The RCVS has been out promoting the profession, the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) and its new 'Find a Vet' search tool to animal owners at BBC Countryfile at Blenheim Palace last week.
The RCVS stand was designed to look like a veterinary practice, complete with waiting room, consulting room, prep room, operating theatre and RCVS Accredited Practice logos.
The team from the College handed out around 1,500 ‘Find a Vet’ canvas bags containing 'Find a Vet' and Practice Standards Scheme leaflets and merchandise, and persuaded over 200 people to take part in special ‘Find a Vet’ and PSS-themed games and competitions.
These included having to find a veterinary surgeon or nurse around the showground (volunteers from RCVS Council and VN Council, including RCVS President Chris Tufnell and VN Council Chair Liz Cox, along with David Catlow, Neil Smith, his dog, Fire, Lucy Bellwood and Amber Richards).
The College reports that there was also a continual stream of children eager to pretend to be veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for the day and have a go at the on-stand ‘animal examination’ and ‘animal surgery’ activities. All this gave rise to plenty of photo opportunities, which parents and competition entrants were encouraged to share on social media, to help spread the word about the College’s activities.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Head of Communications said: "This was the first time the RCVS had been to such a large-scale and high-profile public event, and it provided a superb opportunity to explain to animal owners who we are and how we can help them.
"We had a great deal of interest in our new Find a Vet service, and people also seemed reassured that there was a scheme in place to accredit veterinary practices around the country. Having attended both the London Pet Show and BBC Countryfile Live this year, we now plan to increase the number of animal owner events we attend next year, to further raise public awareness of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and our Find a Vet service."
For more pictures of the event, see: https://flic.kr/s/aHskEQkDPc
Nominations can be made for three RCVS Honours: the Queen’s Medal, the Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship.
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon. The 2016 winner of the award was Professor Randolph Richards who was honoured for his contribution to the development of aquaculture in Scotland.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. The 2016 winner of the award was Louise O’Dwyer who was recognised for her pioneering role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have made a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists. This year an Honorary Associateship was awarded to Professor David Lane for his support in launching the College’s Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours.
The deadline for nominations is Friday 16 September 2016 and all awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
Organisations including British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) also responded to the consultation on behalf of members.
The College’s Education Department is now in the process of analysing the consultation responses.
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, said: "We are very pleased with the number of responses we have received to this consultation which demonstrates what an important issue CPD, and our approach to it going forward, is for the profession. I am also glad that there was a good split of responses between veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses as it is important we get as wide a range of views as possible from a wide range of individuals. I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to give us their views.
"Over the coming weeks we will be going through each response with a view to preparing proposals on the next steps for our CPD Working Party’s September meeting."
Proposals are expected to go to the Education Committee and to VN Council in October and then to the November meeting of RCVS Council.
The College says it will be promoting its Find a Vet search tool and its new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) at the event, which runs from Thursday 4 to Sunday 7 August. It will also be giving career advice for prospective veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The College’s Find a Vet search tool was relaunched earlier this year, allowing users to search for a veterinary surgeon, veterinary nurse or veterinary practice all in one place. The tool also includes new features such as displaying a practice’s visiting information (including opening hours and car parking); enabling users to ‘get directions’ via Google Maps; advertising a practice’s PSS accreditations and awards; and returning individual profile pages for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
To promote the free search tool the College will be encouraging visitors to take part in its Find a Vet dice game, as well as hosting a random draw photo competition which will encourage members of the public to find and photograph one of our veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who will be lost in the grounds of Blenheim Palace.
Another of the College’s promotional focuses is the new PSS. The new PSS is designed to provide a greater focus on how practices use their resources to create a positive outcome for patients and clients, and allows for practices to distinguish the areas in which they excel through its awards system. The College says it is using BBC Countryfile Live to raise the profile of PSS and make animal owners more aware of the various available accreditation levels.
Ahead of the event, the RCVS is running social media competitions to give away 15 free pairs of tickets: on Facebook (/TheRCVS); Twitter (@RCVS_UK); and its new Instagram account (@thercvs). The competitions ends Friday 29 July, with winners being announced that day at 5pm. Tickets will allow entry on Thursday 4, Friday 5, and Sunday 7 August.
Chris has been an elected member of Council since 2009 and, during this time, has served on the Education Committee, the Examinations Appeal Committee and the Operational Board as Chair of the Education Committee and Junior Vice-President.
