York-based Dr Michael Richard Jones has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for two months, for making dishonest entries in horse passports and subsequently making dishonest entries in the same horses’ clinical records.

The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.

The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.

The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.

Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.

Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven. 

Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.

Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.

However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.

Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.

"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."

The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.

Midlands-based Dr Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS has been reprimanded and warned by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for serious professional misconduct involving drink driving convictions and being under the influence of alcohol whilst on duty as a veterinary surgeon.

The committee heard five charges against Dr Davies at a resumed hearing of an inquiry which was originally adjourned in January and then July 2018. The decision was made, at both the 2018 hearings, to postpone the final decision on the sanction.

The first two charges against Dr Davies related to convictions for drink driving in March 2014 and October 2015 for which she received driving bans of 17 and 45 months.

The third charge related to her breaching a number of undertakings she had entered into as part of the College’s Health Protocol, including her consuming alcohol on four occasions between May 2015 and January 2016 and missing a pre-arranged appointment with a consultant psychiatrist appointed.

The fourth and fifth charges related to being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016 which was also in breach of her undertakings under the Health Protocol.

At Dr Davies' first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, she admitted all five charges against her and also accepted that her conduct was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.

At the conclusion of its hearing on 23 January 2018 the Committee decided to postpone its decision regarding sanction for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into undertakings, including not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement and to undergo blood and hair tests for alcohol consumption every two months.

At the resumed hearing on 30 July 2018, Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that she wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed evidence that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with her undertakings.

However, the Committee retained concerns about Dr Davies' return to practise and therefore required her to identify a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor, noting that the mentor would have to be acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity.

The Committee also required the continuation of the requirements for abstinence from alcohol and the programme of blood and hair testing.

A further requirement of the Committee was that Dr Davies should make a disclosure to any new employer of her appearances before the Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions it made.

The final requirement of the Committee was that the respondent should not accept a ‘sole charge position’ at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction. The Committee then directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.

The Disciplinary Committee resumed its inquiry on 7th August 2019, when Dr Davies submitted documentary proof and medical records to demonstrate she had complied with all her undertakings given at the last hearing. The Committee also heard from Dr Davies’ appointed veterinary mentor who provided a statement that concluded that she no longer needed monitoring or supervision.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Davies.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The view of the Committee is that the respondent has to date overcome her addiction to alcohol and, given that her competence as a practising veterinary surgeon is not disputed, that she should therefore be permitted to return to her chosen profession. However, in the judgment of this Committee the seriousness of the offences to which the Respondent has pleaded guilty means that a sanction of “No Further Action” cannot be justified."

The Committee therefore decided that the most proportionate sanction was for Dr Davies to be reprimanded as to the conduct she admitted at previous hearings and that she be warned as to her future conduct.

Ian added: "The respondent must understand that she has been given an opportunity to prove that, for the remainder of her time in practice, she can meet the high standards expected of all registered veterinary surgeons from both other practitioners and from members of the public who entrust the care and treatment of their animals to members of this profession."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Leicester-based Jatinder Dhami MRCVS for four months after he was found guilty of kicking and stamping on a dog that had bitten him.

The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.

The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.

The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.

The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.

In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.

Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.

In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."

In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both. 

Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.

The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’. 

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems. 

In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.

Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."

Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to take no further action against London-based Eleonora Corsi MRCVS after a hearing regarding the care of a pregnant Chihuahua named Kika.

Dr Corsi consulted with Kika's owners about the management of her pregnancy at the end of November 2017, finding at least 4 puppies on an x-ray taken at the time. 

The first of five charges against Dr Corsi was that on the 14th December, after being advised by Kika's owners that the dog had produced two live puppies and one dead puppy the previous night, she failed to advise them that Kika needed an immediate veterinary examination.

The second charge was that, having been telephoned for a second time by the owner, she still failed to advise the owners that Kika required an immediate veterinary examination.

The third charge was that, following an examination of Kika that afternoon, and having ascertained that Kika required a caesarean section to remove one undelivered puppy, Dr Corsi failed to perform the caesarean section that day and advised the owner that Kika could undergo the caesarean section (at the practice, performed by her) the next day (or words to the effect).

