The BVA and RCVS have announced the formation of the Vet Futures Action Group to take forward the ambitions and recommendations in the Vet Futures report ‘Taking charge of our future: A vision for the veterinary profession for 2030’ launched in November 2015.
The call for applications attracted more than 80 candidates with many more expressing an interest in helping to take the project forward.
The Action Group will be tasked with working collectively to turn the report’s 34 recommendations into clear actions with buy-in from across the veterinary profession and a timetable for activity.
The Action Group is made up of the BVA and RCVS Presidents and Junior Vice-Presidents, seven veterinary surgeons, a veterinary nurse, and a co-opted veterinary student:
The members of the Group joining the BVA and RCVS officers were selected by the Vet Futures Project Board for their mix of experience and expertise across the Vet Futures ambitions and themes (Animal health and welfare; Veterinary professionals’ wider roles in society; The health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals; Diverse and rewarding veterinary careers; Sustainable businesses and user-focused services; and Leadership), as well as in veterinary education, veterinary regulation, and veterinary nursing.
BVA President Sean Wensley said: "The Group has a very important task ahead and we are confident that we have an excellent group of people with the right balance of skills, experience and expertise to take forward the Vet Futures recommendations and turn them into concrete actions.
"We have had an incredibly positive response from the profession to the launch of the report and we hope organisations and individuals will now step up to work with the Action Group and take ownership of the activity for the good of the whole profession."
RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "We were overwhelmed by the response from the professions with ten applications for every place, and many more offers of support. The Project Board was particularly impressed by the high quality of the applications and the breadth of experience demonstrated by the candidates from all parts of the profession.
"It was incredibly difficult to select the members of the Group from such a strong field but we are pleased that we have captured the variety within the profession as well as the enthusiasm to drive the project forward. We sincerely hope everyone who expressed an interest will remain engaged with the project as it progresses this year."
RCVS Council member and Chief Veterinary Officer Professor Nigel Gibbens has been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the New Year’s Honours list for 2016.
Professor Gibbens (pictured right), who was appointed by the Privy Council to RCVS Council in 2008, has been recognised for his services to the veterinary profession and animal welfare.
Over on the other side of the world, Professor Norman Williamson, Chair of the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), has been appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, following an application supported by the RCVS.
Professor Williamson has been working with the College as part of the veterinary education accreditation process, taking part in university visitations both in the UK and abroad.
Bradley Viner, President of the RCVS, said: "Many congratulations to Professor Nigel Gibbens for his appointment as a CBE. As CVO, Nigel has made great strides in shaping and influencing animal health and welfare policy throughout the United Kingdom and strengthening the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the College and the profession at large.
"As an organisation we were also very happy to write in support of the application for Professor Williamson to become an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit and it is gladdening to see that his contribution to international cooperation in veterinary education has been recognised."
Photograph courtesy RCVS
The BVA and the RCVS are inviting applications from veterinary surgeons to join the new Vet Futures Action Group, set up to drive forward the ambitions identified in the Vet Futures report launched at BVA Congress at the London Vet Show on 20 November.
The Vet Futures report, Taking charge of our future: A vision for the veterinary profession for 2030, was the culmination of a year-long joint project by BVA and RCVS designed to help the veterinary profession prepare for, and shape, its own future. The Action Group is a vital next step in the Vet Futures project, ensuring the delivery of the report’s six ambitions and 34 recommendations.
BVA and RCVS are seeking seven veterinary surgeons and one veterinary nurse to join the Action Group to ensure there is buy-in from across the professions and to drive forward workstreams of activity. The group will be co-chaired by the BVA and RCVS Presidents, and both Junior Vice-Presidents will sit on the group. Action Group members will be independent and will not represent, or be required to report back to, any particular organisation.
Veterinary surgeons or nurses keen to apply for an Action Group role should have experience of working as an active member of a group or committee and the ability to deliver, engage and inspire others. The veterinary surgeon members should have specific expertise, knowledge and experience in relation to at least one of the Vet Futures ambitions or the cross-cutting issue of veterinary education. The ambitions cover:
Successful applicants must be able to attend three all-day meetings in London (9 February, 17 March and 12 May) and an all-day Vet Futures Summit (20 June), with a time commitment totalling approximately seven days between February and June 2016. The group will be supported by BVA and RCVS staff. For the full Vet Futures Action Group role profile and terms of reference, please visit: www.vetfutures.org.uk.
The deadline for applications is 12 noon, 31 December 2015.
The RCVS has brought out a new publication to help members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions understand their legal and professional obligations regarding controlled drugs.
Controlled Drugs Guidance is a consolidation of existing advice and guidance on controlled drugs from a number of organisations including the RCVS itself, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the Home Office. The guide also gives details of the existing legislation concerning controlled drugs, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated regulations.