He graduated with a veterinary degree from the University of Glasgow at the relatively advanced age of 30 having first attained a degree in Agricultural and Environmental Science from the University of Newcastle. Following graduation he worked in a mixed practice in Herefordshire before buying an equine and companion animal practice in West Berkshire, which currently employs five veterinary surgeons and five support staff.
In his maiden speech, Chris called on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be proud of themselves as people who are committed to the welfare of animals in their care and to not be so hard on themselves.
He also outlined several areas that he would like to prioritise during his presidential year. These included delivering the priorities set out in the Vet Futures Action Plan, exploring bringing veterinary paraprofessionals into the College’s regulatory remit, driving forward the College’s international profile and dealing with blame and fear culture in the profession.
He said: "I’ve seen first-hand in Africa and India what the delivery of veterinary care can do for the welfare of animals in these regions and the wellbeing of people that frequently depend upon them. As one of the richest nations in the world we will further investigate what we can do, through knowledge transfer and support, to help raise the standards of veterinary care in developing countries.
"Sadly we often hear that there are vets and nurses who live in fear of the RCVS. This is something of which I am personally ashamed. Being particularly mindful of the role that fear and anxiety play in mental health, I will do everything I can to replace this fear... I will encourage all hardworking vets and nurses, whichever field they are in, to wear their [MRCVS] ‘badge’ with pride. Feel good about what you do, feel great about what you do."
Chris’ first official duty upon receiving the presidential chain of office from outgoing President Dr Bradley Viner, was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May. He also praised Bradley for his calm authority, humour and wisdom throughout his year as RCVS President.
The trial starts on Monday 11 July and will continue for three months to allow the College to determine levels of demand for such a service and, therefore, whether it should be made permanent.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "This was a potential service identified in our Strategic Plan as a way of allowing veterinary professionals to have informal, confidential, discussions with members of the Professional Conduct Department about potential fitness to practise issues, short of formally raising a concern.
"Although any discussions via the new reporting line or email address will be confidential, if a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary nurse subsequently wishes to raise a formal concern about another veterinary professional, then they generally will need to identify both themselves and the individual in order to take it through our investigation process.
"We have developed a bespoke concerns form for members of the professions who do want to raise concerns about other professionals."
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to contact a member of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in confidence can do so by calling 07599 958 294 between 9am and 5pm, or by emailing reporting@rcvs.org.uk.
The bespoke concerns from for members of the profession can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
The College has kicked off with questions and answers about the right to work in the UK and the impact on those currently studying to become a veterinary surgeon or planning to do so.
Although it's not yet possible to give definitive answers and there will doubtless be many more questions, the College says it will be keeping the new page updated as the situation unfolds.
The Q&A page can be found here: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-rcvs-register/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-impact-of-the-eu-referendum/
The investment is being made to increase the speed at which concerns are either closed or referred, ensure that the process meets its service standards and reduce stress for the public and profession.
The decision to increase investment in the process was made by the College’s Operational Board in response to a steady increase in the number of concerns being investigated. The College forecasts that it will receive in excess of 1,000 concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses this year.
The RCVS developed a simplified, three-stage concerns process in 2014 which included the introduction of targets for cases to be either closed or referred at each stage. In order to ensure that these targets can be met, the College will now be hiring five paralegals to assist the existing five case managers.
Eleanor Ferguson, Acting Registrar, said: "Currently we are only closing or referring just over half of concerns we receive at stage 1 (case examiner stage) within our four month target. In order for the system to run more smoothly we will be investing in extra staff to help clear the backlog and ensure that these targets are met going forward.
"Similarly, in order to deal with the increase in the number of cases being referred to Preliminary Investigation Committee (stage 2), we will be increasing the frequency of these committee meetings from one to two per month.
"It is important to add that this investment is not just about dealing with concerns more quickly but is also about quality of service and having more staff on hand will ensure that this quality is maintained in terms of how we communicate with complainants and members of the profession. Speeding up the process will reduce the stress and anxiety felt by all involved."
More details about the College’s concerns investigation process and its different stages can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Nockolds Solicitors was approved as the new administrator of the ADR trial by RCVS Council at its June 2016 meeting at Cardiff City Hall. The company was identified and approved by the RCVS Operational Board as meeting its requirements, a decision which the RCVS says has been welcomed by the Veterinary Defence Society and the British Veterinary Association, as well as receiving lay and consumer support.
The current trial, which was launched in November 2014 and is administered by Ombudsman Services, will come to a close by 1 October, when the new trial with Nockolds will start.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive and Secretary, said: "In order to be able to make an informed choice about how we wish to design and implement a permanent ADR scheme we wanted to ensure that we have as many different options and as much data as possible. It is very important that we get the permanent scheme right and this is why Operational Board made the decision to have a second trial. It was also clear that satisfaction levels from consumers for the previous trial were lower than we would have liked and that we therefore need to explore other options.
