The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who'd fallen victim to a corrupt system and consequently bribed a professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest.

Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty. 

Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.

At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.

The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.

Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.

The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.

Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.

"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."

In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.

Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?

Discuss here.

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

The RCVS has produced a checklist poster for use in practice to help veterinary surgeons remember the things they need to consider when delegating work to veterinary nurses under Schedule 3.

Under Schedule 3, vets can delegate medical treatment and minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to registered veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses under certain circumstances.

However, following an RCVS survey of the profession to gauge how well both vets and vet nurses understood the provisions of Schedule 3, the College says it was clear that both groups, but especially vets, could benefit from additional guidance and greater clarity.

Following the publication of the survey report, the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Schedule 3 Working Party made a number of recommendations, including the production of a number of case studies (available via www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3) and a reference poster to help veterinary surgeons in making decisions on delegation in practice. 

An A3/A4 poster setting out the principles of delegation has now been prepared and will be printed and posted to all UK veterinary practice premises this autumn.

Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, who helped develop the poster with the RCVS Standards Committee and the College’s Standards & Advice Team, said: "It was clear from the survey results that we could do more to help vets and vet nurses understand and remember the principles of delegation under Schedule 3, so hopefully our six-point checklist, using the memorable mnemonic 'SUPERB', will do just that.

"If the poster can be placed in a prominent position in the practice setting, we hope it will become a handy, everyday reference tool for all veterinary professionals, and help vets remember the six questions they need to consider before delegating work to their VN colleagues. 

SUPERB stands for:

• Specific procedure – is the procedure medical treatment or minor surgery not involving entry into a body cavity?

• Under care – is the animal under your care?

• Person – can you delegate to this person?

• Experience – does the RVN/SVN feel capable, and have sufficient competence and expertise?

• Risks – have you considered the risks specific to this case?

• Be there – are you available to direct or supervise as necessary?

Only if you, as a vet, can answer 'yes' to all six questions, can you delegate the job to an RVN or SVN.

The poster will also available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3 where further resources about delegation are available, including links to the relevant chapter of the supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Schedule 3 case studies.

I think anything which gives veterinary surgeons confidence to delegate more is to be warmly welcomed. But what do you think? Will this poster encourage you to delegate more, or less, or the same? Discuss here. 

Geoffrey William Irvine MRCVS and Igor Vasilev MRCVS have been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after a hearing into the case of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, called Rupert, which died following dental surgery.

The charge against Dr Irvine was that in July 2017, he failed to discuss with the owners alternative treatment options to dental surgery under general anaesthetic, or the risks of dental surgery under general anaesthetic, and failed to obtain informed consent from the owners for the surgery.

Dr Vasilev was also originally charged with failing to discuss alternative treatment options or the risks of the surgery and failing to obtain informed consent. However, at the outset of the hearing, as a result of new information which came to light, the RCVS opted to offer no evidence in relation to these charges. Mr Vasilev was separately charged with failing to maintain clear, accurate and detailed clinical records in relation to his treatment of the dog. 

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Irvine denied all aspects of the charge against him; while Dr Vasilev admitted all aspects of the remaining charge.

The Committee heard how Rupert's dental surgery under general anaesthetic was recommended by Mr Irvine on 10th July and performed by Dr Vasilev on 11th July 2017. After the surgery, Rupert was discharged, but vomited in his sleep that same night. He was brought back to the practice on 12th July, where Dr Vasilev administered antiemetic and antibiotic medication.

However, Rupert continued to vomit over the next five days, and was seen by the practice on 17th July and then on 18th when blood tests were conducted. Rupert’s condition deteriorated as he continued to vomit and lose weight and he was brought back to the practice on 22nd July where he was euthanased by Dr Vasilev.

The Committee heard evidence from Rupert’s owners as well as two expert witnesses. It found the first aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that there was an inadequate discussion with the owners regarding the option of delaying the dental treatment on Rupert because of his recent ascites caused by congestive heart failure.

The Committee found the second aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that he had not discussed the risks of Rupert undergoing general anaesthetic given the recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure, following which (in relation to the third aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine), it was therefore found proven that he had failed to gain informed consent.