The guidance provides advice on a variety of topics to reflect the common queries the RCVS Advice Team receives, such as storage, destruction and disposal; keys and keyholders for controlled drugs cabinets; controlled drugs in vehicles; and veterinary nurses administering controlled drugs.
The publication also deals with specific controlled drugs such as ketamine which, on 30 November 2015, was rescheduled to a Schedule 2 controlled drug, meaning that it is now subject to the same strict storage, prescription, dispending, destruction and record-keeping requirements as other medicines in this Schedule.
Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: “We hope that this publication will help members of the profession navigate the often complex legislative and professional requirements regarding controlled drugs, as well as imparting best practice advice on how they should be stored and disposed and so on.
"This publication has also been endorsed by our colleagues in the Home Office, VMD and BSAVA and, because this is an area that is subject to regular change, we will make sure to keep it up-to-date as and when the regulations change."
The publication is available to download from the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS has announced that it will be holding a free lunchtime webinar next week about its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial and its outcomes.
The webinar, titled ‘Who ADRs wins’, takes place at 1pm on Monday 7 December via The Webinar Vet and will be presented by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and RCVS Council member Niall Connell who was part of the Advisory Panel to the ADR trial.
The trial, which has been administered by Ombudsman Services, began in November 2014 in order to develop a system that addresses the many concerns received by the RCVS about the conduct of veterinary surgeons which it cannot deal with under its statutory powers.
During the webinar, Gordon and Niall will explain the roles of Ombudsman Services and the Advisory Panel, as well as examine the outcomes of some of the concerns handled by the trial.
They will also discuss the future of the ADR scheme. Following the presentation, listeners will have the opportunity to put their questions to the speakers.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/the-rcvs-alternative-dispute-resolution-scheme to register for the webinar. A recording of the webinar will be made available shortly after the event.
The RCVS is inviting nominations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are eligible to stand for RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council, respectively, in next year’s elections.
The College says next year’s elections will not be affected by the current Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation on the College’s governance arrangements and so, as always, six seats will be contested for RCVS Council, while two places are available on VN Council. Successful candidates are expected to serve four-year terms and will take up their places at RCVS Day in July 2016.
The nomination period for both RCVS and VN Councils runs until 5pm on Sunday 31 January 2016. In order to stand, candidates for either Council will need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate will also need to have two nominators. For RCVS Council candidates, these should be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members; for VN Council candidates, the nominators must be registered veterinary nurses who are not currently on VN Council.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are looking for committed and motivated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are dedicated to their respective professions and who, through the Councils and their various committees and subcommittees, wish to have direct input in decisions relating to how the College sets and advances standards of education and professional conduct. If this sounds like you then please find out more about standing as a candidate."
Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, added: "I would strongly encourage all those want to have a say and play a leadership role in veterinary nursing to stand up and be counted and put themselves forward as a candidate. It is a very exciting time to join VN Council as the new Royal Charter has formalised the Council’s powers to regulate education and our professional standards, meaning that the decisions you make can have a very real impact on the profession."
The election period will start around mid-March and run until 5pm on Friday 29 April 2016. Ballot papers will be sent to all registered veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are eligible to vote and, during the election period, the College will be sourcing questions from the professions to put to the candidates.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil16. The equivalent documents for VN Council candidates are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil16.
Prospective candidates for either Councils are also invited a ‘Meet the RCVS Day’ at the College’s offices in Belgravia House on Tuesday 15 December 2015, where they will have the opportunity to find out more about the role of the College and RCVS and VN Councils.
RCVS President Dr Bradley Viner and Chair of VN Council Liz Cox will also be on hand to answer questions about the duties and responsibilities of members of the respective Councils. Those interested in attending should contact Emma Lockley, Events Officer, on e.lockley@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773. Reasonable expenses for travel will be reimbursed.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
Lindsay Newell, a Derbyshire veterinary nurse, has been struck off by The Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS, after she was found guilty of the unlawful possession of veterinary medicines and failing to give regard to welfare in respect of six animals.
The hearing for Ms Newell, who did not attend and was not represented, concluded on 18th November 2015. It related to two main charges against her. The first was that, on 29 November 2012, she was found in possession of a number of veterinary medicines without lawful permission.
The Committee heard that the RSPCA and police officers had attended Ms Newell’s home on that day, where they found veterinary medicines, including controlled drugs, stored in an insecure cabinet within an insecure shed. It heard that during a police interview, she agreed that she was not allowed to possess some of the drugs and subsequently accepted a police caution, which the Committee took as an admission of the offence and therefore found the charge proved.