"It is important to note that this will not just be a re-run of the first trial with a different administrator – there will be some significant differences between this and our first trial with Ombudsman Services.
"First, this will be a truly alternative process as consumers will be able to access the trial directly rather than having to go through the College’s concerns process first.
"Second, this will be a process of mediation meaning that expert advisors from Nockolds will facilitate communication between the complainant and the veterinary surgeon to try and find a satisfactory solution to the concern."
The trial will be promoted to both the public and the profession as an alternative to the College’s formal concerns investigation process and participation in the trial will be voluntary. There will also still be a panel of veterinary advisors overseeing the trial and helping staff at Nockolds with any clinical queries they may have.
Jennie Jones is a Partner at Nockolds and will head up the trial. She said: "We are committed to providing a service that mediates complaints to find a fair, efficient and proportionate resolution. We are looking forward to working with everyone involved in veterinary profession to develop an effective mediation service that can be accessed by both the public and members of the profession.
"The service will focus on finding effective and practical resolutions. Understanding the root cause of the complaint and re-establishing effective communication are the crucial first steps in mediation and helping the parties to find a solution they can both accept. Over the coming months, we will be working with the RCVS, representative bodies for the profession and consumers to launch the service.
"In addition to mediating complaints, we will share insight in mediation and complaint resolution to inform practitioners and stakeholders and to enhance standards at veterinary practices. This enables complaint analysis to be used to help improve client care, avoid complaints and maintain trust and confidence in the profession."
A bespoke website for the trial will be set up in time for the launch on 1 October 2016.
During her two-day hearing, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard that Ms Vockert had been convicted under Animal Welfare Act 2006 at Bournemouth Magistrates Court in April for, by her own admission, failing to protect two dogs she owned from pain, suffering, injury and disease, by not adequately grooming them.
The prosecution had been brought by the RSPCA after one of her dogs, a Shih Tzu named Happy, was taken into care by the local Council in September 2014 as a stray.
The dog was examined by Chris Devlin MRCVS who reported at the time that the dog’s coat was in an "appalling state, with multiple mats of hair all over his body" and with "evidence of faecal and urinary soiling on the fur around the rear end", which constituted clear signs of neglect. The dog was anaesthetised and treated by Mr Devlin for an eye condition and was also given a full body shave. The dog made a full recovery after these operations.
Council employees discovered that Happy belonged to Ms Vockert and referred the matter to the RSPCA who started an investigation into his condition. When two RSPCA inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home in September 2014 they observed a Cocker Spaniel named Millie which had severely matted fur. There were no concerns about any of the other dogs owned by Ms Vockert.
The two inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home the next day by appointment and were told by Ms Vockert that Millie had been euthanased. Millie’s body was subsequently taken to Professor Kenneth Smith MRCVS and Claire Muir MRCVS for a post-mortem examination. In their report following the post-mortem, they observed Millie’s hair coat to be "extensively matted and given the growth of hair over the collar and claws, it is likely that the hair has not been clipped for an extremely long period... and is likely to have restricted the dog’s ability to walk. In addition, a large amount of faecal material has become matted within the hair coat and this finding strongly suggests that this dog was neglected."
As a result of her prosecution by the RSCPA, Ms Vockert was fined £620, ordered to pay costs of £300, a victim surcharge of £62 and a deprivation of animal ownership order was made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Disciplinary Committee considered that the failure to groom extended over a period of months and that any conviction on the part of a veterinary surgeon relating to animal welfare was an extremely serious matter.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The College submitted that the conviction of a veterinary surgeon for an animal welfare offence, of necessity has the potential to undermine both the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.
"In such circumstances, the respondent’s conviction fell far below the standard to be expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering Ms Vockert’s sanction, the Committee took into mitigation her long and otherwise unblemished career both in the UK and Germany, her guilty plea to the RSPCA conviction and the fact she made no attempt to challenge the College’s submissions in relation to her fitness to practise.
However, it also took into account a number of aggravating features, particularly the fact there was "actual neglect of the welfare of two animals, over a protracted period of time, which resulted in pain, suffering and discomfort. This aspect of the case is made more serious because the two animals in question belonged to the respondent, who is a practising veterinary surgeon with access to the drugs and equipment necessary to groom the dogs."
Ultimately, the Committee decided that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Acting Registrar to remove Ms Vockert’s name from the Register.