The charge also stated that she failed to advise the owner that Kika’s health and welfare required the caesarean section to be performed that day; and that she failed to advise them that, if she or another veterinary surgeon at the practice could not perform the surgery that day, Kika needed to be referred to the out-of-hours clinic so that the caesarean section could take place on the 14th December.

The fourth charge was that Dr Corsi failed to recognise that Kika’s health and welfare required a caesarean section to be performed on 14th December.

The fifth charge was that, on 16th December 2017, having been telephoned by the owner at about 5pm and having been informed that Kika was weak and had not been eating post-operatively, Dr Corsi failed to advise the owner that Kika should be presented urgently for a veterinary examination.

The Disciplinary Committee considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the owners of Kika and Dr Corsi, and from Mr Maltman MRCVS who was called as an expert witness on behalf of the College and Mr Chitty, who was called as an expert witness on behalf of Dr Corsi. 

Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee found all aspects of the first and second charges proven in their entirety.

The Committee found the majority of the third charge not proved, with the exception of the fact that it found that Dr Corsi did advise the owner that she could undertake the Caesarean section on 15 December 2017.

In light of the Committee’s findings in respect of the aspects of charge three that were not proved, charge four was also found not proved.

Finally, the Committee considered that charge five was found not proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct either individually and/or cumulatively.

Committee Chair Cerys Jones said: "In light of the evidence of both parties’ experts, the Committee was of the view that there was a risk of harm or injury resulting from Dr Corsi’s failure - the Committee decided that this was an aggravating factor.

"However, the Committee took into account that, at the time of both calls, Dr Corsi had a rationale for her decision, that she asked appropriate questions and received answers which led her to make what she considered to be a reasoned assessment.

"She had also made arrangements in both calls to be kept updated either at a pre-arranged time or sooner if Kika’s condition changed. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that, while this was an error of judgement, it did not fall so far short of what was expected as to amount to disgraceful conduct."

Therefore, the Committee decided that while Dr Corsi’s conduct in Charges 1 and 2 demonstrated a departure from professional standards,  the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The full decision can be read here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Lincolnshire-based Elizabeth Sing May Law MRCVS after hearing charges against her and Julia Louise Creese MRCVS which concerned an incident where a dog remained at their practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare.

The charge against Ms Law was that in November 2017, having performed surgery on Kiwi, a German Shepherd/Wolfhound-cross dog, to address gastric dilation volvulus (GDV), she failed to obtain informed consent to the entirety of the surgical process and management, including post-operative aftercare.

The charge also stated that she failed to provide adequate analgesia to Kiwi before, during or after the surgery, failed to provide appropriate and adequate fluid therapy to Kiwi, failed to offer an appropriate and adequate post-operative care plan and/or post-operative transfer for Kiwi to another practice and failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice to provide post-operative monitoring and aftercare for Kiwi for approximately seven hours during the night.

Finally the charge stated that Ms Law allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight from 12:30am to 07:45am without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare.

Ms Law admitted some of the charges against her, including that she had failed to obtain informed consent, failed to offer an appropriate and/or adequate post-operative care plan, failed to inform the owners that there would be nobody present at the practice and allowed Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring and/or post-operative aftercare. However, she denied that she failed to provide adequate analgesia or fluid therapy to Kiwi. 

The Committee found all of the charges proved, with the exception of failing to provide adequate analgesia during the perioperative period.

Having considered the facts, the Committee then moved on to consider whether the admitted and proven charges against Ms Law amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating features were that, as a result of Ms Law’s failures in relation to analgesia and fluid therapy, there was either actual injury to Kiwi, or a risk of such injury.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that she promptly and accurately diagnosed GDV, and proceeded to perform the necessary emergency surgery. The Committee considered that the charges related to a single isolated incident and that Ms Law has had an unblemished career to date. They also noted that Ms Law had made open and frank admissions as to the majority of the charges. 