The second charge was that, between 1 and 29 November 2012 at the Burton Wildlife and Rescue Centre in Etwall, Derbyshire, she failed to give any or sufficient regards to the welfare of six animals in her care. These charges relate to an RSPCA investigation of the rescue centre on 29 November 2012 which found two animals dead and the rest of the animals emaciated and in poor physical condition.
The animals included a male lamb found dead in its pen, a ‘furry-faced’ lamb which died just over a week after the investigation took place, a female goat which died 12 hours after being taken to a veterinary practice for treatment and a pig which died during the investigation process, as well as an adult ewe and a pony which both survived. The charge against her also cited her failure to supply an adequate diet, obtain any or any adequate veterinary attention and explore and address the cause of the weight loss for these animals.
The Committee found all parts of the second charge proved and was satisfied that Ms Newell failed to give sufficient regard to animal welfare as is required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
In deciding its sanction, the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in this case. It found that, in respect of both charges, the misconduct was “sustained over a period of time rather than being a single and isolated incident” and that, in respect of the second charge, that there was “actual harm caused to animals, which resulted in the deaths of four out of the six animals.”
The Committee felt that this constituted reckless disregard for animal welfare rather than deliberate acts but, nevertheless, said that these animals unnecessarily suffered for a period of at least four weeks due to inadequate diet and that, as rescue animals that were already vulnerable, the expectation was that they would be given the appropriate level of care. It also found that Ms Newell had demonstrated limited insight into her behaviour. Furthermore, it considered that a Magistrates’ Court had also disqualified Ms Newell from keeping sheep, goats, pigs, and equines for a period of five years.
In mitigation it considered that Ms Newell did show some insight into her behaviour in relation to the first charge by making admissions during her police interview, as well as the fact that the animal sanctuary, which opened in 2008, had no complaints or cause for concern prior to 2012.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is of the opinion that removal of Ms Newell’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses is the only appropriate sanction based upon the severity of the facts found proved.”
The RCVS and the BVA have published the Vet Futures report: their vision for how the veterinary profession should look in 2030, coupled with 34 recommendations for change.
The report, which represents the culmination of a year of engagement, consultation and research with the veterinary profession, veterinary nurses, members of the wider veterinary team, key stakeholders, animal owners and the general public, says that in 2030 vets should be a leading force for animal health and welfare and valued for their wider roles in society. They should be confident, resilient, healthy and well supported, and benefit from exceptional leadership. And there should be a broad range of diverse and rewarding veterinary careers, as well as thriving, innovative and user-focused businesses.
While the focus of Vet Futures has been on veterinary surgeons, Vet Futures engaged with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and British Veterinary Nursing Association, as well as individual veterinary nurses, and the College says that many of the ambitions should resonate with members of both professions. It goes on to recommend that the veterinary nursing profession should build on the work of Vet Futures to develop its own clear vision and ambitions.
The recommendations within the report include:
Other recommendations include developing an animal welfare strategy for the profession, increasing collaboration with medical professionals and environmental organisations, adopting a more strategic long-term outlook for research funding, and exploring how to encourage a more diverse profession.
RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "The Vet Futures report is the culmination of a year of research and engagement with thousands of members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, which has given us a very firm foundation on which to build our ambitions and recommendations. We are extremely grateful to every individual who has contributed in some way to the project, and helped us to seize the initiative.
"Over the years the veterinary profession has proved itself to be adaptable and able to face challenges head on, and we have no doubt that by working together we will realise our joint vision of a profession in charge of its future. Ultimately, we all want a profession that is confident in itself and one in which members are proud to call themselves veterinary surgeons."
Sean Wensley, BVA President, added: "Vet Futures has proved to be an exciting, engaging and truly ambitious project for the veterinary profession and it has created a fantastic level of debate and engagement.
"The report we are launching today is not the end of the story; it is the beginning of the next chapter. It is crucial that we maintain the momentum of the project so we will be inviting members of the veterinary professions to step forward and join a new Vet Futures Action Group to help us turn the recommendations into actions and drive forward activity."
The full report can be downloaded here.
The RCVS has launched the new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), which is now open for applications for both practice accreditations and the new system of PSS awards.
Speaking after today’s launch at the London Vet Show, which over 200 veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers attended, Practice Standards Group chair Jacqui Molyneux, said: "The new Scheme is all about offering a pathway to improvement for practices of all shapes and sizes that want to aspire to excellence, and then highlighting these achievements to the animal-owning public in a way that is clear and easy to understand.
"Over half of all veterinary practice premises in the UK are already RCVS-accredited, which is fantastic for a voluntary scheme, but we’d really like to help more practices to get on board. I hope that the improvements and exciting new benefits that we’ve developed will make the Scheme even more rewarding for existing members, and encourage more people to join."