Ian Green, summing up, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct which led to the conviction, involved a departure from the most basic and pivotal principle of the Code [of Professional Conduct], which states that the first consideration when attending to animals is health and welfare.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case."
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2016 RCVS Council elections.
Current members Christopher Barker (2,838 votes), Amanda Boag (2,689 votes), Kit Sturgess (2,586 votes) and Stephen May (2,452 votes) were returned to four of the six available seats on RCVS Council. Melissa Donald and Lucie Goodwin are joining Council for the first time with 2,532 votes and 2,307 votes respectively.
The re-election of Stephen May means that he will serve as Junior Vice-President of the RCVS for 2016-17.
Voter turnout was down this year at 15.6% (or 4,403) of those eligible to vote, compared to 18.1% last year and the 17.2% average over the past 10 years.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "I’d like to congratulate all those who were successfully elected, and re-elected, to Council, and thank all those who took part in this year’s elections – whether by standing as a candidate, casting a vote or submitting questions for the candidates to answer."
The successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 15 July 2016 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Each candidate in the elections was invited to produce a short video in which they answered questions put to them by fellow members of the professions and which appeared on the RCVS YouTube channel. The videos provided by the RCVS Council candidates received 1,169 views while those provided by the VN Council candidates received 779 views.
The elections were run on behalf of the College by Electoral Reform Services.
The RCVS has launched its new Fellowship scheme and is now accepting applications from veterinary surgeons who have made a meritorious contribution to their particular field.
The new Fellowship scheme was launched with three routes to membership: meritorious contributions to knowledge; meritorious contributions to clinical practice; and meritorious contributions to the profession.
The changes were approved by RCVS Council at its June 2015 meeting, following a public consultation on how the Fellowship could be developed to move it away from being an examination-based award, to becoming a learned society.
Dr Bradley Viner, President of the RCVS, said: "I am very proud to announce the launch of the new Fellowship scheme and I hope that, as a learned body, the Fellowship will help advance and develop clinical and professional standards by sharing their knowledge and expertise with the profession.
"The move from being an examinations-based award to the three new paths to entry is a significant development as it will widen the reach of the Fellowship, particularly to those who are working in clinical practice.
"I would strongly encourage all those who feel they have made a meritorious contribution to any of these three areas to apply as I am very hopeful we will be able to award our first group of new Fellowships at RCVS Day on Friday 15 July."
The criteria for achieving Fellowship includes sustained contribution to scholarship; producing a body of creative work that has been disseminated to others; indisputable advancement of their subject; providing leadership to the profession; and, advancement of the public understanding of the profession.
Each application will be assessed by a Credentials Panel to see if it meets the proposed criteria. Applications approved by the Panel will then be put to the Fellowship Board, which will meet once a year to consider the overall list of proposed applications.
The closing date for initial applications is Wednesday 11 May. Application forms for the three different routes to Fellowship, as well as further details about criteria and a list of relevant doctorate programmes, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship
All current Fellows, including Honorary Fellows, will retain their FRCVS/HonFRCVS status.
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that you need to complete your annual renewal for 2016-7 by the end of April.
About 75% of veterinary surgeons have renewed their registrations so far.
Renewals paid after 30th April will incur an additional charge of £35.
Any veterinary surgeon who fails to pay by 31st May will have their name removed from the Register, making it illegal for them to practise veterinary surgery in the UK.
The annual renewal can be completed via the online ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website, where it is possible to pay by credit or debit card. Payment is also accepted by cheque, bank transfer or draft.
If you've lost the security details needed to access the RCVS website, you should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707.
The College also says that anyone who has received an annual renewal reminder letter but has set up a Direct Debit, or believes that they have already paid, should contact the RCVS Finance Department on 020 7202 0723.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from a former Kent-based veterinary surgeon, Warwick Seymour-Hamilton.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his equipment and facilities such that it evidenced a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on Friday 18 March was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s fourth application for restoration, with previous applications being submitted but refused in July 1995, June 2010 and January 2015. However, as the Committee made its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not admitted as relevant to its decision.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he currently works as a herbalist and naturopath for humans and wished to be restored to the Register so he could include animals in his research. He had completed a course in herbal and naturopathic medicine at the College of Naturopathic Medicine in Dublin in 2010, and told the Committee that he believed that being restored to the Register would lend credence to his endeavours to secure funding and other support. He stated that he did not intend to work again in a veterinary practice.