The Committee found that the conduct of Ms Law set out in the majority of the charges did not amount to serious professional misconduct. However, in the judgement of the Committee, Ms Law’s conduct in allowing Kiwi to remain at the practice overnight without adequate monitoring or post-operative aftercare did amount to serious professional misconduct. 

Jane Downes, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent (Ms Law) has insight into the serious mistake that she made in failing to ensure that Kiwi was checked or monitored overnight. The Committee has found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved a serious lapse of clinical judgement, which will probably stay in the mind of the respondent for the rest of her career.

"The respondent has been in practice for some nine years now, and apart from this incident, there is no suggestion that the respondent has fallen short of the standards expected of her on any other occasion.  The Committee does not consider that there is a risk that the respondent is likely to leave an animal overnight after major surgery again, without ensuring that it is checked during that time, and, as such, the Committee considers that there is no future risk to the welfare of animals so far as the respondent is concerned."

The Committee considered that the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in this case is too serious for no further action to be taken, having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

The Committee therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction in this case was to issue a reprimand to Ms Law, in relation to the finding of serious professional misconduct.

Jane Downes added: "The Committee considers that this sanction, coupled with the findings of fact and disgraceful conduct made against the respondent, is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. The Committee does not consider it necessary to issue a warning to the respondent about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is no risk of repetition."

There were three charges against Ms Creese, all pertaining to the period between July 2016 and November 2017.

The first charge was that she failed to ensure that there were adequate systems and processes in place for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients.

The second charge was that she publicised that the practice had "24 hour care provided by our vets at our practice" and/or "Care 24/7 for your pets" on its website, which suggested that staff were present at the practice 24 hours a day when they were not and as such publicity was dishonest and/or misleading.

The third charge against Ms Creese was that she failed to ensure that Kiwi's owners were informed about arrangements at the practice for out-of-hours’ care for in-patients. 

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Creese denied all the charges against her. 

After hearing evidence from relevant witnesses, the Committee considered that the practice did have in place systems and processes for out-of-hours care for in-patients and that there was no evidence of repeated or ignored failures of these systems and processes. The Committee therefore found the charges against Ms Creese not proved and all three were dismissed.

The RCVS has removed 346 veterinary surgeons from the Register for non-payment of their annual renewal fee.

The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2019, with the 346 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2019, compared to 308 last year.

Those who were removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.

The RCVS says it sent reminders to all MsRCVS, including emails and text messages, reminding them that the fee was due. Letters were sent to those members that the College does not have an email address or mobile telephone number for.

A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published. Practices are encouraged to check the list to ensure that no employees are named.

The College also wants to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.

Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.

Shams Mir MRCVS, Chair of the BVU, has launched a petition to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which asks that they do not allow remote prescription of POM-V medicines without a physical examination, as was proposed and discussed at the Council meeting held at the end of last year

The petition follows the news that IVC is to launch its own telemedicine service, joining three others already in the game, at least one of which is pushing for a relaxation of the rules surrounding the  prescription of POM-V medicines.

For clarity, veterinary surgeons are currently allowed to remote prescribe medicines for animals that meet the definition of 'under his care' (i.e. seen immediately before, or "recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe").

In other words, there is nothing to stop bricks and mortar practices offering video consultations and prescribing medicines to those of their existing clients that they have seen recently enough. 

What Shams and the BVU are petitioning against is the idea of allowing companies staffed by veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines for animals that they have never seen in the flesh.

They argue that remote prescribing will:

1. First and foremost risk animal patient welfare and herd health

2. Create a two-tier system of care within the profession

3. Break down the practice-based vet-client relationship 

4. Disrupt veterinary services due to complications related to out-of-hours emergency cover, transfer of patient and patient histories etc. of remotely treated patients

5. Cause clients to face increased costs by paying for telemedicine consultations and then requiring examination and treatment in practice

6. Negatively impact the financial condition of veterinary practices and professionals.

These all seem very possible consequences of allowing remote prescribing, indeed some have already come to pass in the world of human medicine following the launch of Babylon.

The counter argument is that remote prescription will improve access to veterinary care as people don’t have to flog down to the practice for a flea treatment and the cost of a consultation is reduced. There is surely truth in that.