The College says that the main changes to the scheme have been based on feedback from the profession and input from the Practice Standards Group (PSG), with the dual aims of making it more accessible for those practices which aren’t yet PSS members, and even more rewarding for those who are already accredited.
Whilst retaining the existing accreditation levels across small animal, equine and farm animal practices (current RCVS-accredited practices will be automatically transferred to the new Scheme), a new modular structure helps to make the Scheme more flexible and ensure all types of veterinary practice – from ambulatory services to veterinary hospitals – can join. This structure also recognises the contributions of the whole practice team, helping to raise standards across the board.
Once accredited, practices can now apply for a range of optional awards that focus on outcomes and behaviours in specific areas, such as ‘In-patient Service’, ‘Team and Professional Responsibility’ and ‘Client Service’. Designated at either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’, these awards should help clients understand where a practice excels, and what skills and services are on offer, enabling them to make choices based on their needs and preferences.
The RCVS has also recruited and trained a new team of assessors, who will take more of an interest in listening to practice staff rather than just checking paperwork and equipment. It has also developed an online administration and support tool – nicknamed Stanley – to provide document storage, a calendar and a self-assessment function, to make the accreditation and awards application processes quicker and easier to manage.
As an introductory offer, the RCVS is now inviting applications from practices that would be willing to help with a final round of testing of the new Scheme, to be in with a chance to win one of 20 free assessment days, worth £350. The offer is open until Friday 4 December, and the first 20 practices drawn at random on 7 December will be allocated the free assessments.
Full details about the draw, the new Scheme and how to apply for accreditation and/or awards are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/newpss. The new promotional video shown above can also be viewed here.
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has launched a consultation on reforming the governance arrangements of the RCVS.
The consultation follows a period of discussions between the RCVS and Defra about how the College might best modernise Council.
The consultation gives the public and profession the opportunity to have their say on what reforms would best prepare the College for the future. It discusses the appropriate size and composition of Council, including the proportion of elected members, how veterinary schools should be represented, increasing lay membership, and ensuring appropriate veterinary nurse representation. It also examines how flexibility can be built into the reforms in case of future changes, such as the possibility of new categories of associate. Responses to the consultation will inform the College’s work with Defra to determine the precise details of any new governance arrangements.
The College says any reform should meet its unique requirements as a Royal College that regulates and the criteria already agreed by the College: Council’s decision-making role would be strengthened, for instance, by increasing the number of Council meetings per year. This would reduce or remove the need for a separate Operational Board in order that the CEO reports directly to Council.
Any reforms also need to ensure that Council has sufficient members to populate the College’s committees and Presidential team, and follow the government’s five principles of better regulation, by being proportionate, consistent, accountable, transparent and targeted.
RCVS President Bradley Viner (pictured top right) said “I am delighted that Defra is consulting on RCVS governance and the minister has the full backing of RCVS Council in so doing. This consultation is an opportunity to hear the voice of the profession and the public about an appropriate structure and oversight of the RCVS, reflecting the uniqueness of being a Royal College that regulates. Consulting on this important issue is in keeping with our desire to become first rate in what we do, building on other measures to modernise and improve the workings of the College.”
Locum David John Porter has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for rude and aggressive behaviour, deficient clinical standards and obstructing the Committee's investigation into the complaints against him.
Three charges were found against Mr Porter.
The first charge (charge A) concerned failure to communicate courteously and respectfully with colleagues. This charge related to four incidents as follows:
In finding him guilty of this charge the Committee referred to his “wholly unacceptable exchanges with other veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and ancillary practice staff members with whom he was working on the dates in question.”
The second charge for which he was found guilty (charge C) concerned what the Committee called “his seriously deficient clinical standards when treating animals under his care”, in particular that:
Within charge C he was cleared of two further parts of the charge – first, that he failed to discuss euthanasia with a client in relation to a kitten and failed to provide the client with sufficient advice and instructions regarding after-care; and, second, that he prescribed steroids to treat a kitten for muscle strain at a time when it was recovering from surgery.
The third charge for which he was found guilty (charge D) relates to Mr Porter’s failure, between 7 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, to respond adequately to communications from the RCVS. In particular that:
As to the conduct found proved in relation to charge D, the Committee set out its findings of fact and declared: “What Mr Porter chose to do was to attempt to obstruct the College in its attempts to investigate the complaints laid against him and, thereafter, its attempts to bring him before the Committee to answer the charges preferred against him. In short, he has directly questioned, and then disregarded and thwarted, the legitimate role of his professional regulatory body.”
