RCVS as its most senior legal officer at the end of March 2025.
A qualified solicitor, Clare started her practice as a Solicitor Advocate in criminal law, before undertaking roles in regulatory bodies in the healthcare and financial sector.
She joined the General Dental Council in March 2023 and has been in her current role there since March last year.
When she joins the College, Clare will have a dual role.
As Registrar she will be responsible for keeping, maintaining and publishing Registers of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, including oversight of the various mechanisms via which veterinary professionals can join the Register, what they need to do to stay on the Registers, how they may leave or be removed and registration appeals.
As Director of Legal Services, she'll provide leadership and guidance on legal matters within the organisation, including guiding RCVS Council through the development of oral and written legal advice, as well as sitting on committees and working groups in order to ensure the College’s activity is within its legal remit and represents best practice.
RCVS Chief Executive Officer Lizzie Lockett said: “I am sure the RCVS, the professions and the public will benefit from her very relevant experience from senior roles within the General Dental Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, and Financial Conduct Authority, as well as her private sector legal experience.
“She joins the College at a time of change, with our continued push for new veterinary legislation, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority investigation of the sector, and a new strategic plan for the College due to be approved this spring.
“The Registrar is the senior legal figure within the organisation, and I am looking forward to Clare contributing her legal expertise on these significant areas of work.
"She joins our very capable legal team, who I am sure will benefit from her leadership, as she will benefit from their sector expertise.”
Clare said: “I am delighted to join the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to contribute to the valuable work of safeguarding the interests of the public and animals by supporting veterinary professionals to provide the highest standards of care.”
VetSurgeon.org extends a warm welcome to Clare and wishes her all the very best in her new position.
One small but nevertheless important point is that perhaps a better aim would be to support veterinary professionals in providing just a 'high' standard of care, rather than the 'highest' standards.
It's this constant striving for the 'highest' standards from both a regulatory and clinical perspective that is driving up the cost of veterinary care and making it unaffordable.
The CertAVN was launched in May 2019 as a modular, advanced professional qualification allowing veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to develop their professional skills and knowledge.
The CertAVN framework sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of the higher education institutions responsible for providing the training and support for CertAVN students.
There are currently five accredited course providers in the UK:
The proposed standards for accreditation are set under three areas: curricula and assessment, educators and assessors, and learning culture.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “In order to make sure that the CertAVN remains up to date and fit for purpose, it is important that we consult on the accreditation standards at regular intervals.
"We welcome constructive and specific feedback from veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers – whether you have already undertaken the CertAVN or are perhaps considering doing so in the future – as well as the wider veterinary team, educators, and employers of current and potential CertAVN holders.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for CertAVN students."
The consultation runs until 5pm on Monday 3 March 2025.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/review-of-the-certavn-framework
The model for the forecast was developed by the College with the Institute of Employment Studies using data from the RCVS Registers, the 2019 and 2024 Surveys of the Professions, Office for National Statistics data for projected economic growth and the PDSA’s Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Reports.
However, the model does not take account of the impact of the increasing costs of veterinary care on pet ownership trends, the full effect of which may not yet have been felt.
The main predictions of the model are:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: “In 2021, there were clear concerns about there being a workforce crisis within the veterinary professions, and while that certainly seemed to be the case, and is likely to continue to be so in the short-term, according to this model the future picture for the professions looks much better in most areas of veterinary practice.
“However, government service/public health looks to be an area where there is still a significant shortfall in supply, which is concerning considering the importance of government vets in food safety, disease prevention and international trade and we are willing to continue to work with government to find ways to remedy this shortfall.
“We are aware that there may be some concerns about the implications of the model, particularly concerning the potential oversupply of veterinary nurses.
"While we stand by the robustness of the data, demography is not destiny, and with the planned enhancement of the veterinary nurse role, and the likelihood of suppressed demand due to prior shortages, it is likely that the number of veterinary nursing roles will expand to encompass the number of veterinary nurses available to work in it.
“Finally, we are aware that there are also some limitations to the model in its current form, for example, in terms of regional data.
"This is a work in progress, and we will continue to update and improve the model as and when new data allows.”
The workforce modelling report is available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The changes are designed to make the process more accessible and the College says most were proposed as a result of candidate feedback. They are:
The changes will come into effect from 1 January 2025, in time for the 2025 Stat Exam cohort.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We have been listening to the concerns of various stakeholders, including those who have undertaken the Stat Exam previously and veterinary employers, and we used this feedback to work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to come up with a set of practical, deliverable changes that improve the experience of Stat Exam for all candidates, and hopefully alleviate some of the stress involved around timescales, opportunity and finance.
“These changes will make the exam more accessible, as it will allow candidates to have two attempts at the written papers within the same diet, which need to be passed before being allowed to proceed to the practical exam and it will also help improve accessibility to the exam from the perspective of candidate finances.
www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam
The database, which has been designed to streamline the process of securing extra-mural study (EMS) placements for veterinary students and providers in the UK, has been backed by the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and both organisations are now calling on veterinary practices and workplaces to sign up.
The College says it created the database to improve the accessibility and overall experience of booking EMS placements, mainly by aligning students' and providers' expectations before the placement.
EMS place providers will be able to list their placements and highlight details such as placement type, location, expected caseload/type, professional learning opportunities and practical aspects that students will look for such as transport links, accommodation and specific dates / availability.
Students will be able to search for placements based on their specific requirements and communicate directly with providers.
UK vet schools will also have access to be able to approve placements, streamlining the process.
RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, said: “By providing EMS placements, you’ll play a vital role in shaping the future of the veterinary profession.
"Hosting passionate, knowledgeable students not only enhances their educational experience and readiness for working life after graduation, but also brings fresh insights and energy to your practice.