The other point that is fundamental to this debate is the type of drug being prescribed remotely. With so many small animal parasiticides having already gone OTC, is it really necessary to talk to a veterinary surgeon before buying a POM-V flea treatment? Perhaps not.

However, that doesn’t necessarily present a case for remote prescribing such drugs; if they don’t need veterinary input, then you could equally argue they just need reclassifying.

So, should you sign this petition? Well, I think so, yes. Remote prescribing will come. It’s inevitable. But given the risks, surely the pragmatic starting point is to trial remote prescribing amongst existing clients of bricks and mortar practices, and only if that is successful to broaden it to non-clients of bricks and mortar practices.

If both those proved successful, and with technology advancing in the background, it might then be sensible to look at whether non bricks and mortar practices could remote prescribe. But that’s quite a big ‘might’.

Meantime, you can sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-stop-authorising-prescription-of-pom-v-without-physical-examination-of-the-patient

You can discuss the petition with Shams here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/nonclinical/f/6/t/28273.aspx

This week, the RCVS will be sending every veterinary surgeon its Survey of the Profession, designed amongst other things to help the College and other organisations prioritise the issues they tackle and the support they offer.

The survey is conducted every four to five years and asks vets to answer questions about a variety of subjects including demographic data (for example, socio-economic background, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, disability), work-related data (for example, employment status, location of workplace, type of workplace, hours of work, position in practice) and information about professional achievement (for example, hours of continuing professional development (CPD) undertaken and extra qualifications earned).

The survey, which is conducted on the College’s behalf by the Institute for Employment Studies, also ask respondents about their views on different aspects of their profession, including career plans, challenges facing the profession, and wellbeing. 

This year, the survey also asks for your view of the RCVS, including its values, how it should communicate, and what it should prioritise in future years.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO (pictured right), said: "The results of the Surveys form a very important ‘snapshot’ of the profession at a given point in time, but they also prove useful for years to come in terms of how the College develops its regulatory and educational policy, the areas it chooses to focus on and the issues it chooses to tackle. 

"The ensuing reports are also used by a myriad of other individuals, such as those in academia, government and representative bodies, as well as journalists. It’s therefore really important that we have as accurate a picture as possible. So although completing the Surveys is entirely voluntary, we strongly encourage members of the professions to take the time to complete them. It will, ultimately, help the development of appropriate and supportive policies for your profession."

In addition to the main survey, there will be an additional survey for MsRCVS who practise overseas. This survey aims to better understand why they continue to retain their MRCVS status, what this status means in the countries in which they work, global attitudes towards the RCVS and how the College could improve its communication with them.

Dunbartonshire-based Georgina Bretman has been struck off the Register of Veterinary Nurses by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee following her conviction in 2017 for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal.

In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.

Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years. 

At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.

The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.

The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to  Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."

The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.

She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.

However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.

In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.

In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.

Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.

"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession". 

The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has been awarded the Laureate Award by the Great Place to Work initiative, for being within the top 50 best places to work in the UK for five years in a row.

RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: "I am so proud of our performance in the Great Place to Work Awards and the efforts of everyone at the College, and especially our HR team, who have been tirelessly and creatively striving to make the College a wonderful place to work.

"Consistently being placed in the top 50 Great Places to Work is also a testament to the sustained hard work all of our employees and the important part they play in creating a supportive, interesting and good-humoured workplace.

"We are a service-led organisation and we want to make sure that we give our best to the veterinary professions and the general public. If our team enjoys the work, and the workplace, that will improve the service we are able to offer and, ultimately, benefit animal health and welfare."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended London-based veterinary surgeon Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq for six months, and found no misconduct against Mr Oscar Perez Maillo in the hearing of a case in which two newborn puppies were taken from their owner.

The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.

Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.

The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.

There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest. 

The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.

As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.

The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.

The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.

However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.

In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.

The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.

The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.

Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.

In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.

"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.

"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.

"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."

The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that RCVS President-elect Niall Connell, Linda Belton and Jo Dyer have been re-elected to Council after what is believed to have been a record turn out this century.