However, the Committee rejected his application on a number of grounds, including the impact on animal welfare should Mr Seymour-Hamilton be restored to the Register; the length of time he had been off the Register and the fact that he was therefore not up-to-date with contemporary veterinary practice and professional conduct; and that his efforts to keep up-to-date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice were insufficient.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee is concerned about the length of time that has passed since he last practised and the paucity of the evidence he has provided to establish that, if permitted to return to practice, he would be able to attain the professional standards required of a modern veterinary practitioner, either as regards surgical capabilities/competence or as regards his knowledge of currently available veterinary medicines."
She added: "This Committee’s obligations and duties are to see that the interests of animal welfare are properly protected by ensuring that only those who are properly trained, knowledgeable and experienced are permitted to treat animals and that public confidence in the standards of the profession are maintained. The risks attendant on a restoration of this applicant to the Register are, in the judgement of this Committee, plain and obvious. Accordingly, this application is refused."
The RCVS has announced that voting is now open for the 2016 Council elections.
Ballot papers with candidate details, biographies and manifestos have been posted to all veterinary surgeons this week.
Eight candidates are standing in the RCVS Council election this year, with the six who receive the most votes joining Council at RCVS Day on Friday 15 July 2016 for a four-year term. The candidates are:
Each candidate in both elections has produced a short video in which they answer two questions which they have selected from those submitted to the RCVS in advance by members of the professions. The videos can be viewed at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote16 along with their biographies, manifesto statements and contact details.
Bradley Viner, RCVS President, said: "Last year the candidate videos had over 3,500 views and we hope to increase that this year as it is a very direct and democratic way of finding out more about each candidate and their views. I would urge each member of the profession, whether vets or veterinary nurses, to make a vote for their preferred candidates as they really can make a difference when it comes to the future direction of the College."
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 29 April 2016. Online votes for RCVS Council candidates can be made at www.ersvotes.com/vetvote16.
Any veterinary surgeon who has not received a ballot paper should contact Ian Holloway, RCVS Communications Manager, on 020 7202 0727 or i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS is now accepting applications from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to serve as members of the RCVS Ethics Review Panel (ERP).
The ERP has been established by the RCVS in order to facilitate access to ethical review for those wishing to undertake practice-based research outside of a university or industry context. The ERP will begin considering research proposals from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses from 1 August 2016 and the trial will run for a period of one year. The process will be limited to considering research projects involving cats and/or dogs during the trial period, with the possibility of expanding to other species if the trial is extended or made permanent.
The trial came about following a joint working party established by the RCVS and British Veterinary Association which reported on ethical review and found that an increasing amount of clinical research was being conducted by vets based in private practice. One of the key recommendations of the report was that the RCVS should consider establishing a committee for ethical review of practice-based research.
Ahead of the launch of the ERP, the RCVS is currently looking to recruit four veterinary surgeon members and a veterinary nurse member to the Panel to join a lay member and ethicist Chair.
More details about the roles, the function of the ERP and how to apply can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus and www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics. Those who are interested in applying can also email ethics@rcvs.org.uk for an informal discussion. The closing date for applications is 15 April 2016.
The RCVS Council has announced its agreement with wholesale reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
The changes agreed by Council included almost halving the number of Council members and formalising lay and veterinary membership.
Under the proposals approved by Council it would be reduced to 24 members – comprising 13 elected veterinary surgeons (constituting a majority of Council), six appointed laypeople, three members appointed on behalf of the UK veterinary schools and two veterinary nurses. There would also be the option to appoint an additional member on behalf of any allied professions that RCVS Council may choose to regulate as associates of the College.
Professor Stuart Reid, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS and Chair of the Governance Panel that developed the recommendations, said: "I am delighted that Council so fully supported our proposals for a new structure. The new composition will ensure that both veterinary nurses and laypeople have a guaranteed place at the Council table, as well as maintaining a majority of elected veterinary surgeons and important input from the veterinary schools.
"The proposal recognises the unique nature of the RCVS and will allow us to expedite our decision-making process, making us more fleet of foot and better able to respond to the needs of the profession and the public. It has also been constructed to allow Council to evolve its position, ensuring it remains relevant into the future. If all goes well we hope that the changes could come into force as soon as March 2017."
Liz Cox, the Chair of VN Council, particularly welcomed the changes in respect of veterinary nursing representation on RCVS Council, adding: "It is an historic decision for veterinary nurses and one that has been long awaited. It is only right that those who work so closely alongside veterinary surgeons in practice should have a direct input into regulation that affects us all."
Council’s approval of the recommendations was the culmination of two years of debate and consultation with the profession and other stakeholders. This included a formal consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year which garnered 52 responses – including from the British Veterinary Association - most of which were supportive. Different options for reform had, in turn, been developed by a Governance Panel, chaired by Professor Reid, which was set up by Council in March 2015 to consider various options.
