Warrington-based Natalia Oakes MRCVS has been given a formal warning by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found a number of charges proved in relation to incorrect certification about the conditions of a greyhound kennel.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Miss Oakes had signed a Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Veterinary Surgeons Residential Kennel Inspection Form which indicated that there were 55 greyhounds in the kennel, when there were in fact more; that she had stated that the kennels were in an acceptable condition, when they were in fact not; and that she knew the form was inaccurate and/or was dishonest in relation to what she had indicated on the form.

The kennels in question, Rough Cottage, were owned by Louise Eccles and her husband, Rod Eccles. Mrs Eccles was licensed by GBGB as a trainer, allowing her to train and race greyhounds and making the kennels accountable to inspections by veterinary surgeons.

At the time of the form in question, Miss Oakes had been attending Rough Cottage for about a year-and-a-half on a monthly basis, up through August 2016. At that point, on or around 1 August 2016, Mrs Eccles had left Rough Cottage for personal reasons.

Miss Oakes subsequently visited the premises on 14 August 2016 along with Amanda Gething of Northern Greyhound Rescue, when she learned that rather than there being 55 dogs, there were more than 80. 

On 16 August, she and Amanda Gething returned to Rough Cottage with Lucille Cavadino, from Lancky Dogs, a greyhound rescue organisation. They became aware of the existence of kennels on the premises that were not of acceptable standard, but Miss Oakes found that the dogs housed in these kennels were fit and healthy.

Miss Oakes also spoke to Mr Eccles around this time, and although he had plans to rehouse some of the dogs she was concerned that he might change his mind. Miss Oakes took the decision to complete and sign the kennel inspection form that Mr Eccles had handed to her, knowing that the details contained therein were incorrect. She stated that the reason that she did this was to appease Mr Eccles so that he would not hinder the plans to remove and rehouse the dogs. She admitted to the area GBGB Stipendiary Steward that she had signed the form and that it contained incorrect information.

At the beginning of the hearing Miss Oakes admitted all the charges except for the final one, namely that she had been dishonest about what she had indicated on the form. When she gave evidence during the hearing, however, she admitted that she had been dishonest and so all charges were found proved.

The Committee then turned to deciding whether these charges, having been found proven, would result in a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect against Miss Oakes. The Committee considered her motives in signing the form were to try and safeguard animal welfare, but considered that she was misguided in how she chose to achieve that aim. The Committee, therefore, found that signing a form that is known to be misleading or inaccurate is in definite breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, and concluded that her conduct constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

When considering a suitable sanction, the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors, including some 62 testimonials that were submitted in favour of Miss Oakes, and the fact that she believed she was acting in the best interests of the animals’ welfare.

Chitra Karve, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "So far as mitigating factors are concerned, the Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s motivation for what she did was governed by her overwhelming wish to promote the health or welfare of the greyhounds at Rough Cottage.

"The Committee is satisfied that no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal occurred in this case. There was no financial gain to the Respondent and the Committee has been told that she charged no fee for her extensive efforts in organising or assisting with the removal and rehousing of the greyhounds from Rough Cottage.

"The Committee considers that this was a single and isolated incident and that the risks of similar behaviour being repeated in the future are low."

Chitra added: "The Committee has decided that it will be sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, for the Respondent to be given a formal warning as to her future conduct."

The RCVS has published a summary of the consultation phase of its review of telemedicine within veterinary practice, revealing a profession divided over the risks associated with remote consultations and whether it would be appropriate to prescribe medicines without a physical examination.

The consultation, which was held by the College early in 2017, asked for the views of veterinary surgeons and nurses, animal owners, and stakeholders on the use of telemedicine in veterinary clinical practice.

The consultation was designed to help identify potential risks associated with telemedicine, identify areas where it may help address the needs of both clinicians and the public, and support the potential development of new professional standards and guidance.

The online survey of veterinary professionals received 1,230 responses, while the public consultation received 229 responses and the survey of organisations/stakeholders received eight responses. 

The headline question asked of veterinary professionals was whether RCVS 'supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct' should be amended to allow remote examination to take the place of physical examination in certain circumstances. 41% said 'Yes', 40% said 'No' and 18% were unsure.