The Committee’s reasons for taking a serious view of such conduct were expressed in the following words: “Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the expectation that all veterinary surgeons, as responsible professional persons, will co-operate fully and promptly to all proper enquiries made of them by the College. This is the wider public interest factor which means that deliberate attempts to thwart the College’s enquiries into complaints must, in our judgment, come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
During the course of the hearing, which began in June 2015 and was adjourned three times, Mr Porter was cleared of charge B against him which concerned alleged refusal to undertake out-of-hours work for the Clent Hills Veterinary Group having previously indicated he would undertake such work.
In making the decision on the sanction in this case, Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In reaching our conclusion as to the sanction which is merited in this case we have taken into account the totality of Mr Porter’s conduct and failings. We consider that the conduct pertaining to Charges D(i) and (ii), even when viewed separately, demand the imposition of a direction for the removal of Mr Porter’s name from the Register.
“When that conduct is considered in conjunction with the other misconduct found proved in relation to Charges C1 to C4, which identify his clinical failings, and Charges A1 to A4, which demonstrate unprofessional behaviour in the workplace, we unhesitatingly conclude that there is no other sanction that could be considered sufficient, other than that of erasure.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.
Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.
Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.
Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.
In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.
However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.
The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”
However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.
In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”
In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”
In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”
It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.
Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”
The RCVS is seeking applicants for an Appointment Group which will be responsible for deciding the membership for the governing body of the new RCVS Fellowship.
In June, RCVS Council approved proposals to develop a new style Fellowship to move it away from being an examination-based award to a formal learned society with routes to entry for those veterinary surgeons who can demonstrate meritorious contributions to clinical practice, to the profession or to learning. The Fellowship by thesis route has been discontinued as of 1 August 2015, although all applications received by this route prior to that date are being processed.
The new Fellowship will be governed and administered by a Fellowship Board with an additional Credentials Panel of up to 30 members to review new applications.
The College says it is now in the process of putting together an Appointment Group which will decide the membership of the Fellowship Board and the Credentials Panel. It is currently seeking to appoint a veterinary surgeon in the earlier stage of their career to the Group. The full details of the role, including details of the person specification, how to apply and information on expenses and remuneration can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus
The Group will be chaired by former RCVS President Lord Trees with other members being RCVS President Dr Bradley Viner and BVA President Sean Wensley as well as a lay observer. The first meeting of the Appointment Group is likely to take place before the end of the year and, once the Fellowship Board and Credentials Panel are established, the Group will be dissolved.
For an informal chat about the role before applying, contact Dr Simon Wallace, RCVS Education and Scientific Officer, on s.wallace@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0702.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended two veterinary surgeons from the Register after finding them guilty of lying to clients and the College about the circumstances of a castration procedure which led to the death of a dog.
The Committee suspended Mr Mpho Donald Lesolle and Mr Georgi Cheshmedzhiev from the Register for four and two months respectively, following surgery undertaken on Benson, a two-year-old male Labradoodle belonging to Mr and Mrs Grayson.
During the proceedings, the Committee heard that, on 6 August 2013, Mr and Mrs Grayson brought Benson to the Swinfen Veterinary Centre in Stafford, where Mr Lesolle is the practice principal and Mr Cheshmedzhiev was his assistant, for the operation which was undertaken by Mr Cheshmedzhiev. Mr Lesolle did not directly supervise the procedure telling the Committee that he was confident that his colleague could carry out the castration, having permitted him to do so on previous occasions.
The Committee heard that, after the operation, a nursing assistant, Ms Bell, had noticed that there was blood on the bedding and that Benson had a swollen scrotum. Mr Lesolle then performed a scrotal ablation on Benson, who was discharged later that day.
However, on the morning of 8 August 2013, Mrs Grayson discovered that Benson had died during the night. An independent post-mortem concluded that he had probably died of intra-abdominal bleeding which caused circulatory collapse. Mr and Mrs Grayson raised a concern with the RCVS in September 2013.
The charge against Mr Lesolle relates to his actions following the operations and during the investigation. The four parts of the charge were that he failed to be sufficiently open with Mr and Mrs Grayson on the circumstances of Benson’s surgery; that, in September 2013, he wrote to the College indicating that he had in fact performed the castration and failing to state that there had been two operations; that, on 23 January 2014, he informed Pam Mosedale, a Veterinary Investigator employed by the College, that he had carried out both procedures; and that, on the same day, he also encouraged his veterinary nursing assistant Ms Bell to be dishonest with the College’s investigators.
Mr Lesolle, who was present at the hearing, admitted all parts of the charge against him. He told the Committee that he decided to take responsibility for Mr Cheshmedzhiev’s operation out of a desire to protect his colleague whom he regarded as vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. He also accepted that he had encouraged Ms Bell to lie during her interview. He told the Committee that he had persisted with the deceit until 15 January 2015, when he gave a full account of what had occurred.