Defra will now run a short informal consultation to provide those who responded to the initial consultation the opportunity to comment on the proposed reforms. If no issues are raised Defra officials will seek approval from the Government to proceed with a legislative reform order (LRO) to make the necessary changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
This LRO will be scrutinised by parliamentary committee and voted on in both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Once this has been passed there will be a three-year transitional period, agreed by Council members, during which Council’s numbers would be gradually reduced.
The RCVS has announced that the Registrar, Gordon Hockey, has decided to leave the College after 16 years' service.
Gordon served first as Assistant Registrar / Head of Professional Conduct, and, since 2012, as Registrar / Director of Legal Services.
Dr Bradley Viner, RCVS President, said: "We wish to thank Gordon for all his hard work and wish him every success in the future.
"He has been a key figure at the RCVS for many years, and has brought about much positive change in the organisation, particularly with respect to reform of our disciplinary processes and the introduction of our new Charter, in February 2015."
RCVS Knowledge has announced the official launch of Veterinary Evidence – a new resource designed to unite practitioners interested in promoting and using the principles of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) within practice.
Veterinary Evidence – which is supported by the RCVS – represents RCVS Knowledge’s wider mission statement of providing the veterinary community with practice relevant, evidence-based information resources. Papers and publications are now available for use, completely open-access.
Veterinary Evidence aims to become the go-to portal for evidence-based veterinary information, promoting and publishing peer-reviewed papers alongside discussion of EBVM through opinion, clinical and methodological articles.
The site will host a wide range of material – from randomised controlled trials to case studies, Knowledge Summaries and interviews. The content is designed to educate readers in research techniques, responding to the desire amongst many veterinary professionals to become involved in effective practice-based research – including critical appraisal and clinical audit.
Jacqui Molyneux, Chair of the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees said: "As a practising veterinary surgeon I, along with many others, recognise the emerging importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine and I believe it will become more and more important as time goes on. We all wish to do the best for our patients but how do we find out what the current ‘best’ is? That’s where this portal will become so useful; collecting and publishing articles that directly help practising vets and nurses to answer that question."
Bradley Viner, the President of the RCVS and a Trustee of RCVS Knowledge, said: "The College was very happy to support our charity partners at RCVS Knowledge in launching this excellent new resource which will be relevant to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in clinical practice. Furthermore, clinical governance is now firmly established as an important principle in the Code of Professional Conducts for both professions and so, by encouraging practitioners to undergo a continuing process of reflection, analysis and improvement, Veterinary Evidence will also be helping them fulfil their professional responsibilities."
Access the full site at: www.veterinaryevidence.org
Ceredigion veterinary surgeon Robert Alun Merfyn Evans has been suspended from the Register for six months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he admitted to misconduct relating to tuberculin testing for cattle he owned and failing to register the births and deaths of cattle.
Mr Evans appeared before the Committee on the 11th February, when he admitted the two heads of charge of misconduct against him.
The first head of charge related to the fact that, between 24 June and 29 June 2013, he deliberately failed to bring to attention of Wyn Lewis MRCVS, an Official Veterinarian (OV) and fellow director of Mr Evans’ practice in Cardigan, the cattle on his farm requiring intradermal comparative tuberculin tests; that he tested certain of the cattle himself despite not being the OV for those tests and having a conflict of interest; and that he provided inaccurate and incomplete information to his practice for the completion of a report on the testing to be sent to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). This misconduct was then repeated the following year between 19 June and 1 August 2014.
The second head of charge against Mr Evans related to breaches of the Cattle Identification (Wales) Regulations 2007 between 4 July 2005 and 20 June 2014, namely the fact that he failed to register the birth of five calves and the death of nine cows. These were accepted as being specimen charges reflecting a much larger total number of breaches over the whole nine year period.
Mr Evans’ misconduct first came to light when a late return was sent to the AHVLA in August 2014 regarding the TB testing of 51 live animals on his farm in June 2014. When the report was scrutinised the AHVLA noticed that 26 animals shown on the return as dead were still registered, while 20 animals that were tested were not registered. When the AHVLA investigated, Mr Evans immediately admitted that he had misled Mr Lewis on two occasions and carried out his own testing despite not being the OV.
The Committee heard that he did this because he did not want it to be found out that he had unregistered cattle on his farm. Regarding the unregistered cattle, the Committee heard that this stemmed from a mistake made by Mr Evans in 2005 or 2006 whereby he mislaid a batch of around nine bovine passport application forms sent to him to register the birth of calves on his farm, a legal requirement for the purposes of animal health, disease control and safeguarding the food chain.