Veterinary professionals and organisations were then asked a series of questions in order to establish how they rated the risk associated with telemedicine according to activity type, practice type, clinical sign or syndrome, mode of technology, and familiarity with client, animal or environment.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority felt that providing just general advice presented a low risk. At the other end of the scale, most felt that the use of telemedicine to diagnose disease or injury would be either 'high risk', or 'not appropriate at all'. 

Likewise, the majority said the risks would be low or medium where the client and environment were known and the animal seen before, for the same problem. By contrast, the majority said telemedicine would be either 'high risk' or 'not appropriate at all' when the client, animal and environment were all unknown. 

When asked whether the current definition of 'under care' should be extended to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines where there has been no physical examination of the animal, 69% said 'No', 16% said 'Yes' and 15% were unsure.

However, when asked whether certain types of veterinary medicines should be able to be prescribed without a physical examination of the animal, the majority of respondents to the professional survey (52%) were in favour.

The results of the consultation were first considered at a special meeting of the Standards Committee in August 2017, where it was noted how the consultation had revealed significant confusion around current supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and that, at a minimum, clarification as to what was currently permissible was needed.

The Committee determined a key issue going forward was whether to change the Supporting Guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct regarding 'under care' to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V medicines based on telemedicine alone.

Given the complex nature of the issues and the wide-ranging implications, the Standards Committee presented a range of options for amending RCVS Guidance to RCVS Council at its meeting in November 2017. After discussion, Council asked the Standards Committee to continue their review and to present more detailed proposals to Council regarding the future of telemedicine in clinical veterinary practice.

Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership and Innovation, said: "We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation – although Council has not yet made any firm decisions, we felt it would be useful to share our research so far.

"The use of telemedicine is growing rapidly in human healthcare and it is only right the RCVS assesses the opportunities it could bring to improve access to veterinary services. It is critical, however, that we understand the issues it presents 'at the coal face' and consider all the available evidence before making any changes to our Guidance. The RCVS should ensure its regulatory framework fosters innovation and maximises the opportunities to improve the quality, efficacy and accessibility of veterinary services, whilst at the same time protecting animal health and welfare."

The Standards Committee will meet again in April 2018 to take further evidence and develop proposals to take the issue forward.

Meanwhile, the full summary is available on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/telemeds-summary/.

The RCVS Education Committee has announced short-term changes to the Professional Development Phase (PDP), which helps new veterinary graduates transition into veterinary practice, to provide further support to participants.

The changes follow a jointly-funded research project by the RCVS and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association to evaluate how effective the PDP is in supporting graduates during the transition from veterinary school to veterinary practice.

The research was carried out by the Work Psychology Group and included online surveys, telephone interviews and a focus group with recent graduates and representatives from practices that are currently employing recent graduates.

The aim was to understand both positive and negative experiences of the PDP amongst veterinary graduates and their employers considering existing obstacles to learning and development, any gaps in support provision and common areas of confusion, anxiety and concern. 

Christine Warman, RCVS Director of Education, said: "We are really grateful to everyone that took the time to give us their views and are pleased that this report gives us such a solid foundation on which to base necessary changes. What came across very strongly from the feedback we received was that the overall purpose and aims of the PDP were welcomed by graduates, employers and other stakeholders as something that is useful and good for the profession.

"Most agreed that having a formal support mechanism for graduates is essential for navigating the transition between the structured environment of veterinary school to the ‘coalface’ of veterinary practice.

"However, it was clear that there are issues with the PDP in its current format, including comments around it being a 'tick-box' or 'check-list' exercise in which the number of tasks completed was seen as more important than a focus on qualitative aspects such as confidence and progression as well as a lack of focus on development of non-clinical skills.

"As a result the Work Psychology Group came up with a series of recommendations which were approved by our PDP Working Group in December 2017 and then our Education Committee in February 2018. Some of these recommendations, as set out below, can be actioned in the short-term and we hope that these will rectify some of the concerns that were raised.

"In the longer-term the future of the PDP and the further recommendations of this research are also being considered as part of our Graduate Outcomes Project which is taking a more holistic view on the skills and competences of future veterinary professionals."

The short-term recommendations accepted by the RCVS Education Committee are: 

• Developing guidance to support graduates and employers through the process of reflection on their progress.

• Considering how to build opportunities to capture and record reflective learning into the PDP.