The three parts of the charge against Mr Cheshmedzhiev, who was not in attendance or represented at the hearing, were that in a letter to the College sent in September 2013, he indicated that he had not undertaken the castration procedure on Benson; that on 23 January 2014 he had denied carrying out the operation while being interviewed by Pam Mosedale; and that, on 19 June 2014, while being interviewed by a solicitor instructed by the College, he said that Mr Lesolle had carried out both procedures.
The Committee found the charge against Mr Lesolle amounted to serious professional misconduct, falling far short of what is expected of a professional. The Committee highlighted the protracted nature of his deceit and the fact that he encouraged another member of staff to participate in it. However, it did accept that his motivation was to protect Mr Cheshmedzhiev.
In deciding on the sanction for Mr Lesolle, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having taken the calculated decision to deceive the College as to what had occurred, he abused his position of responsibility to obtain support for his deceit by involving a junior employee, without any proper consideration of the effect of that decision upon her. Instead he continued with the deceit until he was presented with incontrovertible evidence that he had not carried out both procedures on the dog. In the Committee’s view he showed a wilful disregard for the College’s investigatory process.”
However, in mitigation, it also accepted that he was protecting a colleague and that there was no financial gain. It also considered his personal circumstances, the fact that he is sole principal of a small mixed practice which provides his sole source of income and that the rented accommodation also provides a home for his wife and two children. Taking all factors into account, the Committee imposed a sanction upon Mr Lesolle of four months’ suspension from the Register.
In regards to Mr Cheshmedzhiev, the Committee did not find the part of his charge relating to the letter sent in September 2013 to be proven but, in respect of the other two parts of his charge, found that his conduct fell far short of what is expected of a professional. It highlighted his willing participation in the deceit over a protracted period and his failure to take responsibility for his own involvement in the operation on Benson.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee said that the fact that Mr Cheshmedzhiev had lied to the College’s investigators on two occasions and did not admit that he had carried out the castration and apologise for his actions until February 2015, after he had returned to his native Bulgaria, was an aggravating factor.
Ian Green added: “The Committee accepts that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Mr Lesolle to provide a dishonest account of what had taken place to the College’s investigator Mrs Mosedale, and solicitor, Mr Hudson. It also accepts that he has been described by Mr Lesolle as a vulnerable person, lacking in self-confidence in his ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom.
“Nevertheless, Mr Cheshmedzhiev accepted the obligations contained in the Code of Professional Conduct when he registered as an MRCVS, which included an obligation to cooperate honestly with the College’s investigatory process. It has also noted that he has expressed a present intention not to work in or visit the United Kingdom again.”
Taking into account all factors, the Committee decided the appropriate sanction was to suspend him from the Register for two months.
The RCVS has asked 6,700 veterinary surgeons to submit their CPD records for 2012-2014 as part of its second annual CPD audit.
The news came at more or less the same time that VetSurgeon.org announced that it is developing a new feature to make it easy for veterinary surgeons to document time they spend on the website towards their CPD requirement.
Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, members of the profession must undertake at least 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period, averaging 35 hours per year.
Those being audited include 5,568 vets who failed to confirm whether or not they complied with the CPD requirement in this year’s annual renewal process; 488 vets who failed to respond to last year’s audit and did not confirm their compliance this year; 43 pre-2012 graduates who have not yet completed the Professional Development Phase; and 184 veterinary surgeons who specifically declared they were not compliant during this year’s annual renewal process.
In addition to these, a random sample of 400 veterinary surgeons who did declare they were compliant this year will be asked to share their records.
For last year’s audit, the College wrote to 3,975 veterinary surgeons, of whom 82% were found to be compliant. However, 910 veterinary surgeons did not respond to the request at all.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “The purpose of the exercise is not only to gauge levels of compliance, but also to gain a greater understanding of why some people are unable to meet the requirement. Therefore, we will be asking those who are still non-compliant to provide us with an explanation as to why, and to submit a learning and development plan outlining the steps they will take to become compliant.
“Since 2012, the Code of Professional Conduct has made it very clear that, as professionals, veterinary surgeons have an obligation to maintain and improve their skills and experience so as to provide a better service to their patients and clients.
“Last year’s audit proved that the majority of the profession do take CPD seriously and do engage with it over-and-above what is required, but a small minority do not. It is important to remind this small minority that persistent failure to comply with CPD requirements, or to respond to requests from the College, may result in them being reported to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.”
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, added: “This audit is also an opportunity to remind people that we are not prescriptive when it comes to CPD and that it is not the case that we only count attendance at courses as learning and development.
“Broadly, any activities that you undertake to further your competence and provide tangible learning that can be put to use in your professional life, can be classed as CPD. For example, this could include private reading, webinars, clinical audit activities, mentoring, work-based observation and many more activities besides.