As a result of poor IT skills and being profoundly deaf, Mr Evans felt unable to seek support online or by telephone, was too embarrassed to tell others and, furthermore, felt that it was impossible to correct his mistake without being in breach of the law. So, for a period of nine or 10 years, he failed to register the birth of calves on his farm. His failure to register the deaths of cattle, was also caused by administrative failings. His breaches of the cattle registration regulations were subject to criminal proceedings and on 14 October 2015 he plead guilty at Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire Magistrates Court to 14 offences for which he was given a conditional discharge for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.
The Committee considered that a suspension from the Register would be in line with the seriousness of the charges against Mr Evans. Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee agrees that the lengthy period over which these offences took place, his betrayal of his colleague, and the undermining of the reputation of the profession and of the system of disease control, taken together with his dishonesty, make it impossible to impose a lesser sanction than suspension.
"The Committee finds that the respondent, who is a man of good character, has fully accepted his guilt, and has real insight into the seriousness of his conduct. He cooperated fully with the investigations and with the County Council who prosecuted him in the Magistrates [Court], and with the College. He made an open and frank admission about his misconduct from the outset.
"The course of conduct on which he embarked and which has led to these charges was the result of a simple mistake at a time of considerable stress to him. He was not guilty of deliberate misconduct at the outset but… what started as an innocent mistake took on a life of its own and led him to deliberate and dishonest misconduct because he did not know how to get himself out of the predicament he was in."
Professor Barr also said that there was no financial gain in Mr Evans’ actions and that animal welfare had not been compromised as the cattle were well cared for and in good health and that Mr Evans’ actions in carrying out the tuberculin tests on the unregistered cattle himself demonstrated that he was concerned about identifying any disease in his herd.
He added: “In all the circumstances the Committee has decided a proportionate sanction is that the respondent’s registration should be suspended for a period of six months.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The RCVS has announced the names of the candidates standing in the Council elections this year and is, once again, inviting veterinary surgeons to put questions to them directly in this year’s 'Quiz the candidates'.
There are eight candidates (well, seven really, if you exclude the 'Donald Trump' candidate) contesting six places in the RCVS Council, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and four new candidates. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 14 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 29 April 2016.
To submit a question to the candidates, email it (NB only one per person) to vetvote16@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote16, by midday on Monday, 29 February.
Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 17 March.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "Last year, all election candidates produced videos for the first time and, with over 3,500 views in total, it seemed a popular way for voters to find out more about the individuals who were standing.
"Providing a way for all vets and vet nurses to put their own questions to the candidates is now an integral part of the elections, and one which we hope will continue to encourage people to get involved and have their say."
Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The RCVS has announced that the Codes of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses have been updated to state that you should not refer to yourselves or others as 'veterinary nurses' unless registered.
In fact, the change occurred back in June last year, but was only announced via RCVS News and as a one-liner within the 'Overview of decisions made at RCVS Council'.
The announcement raises the pretty fundamental question of what ARE veterinary surgeons and RVNs to call their unqualified colleagues, if not veterinary nurses? How indeed are those unqualified staff working in veterinary practice to describe their job title to their friends, down at the pub?
VetSurgeon.org sought to clarify the situation with the College, and the first point to make is that the new part of the CoPCs refers only to the use of the words 'veterinary nurse' when used in conjunction. The words 'nurse' or 'nursing' are not protected at all.
The College says that it is not within its remit to instruct veterinary surgeons or registered nurses as to how they should address unqualified staff, but suggested: 'Care Assistant' or 'Auxilliary'.
However, Ben Myring, RCVS Senior Policy and Public Affairs Officer said: "There is nothing to stop someone calling themselves a 'nursing assistant' or a 'head nurse'".
The Codes of Professional Conduct obviously apply only to those who are regulated by it. The title 'veterinary nurse' in unprotected in law and can therefore be used by anyone else.
So, the immediate implications seem to be as follows:
Do you have any other suggestions as to how unqualified nursing staff should be styled? Post them below.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against Duncan Davidson MRCVS, a South London veterinary surgeon accused of clinical failings in relation to his treatment of a cat and of keeping poor and misleading clinical records.
The Committee heard the case against Dr Davidson, who was the sole practitioner and owner of Mitcham Veterinary Clinic until his retirement from clinical practice in November 2014, at a hearing which concluded on 22nd January.