• Making it a requirement of the PDP that every graduate who is participating in the PDP has a named workplace mentor assigned to them, as well as a Postgraduate Dean.

• Asking assigned mentors to sign-off their graduate’s progress on the PDP on a regular basis (eg every other month) and write a short commentary on the graduate’s progress on a six-monthly or annual basis. 

• Sharing resources between the BSAVA and RCVS looking at where further resources can be developed.

• Gaining feedback from other professions as well as the veterinary schools regarding platforms that have been used for similar purposes and have been successful. This process would consider the key requirements of a PDP platform and ensure that the right questions are asked to gain feedback.

Sheldon Middleton, Chair of BSAVA’s PDP Committee, said: "We’re really pleased with the start we’ve made to help graduates and their employers take positive steps to tackle the challenges of transitioning between university and practice, and we have a plan to improve further, working with RCVS to really make a difference.

"We are also pleased to have this opportunity to reflect on such comprehensive feedback after our first year, this empirical evidence from those involved is invaluable, we have learnt lessons and highlighted areas for further development, so now we’re looking ahead to make sure we implement our improvement plan."

"The BSAVA Resource Bank received positive feedback (1.5.4) however, the majority of stakeholders and graduates were unaware of this resource and we will work to address this."

The full report from the Work Psychology Group can be downloaded from the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/lifelong-learning/professional-development-phase-pdp/pdp-research/

Kent-based veterinary surgeon, David Edward Smith has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for fraud, and for a number of clinical failings.

Mr Smith was convicted of conspiracy to commit a fraud in which potentially dangerous horses were drugged and then sold to unsuspecting owners, at Maidstone Crown Court in June 2016. He was given 30 months' imprisonment, which formed one of the charges heard by the Disciplinary Committee.

There were also a number of charges related to his treatment of five different animals while in practice at the Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Folkestone, Kent. The charges were: 

• In relation to a Clydesdale mare named Grace on 14 August 2014 he failed to perform an adequate examination and/or undertake sufficient investigation and/or take a history of her; that after his initial visit to Grace on that day he failed to respond adequately to the owner’s telephone reports that Grace had deteriorated and/or failed to improve; and, that he failed to make adequate clinical records for Grace.

• Between 29 September 2014 and 31 January 2015, in relation to a Labradoodle named Holly, he failed to keep adequate clinical records.

• In relation to a cat named Maisey the allegations were that he failed to examine and investigate the cat adequately, he made a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and gave insulin to administer to the cat without first undertaking the minimum investigation required, failed to keep adequate clinical records and sent an incorrect, misleading and dishonest statement to the RCVS regarding his treatment of Maisey. All charges date between 30 October and 19 December 2014.

• In relation to a cat called Comet the allegation was that between 1 April and 17 April 2015 he failed to keep adequate clinical records and failed to respond adequately and appropriately to concerns raised by the owner.

• Regarding a Yorkshire Terrier with diabetes named Poppy the allegation was that in two emergency out-of-hours calls made by Poppy’s owner to Mr Smith in April 2015 regarding the dog’s condition, he failed to recommend veterinary treatment or keep adequate clinical records. Furthermore, when the owner attended the practice following the two calls and the death of Poppy, he attributed the care to another member of the practice and failed to communicate effectively with the owner. 

Having heard from a number of witnesses, including Mr Smith, and having received representations from Mr Smith in relation to the above charges, the Committee found almost all of the charges proven, with the exception of those relating to Mr Smith’s alleged conversation with Poppy’s owner at the practice following her death.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the various proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and whether the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that, both individually and cumulatively, they amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee also determined that the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery and noted that it involved prolonged dishonesty, breach of trust, disregard for animal health and welfare and a "total abrogation of Mr Smith’s professional responsibilities."

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was particularly concerned because the dishonesty went to the heart of Mr Smith’s responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon. His registration as a veterinary surgeon enabled him to take part in the conspiracy, and that role involved him conducting certified examinations on animals and supplying drugs for administration to animals. Reliable and honest certification is a vital element of the veterinary surgeon’s public role."

In considering the sanction against Mr Smith the Committee looked at the clinical charges and the conviction separately.