“What we ask is that you record and document these activities, reflecting on what you learnt and how it will affect your practice.”
Veterinary surgeons who are being asked to submit their records can do so by allowing the RCVS to access their online Professional Development Record (PDR) or to send in their CPD record card via email or post. The deadline for responding is Friday 13 November.
Those who wish to sign up to the free, online PDR can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk. More information about what constitutes CPD and the Code of Professional Conduct requirements can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
Vet Futures has published a guest blog by Laura Kidd MRCVS which asks how the profession can increase the number of veterinary nurses entering and staying within the profession?
In her blog, Laura, a VN lecturer and clinical skills tutor for veterinary students, argues that the year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary nurses seems to be insufficient to meet demand. Furthermore, there is a trend towards people leaving the profession relatively early, with the average age being just over 30.
She writes: “Identifying the reasons for VNs leaving the profession at a young age and addressing these, is one potential way of increasing VN numbers in the future.”
Laura argues that poor pay, stress, not feeling rewarded or valued and perceived lack of career progression all contribute to people leaving the profession, although she welcomes initiatives from the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA), BVA, RCVS and others to increase the status of the profession, create more diverse career opportunities and improve the profession’s mental wellbeing.
However, she adds that: “perhaps we may, reluctantly, have to accept that, for the time-being, veterinary nursing is a young profession with a high turnover.”
With this in mind she suggests that training more veterinary nurses will be the key to increasing the number of qualified members of the profession in the immediate future. In order to do this she believes that more practices need to be supported to become RCVS-approved Training Practices offering clinical training and work experience for student veterinary nurses and that an alternative training pathway for veterinary nurses may need to be looked at.
She adds: “The entry requirements for the VN Diploma are relatively low, yet the qualification is academically demanding: the volume and depth of knowledge is considerable for the level and qualification and the requirement to demonstrate critical reflection through academic writing can be challenging.
“It is regrettable that some student veterinary nurses, who appear to have the qualities to be very good VNs, are lost to the profession, unable to pass awarding body exams. Should we be developing an additional VN training pathway which allows more students to demonstrate they have the required skills to provide high quality nursing to their patients?”
In response to her proposal, this month’s poll will ask visitors “Is there a need for another VN training option?” To read the blog, leave a comment and take part in the poll please visit www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss
Last month’s poll asked if vets always acted as animal welfare advocates. This was in response to an article by animal welfare expect Professor David Main in which he argues that the profession should do more to demonstrate its animal welfare credentials and introduce safeguards against excessive profit-seeking. Although just 22 people took part in the poll, around two-thirds (68%) of them said that vets do not always act as animal welfare advocates.
The RCVS has launched an online petition calling on Parliament to protect the title ‘veterinary nurse’ in law.
The petition follows on from the work done by the College earlier in the year, drawing up the ‘Veterinary Nurse (Protection of Title) Bill’ which was submitted to a ballot of the House of Lords in May by former RCVS President and Council member Professor the Lord Trees and received its first reading on 10 June.
Unfortunately, Lord Trees' Bill was drawn low in the ballot, so it is now thought unlikely - though not impossible - that it will be given time for a second reading in this parliament.
Nevertheless, the College is continuing to try and raise awareness of the issue, both amongst the public and parliamentarians. If the petition gains enough signatures, it should maximise the chances of the Bill being given a proper airing in parliament, this year or in the future.
Liz Cox, the Chair of VN Council, said: “We believe that the fact that anybody can call themselves a veterinary nurse is unacceptable. It means that there is potential for the public to be misled and for animal health and welfare to be compromised. Therefore we would urge veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and animal owners to sign this petition. With 10,000 signatures the Government is obliged to respond formally and take a stance on the issue; with 100,000 signatures the issue would be considered for a formal parliamentary debate.
“If we are successful with this campaign, the public will be assured that they are receiving the highest standard of nursing care for their animals from a genuine professional and by protecting the title we can remove any doubt about who is a veterinary nurse.”
In conjunction with the petition, the RCVS has also produced a template letter which the profession and public can use to write to their local Member of Parliament asking them to support the campaign. For example, the letter asks the MP to adopt the Veterinary Nurse (Protection of Title) Bill and enter it into a Private Members’ Bill ballot or introduce it as a 10-Minute Rule Bill.
The petition, and the campaign in general, has received support from the BVNA and the British Veterinary Association BVA.
Fiona Andrew, President of the BVNA, said: “BVNA has campaigned for the protection of the title of 'Veterinary Nurse' for many years. We are delighted that the RCVS is continuing the campaign with the addition of the online petition and letter template.