The first charge against Dr Davidson alleged that, between 7 November 2013 and 13 December 2013, he had failed to provide adequate care to Ameira, an Egyptian Mau cat. The charge was in four parts: that he had inappropriately administered corticosteroids; had failed to administer adequate fluid therapy; discharged the cat to its owner suggesting a referral when he should have suggested or arranged a same-day referral; and that he failed to communicate the urgency of referral/ further investigation of the cat’s condition to her owner.
The second charge was that, between 7 November 2013 and 17 January 2014, he dishonestly made retrospective alterations to Ameira’s clinical records and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
From the outset Dr Davidson, who attended the hearing, did not admit the charges against him and denied that his conduct, if found proven, constituted serious professional misconduct.
A summary of the circumstances of the case were that the cat had been admitted to Dr Davidson’s practice on 8 November 2013 with poor appetite and a piece of thread in its mouth. The cat was later admitted, on 21 November, with dehydration and was diagnosed with a linear foreign body (ie the thread) on 25 November 2013. Dr Davidson continued to treat Ameira with corticosteroids and rehydration fluids at the practice but a second opinion was sought by Ameira’s owner from a nearby veterinary practice. This practice referred the cat to the Royal Veterinary College for treatment. Surgery to remove the linear foreign body was undertaken on 13 December 2013, albeit with a poor prognosis, and Ameira subsequently suffered two cardiac arrests and died on 14 December 2013.
In terms of its findings on the first charge, the Committee heard from an expert witness, Mr Hurst, regarding the use of the corticosteroids which were administered to the cat by Dr Davidson on 22, 27 and 30 November 2013 and 5 and 12 December 2013. Although Mr Hurst said that a minority of veterinary surgeons may have provided corticosteroids when the cat was first presented to Dr Davidson on 8 November; when it was determined by Dr Davidson’s colleague Mr Holden that the cat’s condition was due to it having ingested thread, the use of corticosteroids was inappropriate from then on and would be considered contra-indicated. The Committee found this charge proven.
The Committee did not find the charge against Dr Davidson that he failed to provide adequate fluid therapy proven. When the cat was presented to the practice on 21 November 2013 suffering from dehydration, fluid rehydration was given but not administered intravenously. The Committee concluded that intravenous hydration was not necessary because the clinical records from both Dr Davidson and the Royal Veterinary College indicated that Ameira was only moderately dehydrated.
Regarding the referral of Ameira, the Committee could not be sure that the cat was sufficiently unwell on 23 November that it required immediate referral. Dr Davidson had sent Ameira home with her owner on that date on the basis that she was stable and that he would arrange a referral for her on 25 November. There was conflicting evidence from Dr Davidson and Ameira’s owner on the matter of whether, on 23 November, Ameira’s owner was advised that the cat’s condition was critical or that a referral was urgently required. Dr Davidson accepted that he did not seek to make an urgent referral. The charge was not proven.
Regarding the communication of the urgency for further investigation of Ameira’s condition, the Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Dr Davidson did not adequately communicate with Ameira’s owner after the diagnosis of a linear foreign body was made on 25 November. According to Dr Davidson, he explained the risk of further damage to the oesophageal and gastrointestinal tract and offered further radiography. This was strongly contested by Ameira’s owner. However, ultimately the Committee were unable to be satisfied as to which version was correct to the necessary standard of proof required.
Regarding the retrospective amendment of clinical records, the Committee found that although there were some “troubling aspects” about the case, particularly evidence of a telephone call with the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in which Dr Davidson said that no retrospective alterations had been made, it was unable to be satisfied so as to be sure of his motivation for changing the records. His contention was that changes had been made as he was concerned he would be subject to civil litigation by Ameira’s owner. However, the Committee found the charge not proven, also taking into account Dr Davidson’s good character and unblemished professional record over 40 years.
However, the Committee did find that Dr Davidson’s clinical records were illegible. Dr Davidson recognised the poor quality of his handwriting, which the veterinary surgeons to whom Ameira was referred were unable to understand. The Committee found this charge proven.
Taking into account the charges it found proven, the Committee then considered whether they constituted serious professional conduct either individually or cumulatively. Judith Webb, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "It does not consider that on the facts of this case the administration of corticosteroids amounted to disgraceful misconduct."
She added: "The Committee has already emphasised the importance of making legible handwritten records but it does not consider that the failure to do so in this case amounts to disgraceful misconduct.... The Committee has found that Dr Davidson was wrong to make retrospective entries in this case without making it clear when such alterations were made. The Committee does not consider that in this case the making of those alterations was capable of being disgraceful misconduct. The case is dismissed."