In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that his treatment of the animals in these cases was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon. The Committee therefore directed that Mr Smith’s name should be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

The Committee said that the case demonstrated that Mr Smith’s lack of treatment or his inappropriate treatment of these animals caused harm and that in some regards, for example the writing of accurate and contemporaneous clinical notes, Mr Smith demonstrated a total disrespect for the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Committee went on to say: "Further, he deliberately lied to his regulator. He demonstrated deep-seated attitudinal issues including a misplaced belief in his own abilities and had no insight or commitment to do anything different in the future. In those circumstances the likelihood of repetition was significant in the Committee’s view."

In considering the sanction for his conviction of conspiracy to commit fraud the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors including the premeditated nature of the conduct, the fact it was repeated over four years and the fact that harm was caused to both animals and people as a result of his actions. 

Cerys Jones said: "As the decision notes, some of the riders were novices or children and as a result of their experience they lost confidence in riding a horse. As the independent veterinary surgeon Mr Smith was in a position of responsibility because he was certifying the horses as to their suitability. A particularly aggravating feature in this case is that Mr Smith had previously been removed from the Register for falsely certifying horses for export."

In relation to the conviction the Committee also directed that the Registrar remove Mr Smith from the Register.

Mr Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal against it.

The full findings can be found here.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded County Tyrone based Brian Phelim Mallon MRCVS, after it found a number of charges proved in relation to failing to obtain agreed consent for the euthanasia of a dog, for keeping no clinical records for that dog and for failing to reply to written questions from the owner.

The hearing concerned three separate charges against Mr Mallon. The first charge related to his treatment of a Labrador named Bailey on 15 September 2016 in which he was alleged to have euthanased the animal without the owner’s consent, after having been called out to her home following concerns about Bailey’s arthritis. 

The second charge related to failure to keep adequate clinical records for Bailey between 14 March 2015 and 30 September 2016.

The third charge related to failing to respond adequately to communications regarding Bailey’s treatment from his owner between 15 September 2016 and 6 January 2017.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mallon admitted the charge relating to keeping inadequate clinical records. However, he disputed the College’s evidence regarding euthanasing Bailey without his owner’s consent. He claimed to have had previous discussions with the owner’s husband about euthanasia six months prior to the event, that he had been informed that the owner had mentioned a possible need for euthanasia in a phone call earlier that day and that, on attending the premises, the owner’s mother had mentioned a need to put Bailey down. During the course of the hearing, Mr Mallon accepted that these incidents could not have reasonably amounted to consent. 

The Committee also heard and accepted evidence that the owner’s mother, who was present when Mr Mallon visited, had wished to contact her daughter to inform her about the planned euthanasia but that Mr Mallon proceeded to euthanase the animal regardless. The Committee also noted there was no contemporaneous clinical records nor any signed consent form for the procedure. Furthermore, the Committee found no evidence that there was a need to put Bailey down immediately and no reason why Mr Mallon could not have waited until the owner was present and had given consent.

Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard that the communications between Mr Mallon and the owner amounted to a telephone call on 15 September and a letter from the owner dated 16 September in which she asked a number of questions about Bailey’s treatment. The Committee accepted that, during the phone call, the owner had made a number of threats to Mr Mallon that had caused him to be fearful for himself and his property. Furthermore, the Committee found that there were a number of points in the subsequent letter to which he could have responded and the Committee noted that, when he was giving evidence, Mr Mallon expected the owner to apologise to him and withdraw the threats before he would engage with her complaint. The Committee therefore found the charge proved.

After finding the charges proved the Committee then went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they constituted serious professional misconduct. It found this to be the case in respect of all three charges. Commenting on the first charge Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "He should have allowed the owner to come to an informed decision. He had an opportunity to obtain informed consent and he failed in this regard. By failing to take this opportunity he overrode the possibility of allowing [the owner] the right to choose whether to be present or to discuss Bailey’s prognosis."

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Mallon and heard from a number of clients and professional colleagues who spoke to his skill, care, passion for animal welfare and high standing in his community. The Committee also considered 30 written testimonials from clients. In mitigation, the Committee also considered Mr Mallon’s otherwise unblemished 30-year career, the fact it was a single isolated event related to one animal and the fact that there was no evidence of systemic or repeated behaviour.

Jane Downes added: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a reprimand in this case. The Committee is confident that Mr Mallon will not repeat the conduct identified in this case again. The Committee wishes to advise Mr Mallon of the need to reflect on the outcome of this case, the need to have clear communication systems in place at this practice that are effective so as to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. The Committee further advises Mr Mallon of the need to be familiar and comply with all aspects of the Code [of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons] and its associated guidance, particularly in respect of keeping clinical records, informed consent and effective complaint management."