A total of 8,234 votes were cast in this year’s election, a turnout of 25.5%. The College says the previous highest turnout recorded this century was 22.8%, and it thinks this year's result may even be an all-time record.

It is unclear how much the results were influenced by VetSurgeon.org's reporting of the candidates standing for election, but in another first, Niall Connell was later seen sporting a t-shirt displaying the story: "Arlo said I'm 'by all accounts, something of a national treasure'. Had to do it. Got the T Shirt."

You're welcome, Niall. And huge congratulations to Jo Dyer, who is such a passionate advocate for coal face vets, and to Linda Belton too. 

At the other end of the results, isn't it staggering that there are as many as 422 MsRCVS who are prepared to vote for a single non-issue candidate based the other side of the world. Who are you? Why do you do it? I mean, one can understand a few people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party out of the general population numbering millions. But 5% of a small, highly educated and qualified profession? What on earth is that about?

The full results, in order of number of votes, are:

• Niall Connell – 3,766 votes (re-elected)

• Linda Belton – 3,581 votes (elected)

• Jo Dyer – 3,146 votes (re-elected)

• John Innes – 2,716 votes

• Kate Richards – 2,283 votes

• Tim Greet – 2,280 votes 

• Peter Robinson – 1,791 votes

• John Davies – 507 votes

• Tom Lonsdale – 422 votes

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Congratulations to Niall and Jo for being re-elected to Council and congratulations also to Linda who we look forward to welcoming to Council at this year’s Royal College Day on Friday 12 July. I would also like to thank Kate, Tim and Peter for their contributions during their time on Council and give my commiserations to them and the other candidates who were unsuccessful this year. 

"I was delighted to see that, this year, we had over a quarter of those eligible to vote doing so which means both a record number of votes and a record turnout – it seems this was assisted by our email reminders which, each time they were sent out, lead to a significant boost in uptake.

"However, we will not rest on our laurels and will continue to think about how we can further improve engagement in the election process and turnout for subsequent years."

The results of the election will be declared formally at this year’s Royal College Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 12 July 2019 where the successful candidates will also start their new four-year terms.

No election to Veterinary Nursing Council was held this year due to the fact that there were only two candidates – Liz Cox and Jane Davidson – standing for the two elected places. Both Liz and Jane will take up their three-year terms at Royal College Day.

This morning, VetSurgeon.org published an April Fools fake news story, to the effect that the RCVS planned to increase retention fees by 150%.

I had hoped that the increasing absurdity of the reasons given for the rise might have tipped everyone off to the fact that the story was a spoof.

The idea that the College would ask its members to fund some glitzy, showy, award-winning designer headquarters along the lines of London’s City Hall? C’mon. London City Hall employs 1000 staff, whilst the Royal College employs less than 100. And let's face it, the RCVS has no record of having showy offices. On the contrary, it has managed to operate out of a sardine can now for a great many years. Have you ever been in the lift at Horseferry Road? You need to breathe in.

Or that the College had set aside £6M to recruit and pay 20 veterinary surgeons as short term contracted OVs to help in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Let’s say a flight from Delhi to London costs £500, give or take. Twenty vets. That’s £10,000 to get them here. Let's say they’re here for 6 months. That’s £299,500 per vet. You really think the College is going to ask you to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds to fly in a single vet for 6 months? Or that 20 recruits would solve the predicted OV shortage?

Lastly, the quote, supposedly from an Indian vet, but one with a name that doesn’t really sound like a name (still less an Indian one), but does sound strangely like it may be an anagram of April Fool.

There have been a small number of reports of people being really upset by this story. I guess they must have skim read, or only read the headline.

To them I want to say sorry, I genuinely didn’t mean to upset anyone.

In fact, I thought it might cause some reflection on what good value the RCVS really offers. It maintains the register and thereby your ability to practice, it runs the disciplinary process (an essential component of maintaining public trust), it oversees and sets educational standards, it awards Fellowships, Diplomas and Certificates, it runs the Practice Standards Scheme.

All that, and more for £340 per annum?

Honestly? I think it would be cheap at half the price.

Photo: Truth is that the RCVS has operated out of a sardine can for years.
By Rl - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link