With all aspects of the charge against Mr Irvine being proven, and with Dr Vasilev admitting the charge against him, the Committee went on to consider if the proven and admitted charges against both amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In respect of Mr Irvine, Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was not persuaded that the failure to obtain informed consent from [the owner] and discuss matters further with her on 10th July 2017 in the circumstances of this case would amount to serious professional misconduct which would bring the profession into disrepute.

"In the Committee’s judgment, the breach of standards, whilst amounting to professional misconduct, was not serious professional misconduct, in the context of other discussions which had taken place…. The Committee further decided that a finding of serious professional misconduct in this case would be disproportionate having taken into consideration the discussions that Mr Irvine had with [the owner] prior to 10th July 2017 and the fact he was dealing with a complex and changing case.

"The Committee therefore found that Mr Irvine was not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The Committee noted that Dr Vasilev had admitted breaching the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in respect of failing to keep adequate clinical and client records.

However, in mitigation, the Committee considered a number of factors including that, in failing to maintain adequate notes related to Rupert’s treatment, Dr Vasilev had followed the standard of notetaking in the practice as set out by Mr Irvine who was practice principal; that Dr Vasilev had only worked with Mr Irvine in the UK and his record-keeping was limited to working in one practice; that Dr Vasilev admitted his failures at an early stage of the proceedings; that he had made efforts to avoid repetition in the future by undertaking webinars and research; and, that he had shown insight into the need to ensure full communication and detailed note-taking. 

Stuart Drummond added: "In relation to Dr Vasilev, the Committee was satisfied that [his] standard of record-keeping was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and that the breach… amounted to professional misconduct.

"The Committee concluded that the breaches overall, when considering the context and number of mitigating factors, were, in the Committee’s view, insufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct…. Accordingly it found Dr Vasilev not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen from the Register for three months for being dishonest with, and making false representations to, the College.

At his first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, the Committee directed that Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen’s name be removed from the Register after finding him guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of four charges against him. These related to an incident of petty theft in California in the United States, and his subsequent dishonesty in not disclosing this to the College.

Following the Disciplinary Committee hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. In July 2019, the Privy Council partially upheld his appeal, determining that  the RCVS had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen’s infraction for petty theft was a conviction under Californian law and therefore Dr Schulze Allen had not made false representations to the College when he said he did not have any criminal convictions or a criminal record.

However, the Privy Council partially upheld the College’s charge that Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest and made false representations when he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any adverse findings and that he should have declared his infraction for petty theft. The Privy Council also set aside the Disciplinary Committee’s original sanction and remitted the task of sanction back to the Disciplinary Committee.

As a result of the Privy Council’s decision, the Disciplinary Committee held a further hearing in relation to Dr Schulze Allen to decide the sanction in relation to the upheld charge against him.

The Committee noted that the aggravating factors were the fact that Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest to his regulator and in making a false declaration, demonstrated a wilful disregard for the regulatory role of the RCVS. In mitigation the Committee considered that there was no harm to animals, that it was a single and isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career, and that he had accepted his wrongdoing, albeit at a late stage, and was developing some insight.

The Committee considered whether a reprimand or warning would be the most appropriate sanction but determined that this would not reflect the seriousness of the dishonesty in this case, nor maintain public confidence in the profession or uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is suspension from the Register for a period of three months. A period of three months reflects the seriousness of the charge. Such a sanction sends a clear message to Dr Schulze Allen, the profession and the public that behaving dishonestly towards the regulator is a serious matter. The Committee considered that removal from the Register would be disproportionate given that this is a single incident and Dr Schulze Allen now accepts his wrongdoing."

The RCVS Council has approved the University of Surrey School of Veterinary Medicine’s degree, so pending final approval from the Privy Council, those completing the degree will be able to register with the RCVS as veterinary surgeons in the UK.

The first cohort of students started the course in September 2014 and graduated in July 2019 this year. During that time, the College worked with the University to make sure its programme was developed to meet RCVS standards. That included interim visitations by a team of accreditation reviewers and a final accreditation visitation by representatives of the RCVS, the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) and the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC).

After the final visitation, a report was submitted to the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), which then recommended to the Education Committee that the RCVS recognises the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree (subject to satisfactory external examiner reports, which were subsequently received). In turn, the RCVS Council then approved the degree last week.