Two candidates for the 2017 RCVS Council elections have had their challenge of the results dismissed by a committee tasked with assessing their claims.

John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.

Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.

The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.

Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised  three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.

Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15^th and 16^th respectively out of 16 candidates).

Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.

The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.

Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.

The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.

The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.

Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'

The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.

The RCVS Mind Matters Initiative has published A Guide to Enhancing Wellbeing and Managing Work Stress in the Veterinary Workplace.

Written in association with Dr Elinor O’Connor, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Psychology at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, the guide is designed for anyone with an interest in the wellbeing of the veterinary team. It provides practical advice to veterinary workplaces on managing stress and promoting wellbeing, alongside examples from the three winning practices of the 2016 MMI/SPVS Wellbeing Awards.

Elinor said: "Addressing stress in veterinary work not only has benefits for the health and wellbeing of each person in the veterinary team, but the business case for reducing work-related stress is clear; stress is associated with poorer performance, increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover. The wellbeing guide provides information about proven techniques for reducing stress at work combined with suggestions for how they might be applied in veterinary workplaces."

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "Stress at work is an important issue right across the veterinary team. It is sometimes considered just an acceptable part of working in an environment that can be difficult to control, but things can change.

"By making wellbeing a priority practices can support individuals and help their team work better together, and thus provide the best treatment for the animals under their care. This leaflet unpacks some of the root causes of work-related stress and may be of particular interest to practice managers, line managers or health and safety officers."

Good to see that the guide includes a recommendation that practices have measures in place to identify and resolve conflict at work and a clear policy on harassment or bullying, something which research by VetSurgeon.org, VetNurse.co.uk and ex-BSAVA Head of Scientific Policy, Sally Everitt MRCVS found correlated with reduced reports of sustained unpleasant behaviour in practice, a significant source of stress.

The guide can be downloaded here: https://www.vetmindmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MMI-12pp-web.pdf.

The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that they have until the end of January to put themselves forward as a candidate for the 2018 RCVS Council elections.

The nomination period closes at 5pm on Wednesday 31 January 2018 with the election period set to start in mid-March and close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.

Candidates need to submit a nomination form, contact details, a short biography and candidate statement and supply a high-resolution digital photograph to use in print and online materials.

In order for a candidacy to be accepted they will also need two nominators who should be veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register but who are not current members of RCVS Council. 

Registered addresses and original (hard copy) signatures of both the nominee and the proposers are required on the form in order for it to be valid.

The RCVS is also reminding candidates that the College is currently preparing for a change in its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, as outlined in a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that was agreed by Council members in March 2016.

As it stands, members of the profession are still electing six candidates to RCVS Council in the 2018 elections. However, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places as members of RCVS Council.

There will be no elections to VN Council this year as a decision was made to reduce the number of elected members.

More information on how to stand as a candidate for RCVS Council, as well as nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18

VetSurgeon.org is hearing early reports of a homeopathic protest march currently taking place in London.

The protesters, which VetSurgeon.org understands comprise six veterinary surgeons and 30-40 pet owners, started their march in Parliament Square and are now bearing down on the RCVS Headquarters in Horseferry Road.

The campaigners are, we are told, protesting against the RCVS position statement on complementary and homeopathic veterinary medicines. 

No word yet on how the College proposes to defend itself from the hoard; certainly no sign of any cauldrons of boiling oil atop the battlements, nor any riot police yet in evidence. 

More news as it happens. VetSurgeon.org has a photographer on the ground ...

UPDATES

1:00pm: The protesters have arrived at Belgravia House. A couple of protesters are armed with umbrellas, presumably to guard against the ever-present risk of overdose. It's getting messy: we're hearing that they've blocked the pavement. Wait up. Someone has emerged from the College to speak with them. Well hello, Mr President.

1:01pm: We were hoping that some of the protesters might, I dunno, handcuff themselves to Belgravia House or something. But after a tense standoff lasting over 36 seconds, it looks like the protest is petering out already. Apparently they've started dispersing to the park opposite.

1:02pm: Yup, they've all gone off to the park now. This may go down as one of the shortest protests in history. 