"Additionally, you’ll build relationships with future veterinary talent, some of whom may return to work with your team after graduation.
"So, if you are not already a provider, we encourage you to consider the value of participating in EMS.”
If you are an existing placement provider and would like to join the RCVS National EMS Booking Database or are keen to learn more about the database and becoming an EMS placement provider, contact ems@rcvs.org.uk.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/extra-mural-studies-ems
Meantime, the school was given a “conditional accreditation” for its degree, as it had met only 27 of the 77 RCVS accreditation standards.
The visitation was conducted by an accreditation panel comprising representatives from veterinary academia and clinical practice, as well as student and international representatives.
As part of the accreditation process, the panel considered documents and records, discussions and interviews with students and faculty members, a tour of the teaching facilities, and meetings with other stakeholders.
Based on the evidence, the panel agreed 55 recommendations for improvement which were then discussed, alongside the formal response from the Department, by the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), the body responsible for considering accreditation reports and making recommendations to Education Committee.
By contrast, the accreditation visit to the University of Bristol this year generated just one recommendation, likewise the visit to the University of Surrey last year.
Due to the unusually high number of recommendations and concerns about the delivery of the Cambridge degree, PQSC recommended that the programme receive conditional accreditation for 10 months, which was then agreed by Education Committee.
An RCVS spokesperson said: “Following careful review of the evidence, during the Committee’s detailed discussions, it was unanimously agreed that the number of standards not currently being met, which extended across all domains, meant that the Committee made the difficult decision to grant conditional accreditation.
“In reaching a decision and timeframe, given the problems identified, and the impact these will have on student learning and experience, Education Committee members firmly agreed on the need to help the vet school support both existing students on, and future applicants to, the Cambridge veterinary programme.”
“At the next visitation in September 2025, a panel will consider the evidence submitted and then a decision will be made on the future status of the degree.”
"In the meantime, we recognise that both students and staff might have concerns about this outcome, so we remain able and very willing to work closely with the Department in the coming weeks to ensure it has appropriate support plans in place.”
The full list of recommendations, suggestions and commendations for Cambridge can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/visitations.
The symposium aims to promote effective knowledge exchange and collaboration, the sharing of high-quality evidence-based research, and inclusivity within the veterinary mental health research community.
Dr Louise Allum, Mind Matters Chair, said: “Our fifth symposium in 2025 will centre around the theme of ‘Advancing veterinary mental health research: learning from the past, considering the present, and looking to the future’.
"It is of vital importance that we can collectively learn from recent endeavours to work out how we can collaborate towards creating a brighter future for the professions.
"It is only through events such as our symposia that we can start to understand where those vital research gaps lie, as well as what actions we need to take next in order to advance our understanding of veterinary mental health.
“Our symposium presents a fantastic opportunity for knowledge exchange in the veterinary mental health research sphere so that, together, we can continue to foster a compassionate environment and build a solid evidence-base for veterinary mental health research to grow and evolve.”
All abstract submissions must be completed and sent via email to symposium@rcvs.org.uk by 23.59 GMT on Friday 28 February 2025.
The symposium will take place on Friday 10 October 2025 in Birmingham, UK.
https://vetmindmatters.org/research/mmi-research-symposiums
Each charge related to fraudulent pet insurance claims that Mr Johnston had made for the treatment of animals when he was in practice in Banbridge, County Down, two of which were fictitious, and where he had arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account, rather than the practice’s bank account.
At an initial hearing, which concluded on April 2022, Mr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee was satisfied that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, with Committee Chair Paul Morris saying: “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 in November 2022 the Committee considered what sanction to impose in relation to Dr Johnston’s actions.
At this point, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of two years on the condition that Dr Johnston enter into undertakings to the Committee 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.
The hearing reconvened in October 2024 to decide on an appropriate sanction.
The Committee noted that Mr Johnston had complied with the undertakings and provided the Committee with the interim reports required of him.
He also continued with the therapeutic interventions and programmes specified, as well as implemented measures designed to minimise the risk of a relapse into gambling.
The Committee also noted that reports from the gambling support services, to which Mr Johnston had signed up, all spoke positively about his involvements and confirmed the progress he had achieved in managing his addiction.
The Committee also took into account a psychiatric report as well as evidence under oath from Mr Johnston’s wife who confirmed his compliance with the undertakings.
As a result, the Committee was satisfied that the prospects of a repeat of the conduct which led to the charges laid against Dr Johnston were now greatly reduced.
The Committee said it was less impressed with the evidence provided by Mr Johnston.
While he had largely complied with the letter of the undertakings he gave in 2022, it remained troubled by his apparent unwillingness or inability, on account of lack of effort, to fulfil the assurances previously given that he was in the process of changing his name to Johnston, from Fegan, on official documentation in order to be consistent with his legal name, when he had not done so.
The only formal name change in place was on the RCVS Register, and he had failed to alter his name on his driver’s licence, on his registration with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, his passport, bank accounts, and one of his email addresses.
As a result, the Committee did not find Dr Johnston to be an entirely satisfactory witness.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having made the progress that he has over the period since the commission of the charges found proved in 2019, the Committee considers that the imposition of a sanction of suspension on top of the period of postponement would be excessive, in the particular circumstances of this case.
“For the same reasons, as stated above, it is considered that it would be excessive now to impose a sanction of removal from the register.
“That process of reasoning has driven the Committee to the conclusion that the sanction of a reprimand and warning as to future conduct is what the facts and circumstances of this case call for.
"That is because the respondent can be under no illusion about the outcome were he to appear again before this Committee.
"A failure to take advantage of the exceptional course adopted by this Committee on this occasion would be regarded as a serious aggravating factor were he to appear before the Committee at any time in the future.”