Dr Sue Paterson, the Chair of the Education Committee, said: "We are very glad to have reached the stage where we can formally welcome the University of Surrey on board as the eighth UK veterinary school to offer an approved degree, and that we will, from now on and pending Privy Council’s approval, be able to welcome its graduates onto the Register as proud members of the RCVS.

"We appreciate the immense hard work of both the faculty and the student body over the past five years in working to meet the College’s stringent accreditation standards and the effort that they have made to address our feedback and advice in a constructive and engaged way.

"When I observed at the final accreditation visit earlier this year I, along with the other visitors, was particularly impressed with the enthusiasm and commitment of the staff, the network of partner veterinary practices and the student body to the school’s ethos and success. We also recognised that, with its unique ‘distributive model’ meaning that students can get direct clinical experience across 49 veterinary practice partners, the students have access to a large and diverse medical and surgical caseload.

"The final report contained a number of further recommendations and we look forward to continuing to work with the school over the next two years to help them meet our recommendations and suggestions."

Professor Chris Proudman, Head of School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, added: "I am delighted that our new degree programme in veterinary medicine and science has been approved by RCVS Council for recognition by the Privy Council.

"This decision recognises the huge investment in veterinary education made by the university and the quality of the education that we offer. It is also validation of our innovative model of delivering clinical teaching through working in partnership with clinical practices and other organisations involved in animal health, which has proven very popular with our students."

“The commitment and enthusiasm of our partners has been truly inspiring and energising. I look forward to Surrey veterinary graduates making valuable contributions to the profession in a variety of ways over the coming years.”

A Recognition Order to recognise the University of Surrey’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) will now be put before the Privy Council and, if it approves the Order, this will then be laid before Parliament. If the Order is approved by both the Privy Council and Parliament, the University of Surrey will then enter the cyclical RCVS accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring. 

The executive summary of the final visitation report can be found in the papers for the October 2019 meeting of RCVS Council: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/3-october-2019/. The full report will be published in due course.

Picture shows:(from left to right) Dr Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee; Professor Chris Proudman, Head of School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey; and Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President.

The RCVS has published details about its plans for a comprehensive review of its guidance to the veterinary profession on ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover, including a broad timetable for evidence gathering, policy drafting, and public consultation.

The review, announced earlier this year, was recommended to RCVS Council by its Standards Committee following its exploration of the implications of new technologies for both animal health and welfare and veterinary regulation.

The main areas under consideration include the provision of 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon.

The initial stages of this review had been drafted for Standards Committee to consider at its meeting on 9 September, where the outline timetable was also discussed.

Standards Committee Chair Melissa Donald, said: "This is set to become one of our most fundamental reviews of RCVS guidance in recent years.

"Considering the complexity of the issues in question, and their importance to animal owners and the professions alike, it is vital that we allow ourselves enough time to ensure this review is as thorough and comprehensive as possible.

"We have a clear responsibility to seek, understand and, where we can, accommodate the opinions and experiences of as many different people from within and around the professions and the public as possible. I would urge my fellow vets and vet nurses to please find some time to consider these issues very carefully over the coming weeks and months, and to send us their views."

The review will comprise several stages and is expected to take around 12 months to complete. The outline timetable, which may be subject to change, is as follows:

• October 2019 – January 2020: six-week Call for Evidence, followed by independent qualitative analysis of all evidence received 

• February – March: Select Committee-style meetings and independent qualitative analysis of additional evidence gathered [NB this stage is subject to Standards Committee requirements, depending on the evidence gathered.]

• April – June: Consider all evidence and draft any new policy 

• July – August: six-week public consultation on draft policy

• September – October: independent review of consultation responses, and production of any proposals for change

• November 2020: Finalise any proposals for change and publish any new guidance

To support and promote the various stages of the review the College is also planning a programme of stakeholder engagement, and will also provide regular updates on progress to both Council and the wider profession.

Members of the professions and the public will be able to follow the progress of the review via the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare

The RCVS is calling for veterinary surgeons to help test its new continuing professional development (CPD) recording platform which is currently in development.

Earlier this year, the RCVS Council approved the roll-out of a more outcomes-based model of CPD to encourage veterinary professionals to engage in greater reflection on learning and development, and the impact that it has on their professional practice.

To support this approach, Council also approved the development of a new CPD recording platform designed to be more intuitive and to make it easy to record CPD in real time.