1:16pm: Word has it they've headed off to the White Horse and Bower.

More photos of this momentous occasion to follow ...

1. The seasoned campaigner is always careful to choose any banner that appears over their head with great care.

2. It was a beautiful march. A big march. The bigliest. Haven't seen that many people on the street since Donald Trump's inauguration. 

3. The RCVS headquarters under siege.

4. Millie the dog (perhaps better called 'Millie the anecdote') illustrates the flawed thinking behind homeopathy.

5. Nobody told this campaigner than homeopathy wasn't banned in the first place. You can get it from any tap.

6. RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, presumably wishing he'd taken the day off work.

7. It took some hours moments before the crowd dispersed fully and life in London was able to return to normal.

3.43pm: The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has issued a statement following the march, which says:

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons today met a delegation of around 40 animal owners and veterinary surgeons who wished to voice their concern about a recent position statement by RCVS Council on the use of complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy.

President Stephen May and CEO Lizzie Lockett received a copy of an online petition that was set up following the statement, which has since received around 15,000 signatures, including around 11,000 from supporters in the UK.

Stephen and Lizzie also took time to hear accounts and stories from the supporters, and to listen to the points they wished to raise.

In view of the cold, wet weather, the College had laid on some hot drinks for all the visitors, and invited the delegation inside, but these were declined.

Stephen said: "We were pleased to be able to meet our visitors today and to receive their petition, although it was a little tricky trying to answer questions on a busy London pavement!

"We continue to recognise that homeopathy and other complementary therapies are popular amongst some animal owners and certain members of the veterinary profession, as indicated by today’s delegation, but it is worth reiterating that the RCVS Council statement does not ban their use.

"What it does state, is that in order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary, rather than alternative, to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based on sound scientific principles.

"This is similar to the position that we have held on complementary therapies for many years, but we will always be happy to receive and consider scientific evidence that demonstrates their efficacy."

I wouldn't hold your breath.

All photographs ©2017 Under licence to London News Pictures Ltd. +44 208 088 1155 

Nottinghamshire-based veterinary surgeon Victor Daniel Pousada Garcia has been suspended from the Register for five months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for harassment.

Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services. 

The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.

At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having  considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."

Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.

The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition. 

Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour." 

Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision  are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided 'no further action' in a case against Bristol-based Nikolay Kirilov Radev MRCVS.

The committee considered 5 separate charges against Dr Radev, relating to his treatment of a Yorkshire Terrier and Shih Tzu cross called Pickles at a Vets4Pets veterinary practice in Oxford between 5 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The charges related to Dr Radev failing to provide adequate and/or appropriate care to the animal and failure to keep detailed clinical records. 

After hearing the evidence from Dr Radev and the complainant, the College submitted that it wished to withdraw charges 1(i) and 1(ii) on the basis of insufficient evidence. In addition, Dr Radev had already admitted charges: 1(iii)(b), 1(iv)(d), 1(v), 4(i)(a) and 4(ii)(a) but denied the remaining charges. Of these remaining charges the Committee found charges 1(iv)(a), 2(i), 2(iv), 3(i) and 3(ii) proven with the rest not being proven. 

The charges admitted or found proven were that Dr Radev:

(1) On 5 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(iii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to offer and/or undertake:

(b)   urine tests;

(iv) Failed to put in place and/or document an adequate management plan for Pickles, more particularly in relation to:

(a) adequate direction and/or advice regarding a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(d) collection of urine at home for analysis on review at the practice;

(v) Having noted that he suspected renal disease, prescribed meloxicam when the same was contraindicated for dogs with renal disease; 

(2)   On 28 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to take and/or record an adequate history from Mrs Pancott in relation to Pickles’ condition and/or clinical signs since 5 October 2015;

(iv) Failed to provide adequate direction and/or advice regarding a date for a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(3) On 30 October 2015, having been informed that Mrs Pancott had telephoned the practice with concerns about Pickles, including blood in the faeces;

(i) Failed to note the matter in Pickles’ medical records;

(ii) Failed to take sufficient steps to obtain more information from Mrs Pancott or to ensure that Mrs Pancott was advised to seek veterinary attention for Pickles in relation to her concerns;

(4) On 1 November 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to interpret the blood tests adequately and/or take appropriate and adequate action in relation to the results of those blood tests, more particularly with regards to:

(a) blood glucose;

(ii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to:

(a) offer and/or undertake urine tests.