The College says the new platform – which has the working title of 'One CPD' – will be a ‘one stop shop’ CPD management solution for veterinary surgeons and nurses at all stages of their careers, including veterinary students and student veterinary nurses.

Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We’re excited to open up access to this powerful, next-generation, tool we’ve been building and welcome our members into an important phase of the development process. Testing with our members will be absolutely critical in delivering the very best experience possible for all those that use 'One CPD' in the future. Ease of use and truly valuable functionality are key deliverables for us and both these need the feedback of our members to perfect."

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), added: "The first stage of the development of the CPD recording platform is due to finish in October and so we are looking for a cohort of both veterinary surgeons and nurses who can spend a few months this autumn using the new platform to record and reflect on their CPD, in order to test out some of the new features which aim to make this process so much easier to do. We will consider their feedback carefully in order to improve the recording platform ready for launch in January 2020.

"The new ‘One CPD’ platform will ultimately replace the current Professional Development Record, and its use will become mandatory for recording CPD from January 2022.

"In addition to setting up the testing group, we are also looking to meet with key CPD providers for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over the coming months to discuss our plans for outcomes-based CPD and the development of the recording platform in greater detail."

Veterinary surgeons who'd like to take part in the testing for the CPD app, as well as CPD providers who want to discuss the College’s CPD policy plans, should contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.

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 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.

The RCVS Council has today announced a 'wide-ranging' review of a number of key provisions of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, following ongoing discussions around trialling the development of telemedicine services, including remote prescribing, in UK veterinary practice.

The review was recommended to Council by its Standards Committee following its exploration of the implications of new technologies for both animal health and welfare and veterinary regulation.

The main areas under consideration are the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon, and the provision of 24-hour emergency cover.

The College says that during the course of its research, which included numerous meetings and reports, a public consultation and examination of external legal advice, the Committee identified a number of anomalies in the College’s existing guidance that could affect how the Code’s provisions were applied across a range of different scenarios.

Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Kate Richards, said: "It became clear to us that we could not consider telemedicine and remote prescribing in isolation and that it raised broader questions around the appropriateness of, and justification for, certain elements of existing RCVS guidance. I’m therefore pleased that RCVS Council has decided that the right and responsible approach is first to conduct a full review of these provisions."

The College anticipates that the review will require wide engagement from all relevant sectors, potentially including a Select Committee-style hearing in certain areas. This, it says, would help to ensure any decision to treat different groups differently, in relation to 'under care' and 'out-of-hours', is both reasoned and justified.

In the meantime, the College says that the current provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance remain in full effect.

Further information about the review will be made available in due course.

UPDATE (19/06/2019)

Following a number of concerns raised by members of the profession about this story, the RCVS has issued a further statement as follows:

We would like to acknowledge and address a number of concerns that have arisen amongst the profession following RCVS Council’s discussion last week that followed up queries raised during the previous debate in November, around the provision of telemedicine services, including remote prescribing.

The RCVS Council decision, made unanimously, was to proceed with a wide-ranging review of RCVS supporting guidance concerning 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of ‘under veterinary care’, and to postpone the proposed telemedicine trial for the foreseeable future and certainly until the conclusion of this review. The review will encompass, but not be limited to, consideration of what restrictions or safeguards to place on remote prescribing in the form of vet-to-client telemedicine.

RCVS Council discussed this paper ‘in committee’ in order to be able to examine the confidential legal advice it had requested at its previous meeting. The decision to hold these discussions privately was purely related to the privileged nature of legal advice and in no way related to any ‘commercial interests’.

We recognise fully that this is a complex issue, with strong views held on all sides. However, it is entirely right and proper for RCVS Council members to be able to discuss and debate such topics in detail, before reaching a decision through a vote. In the course of such discussions, issues may arise that had not previously been identified, and which may alter the original direction of thinking.

We appreciate that Council’s decision was perhaps unexpected, especially as the original topic had been under consideration for some time. This is why we announced it as soon as possible, along with an indication of what Council would like to happen next.

Whilst it is far too early to have worked out the details of the agreed review, it will be open and inclusive in parallel with our previous consultations, which continue to receive considerable levels of engagement across the veterinary professions and wider industry stakeholders.

We will publish full details about our plans for this review over the coming weeks, and will continue to work hard to engage all veterinary professionals in these important decisions.

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.