In considering these charges the Disciplinary Committee found that only charge 4(ii)(a) – namely the failure to correctly interpret and act upon the results of a blood glucose test – amounted to serious professional conduct with the rest not passing the threshold of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee did not consider that in addition the cumulative effect of all the proven charges taken together amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the cumulative effect of all the proven charges Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Dr Radev had made errors in relation to one patient but on four separate occasions. These were, for the most part, individual failures at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Taking into account all of the failings, the Committee in its judgement did not consider that the nature and number of errors and the period of time over which they took place justified a cumulative finding of disgraceful conduct."

In considering the sanction for Dr Radev the Committee took into account a number of mitigating circumstances including the fact that Dr Radev had undertaken suitable training and development in the areas in which he made mistakes, had demonstrated good insight into his conduct and had made some open and frank admissions early on in proceedings. It also considered that the one charge that was found to be serious professional misconduct was a single, isolated mistake linked to Dr Radev’s inexperience.

Professor Barr said: "The Committee considered that taking ‘no further action’ was appropriate and proportionate having considered the history of the case, the Committee’s overall findings and the good reports of Dr Radev’s performance in the two years since the matter which had led to the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The decision to take no further action was also influenced by the length of time it had taken the charges to be heard by the Committee, the positive character references about Dr Radev from professional colleagues and the fact he was unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future.

Northamptonshire-based Gabor Nemes MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, after posting derogatory remarks about his employer, Mate Toth MRCVS, on Facebook.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard two charges against Dr Nemes, the first being that he had posted comments on social media about another veterinary surgeon, his employer, Dr Toth, which were offensive and/or derogatory and/or inappropriate.

The second charge was that Dr Nemes had posted his comments without having sufficient regard to maintaining their confidentiality and/or privacy. 

Dr Nemes admitted the charges, though he did inform the Committee that his admission with respect to the second charge was caveated by the proposition that the comments were posted in private messages on Facebook with a limited membership, namely employees of Healers Veterinary Centre (Dr Toth’s practice).

The Committee noted the Respondent’s admissions as to the charges raised against him and pronounced the facts found proved.

In relation to the first charge, the Committee found that the comments on social media were, without a doubt, highly unprofessional. They included offensive language, were gratuitously personal against Dr Toth, and were made within an online chat which included junior lay staff, all employed by Dr Toth.

This behaviour was seen to directly contravene a numbers of parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, in particular Paragraph 5.3 that states: "Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Nurses should not speak or write disparagingly about another Veterinary Surgeon or Veterinary Nurse."

In relation to the second charge, the Committee found that Dr Nemes had paid no regard to maintaining the confidentiality and/or privacy of his malicious and damaging entries to the chat. 

At the outset of his evidence, Dr Nemes admitted that the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee noted however that the question of whether he was guilty of serious professional misconduct or not was in fact a matter for it to decide, notwithstanding his admission.

The Committee considered the fact that the period of time that Dr Nemes was involved in making postings was effectively about two weeks, that his involvement followed his wife’s dismissal from employment (representing a breach of Dr Nemes’ resignation conditions), and that he was very stressed at the time.

It also considered Dr Nemes’ point that he had never anticipated that Dr Toth would see the Facebook Messenger conversation, and that the relevant RCVS supporting guidance to the Code concerning good practice when using social media and online networking forums was only published in late November 2014 when Dr Nemes’ involvement in the conversation was virtually at an end.

In summing up, Ian Green, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the Facebook Messenger entries which the Respondent posted from 13 November 2014. It noted that at the time he had handed in his resignation, morale at the practice was very low. The Facebook Messenger chat site had been started amongst the receptionist/animal carers. A perusal of the entries before the Respondent joined on 13 November 2014 demonstrates that morale was low among that group.

"…Notwithstanding the nature of the remarks posted on the Facebook Messenger, which the Committee deplores, it has reached the conclusion that, whilst the Respondent’s behaviour amounts to misconduct and falls short of the standards expected of a member of the veterinary profession, it does not amount to serious misconduct and does not fall far short.

"In the circumstances it has reached the unusual conclusion that, notwithstanding the Respondent’s admission, the appropriate finding is that he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."