“We would ask all out members to sign the petition and write to their MP. We believe that this is an important step towards giving clarity and reassurance to the public, strengthening the profession and raising awareness of what veterinary nurses can do and enhancing animal welfare.”
John Blackwell, President of the BVA, added: “BVA is delighted to support the campaign to protect the title, as veterinary nurses are an essential part of the veterinary team and deserve full recognition for their roles. By protecting the title it not only recognises the skills of qualified veterinary nurses, but also gives clients confidence that their animals are receiving the highest standard of care possible.” Those who wish to sign the petition can do so on the UK Government and Parliament petition website https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106153 To find out more about the campaign, download a template letter to an MP and view the College's animated video about protecting the title, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/vntitle
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to accept undertakings from a Dorset veterinary surgeon, Philippa Ann Rodale MBE, in which she requests that her name is removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons with effect from 31 July 2015, and undertakes never to apply to be restored to it.
The Committee met on Monday 17 August, resuming a hearing which had been adjourned on 20 July. The adjournment had been made to allow Ms Rodale time to submit formal responses to the charges against her and indicate whether she agreed with them. In the event, as outlined by a letter from her solicitors received by the College on 14 August, Ms Rodale declined to comment on the charges and did not admit to any of them.
Ms Rodale did not attend the hearing on 17 August, however, the Committee decided to continue in her absence, on the understanding that, as evidenced by her solicitors’ letter, she was fully aware of the hearing and had voluntarily waived her right to be presented and represented.
The original charges related to Ms Rodale’s standards of practice (in relation to issues such as biosecurity, hygiene, in-patient facilities, drug storage and the disposal of hazardous waste, among other things) and also to a test for Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin. The charges relating to her standards of practice did not have complainants, as the College raised the matters itself; with respect to the Tuberculin test charge, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as the relevant body, raised no objection to the proposed course of accepting undertakings.
In accepting the undertakings, the Committee felt that a contested hearing that could take up to seven days and involve up to eight witnesses for the College and up to three for the Respondent would not be in the public interest. Furthermore, since the 20 July hearing, Ms Rodale had retired and closed her practice. The Committee also noted that there had been no previous disciplinary findings against her, in what was otherwise a long and unblemished career.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals since the Respondent has now retired and is no longer in practice. It is also satisfied that the reputation of the profession is upheld since the undertakings offered go beyond any sanction which the Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing, were any of the Heads of Charge to be found proved. It considers that it would not be proportionate or in the public interest for there to be a lengthy contested hearing.”
Vet Futures has published the results of a survey of the profession in which only half of veterinary surgeons who graduated within the last eight years say their career has matched their expectations.
The online survey gathered views from 892 veterinary students (via the Association of Veterinary Students) and 1,973 veterinary surgeons who had graduated within the last eight years, during May and June this year.
Although 37% of graduates reported that their working lives had met their expectations, and a further 13% said it had exceeded them, this left 50% partly or wholly unsatisfied. Furthermore, 10% said they were considering leaving the profession entirely.
The RCVS and the BVA say the results should be a “wakeup call” to the profession.
Vets who have been qualified for five years or more were least optimistic about the future, rating their opportunities for career progression less positively than more recent graduates. They were also least likely to feel that their degree had prepared them for their current work. Meanwhile, only 34% of students felt that their degree was preparing them ‘very well’ for the work they wanted to do.
73% of students intended to work in the UK, with most aspiring to work in small animal/exotic or mixed practice, although one in 10 was as yet undecided. Of the students, 45% said they wanted to become practice owners or partners. Clearly the reality is proving less enticing, because only 25% graduates shared the same aspiration. In addition, nearly double the number of graduates said they wanted to work outside clinical practice (18%), compared to students.
When looking for a job, the three factors that both graduates and students agreed would have the greatest influence on their choice of career were intellectual satisfaction, location and a supportive environment.
This last requirement chimes with the fact that among the most popular suggestions for improvement to the veterinary degree were compulsory modules on managing stress, personal development and work-life balance, alongside more teaching of business and finance skills, and extra-mural studies (EMS) placements in a wider range of settings, such as industry.
BVA President, John Blackwell, said: “The drop off in career satisfaction for vets during this crucial first eight years in practice is something we can’t afford to ignore. It points to frustration over career development opportunities and dissatisfaction with support available in practice. For the veterinary profession to remain sustainable, and an attractive career choice for the best and brightest, we need to address these issues with some urgency.”
RCVS President, Dr Bradley Viner, said: “We clearly need to address the disconnect between expectation and reality for many recent graduates. Reviewing the educational foundation of the profession is a thread that runs through many of the proposed actions that will be outlined in the Vet Futures report due this autumn. The teaching and assessment of non-clinical skills – both as part of the undergraduate curriculum and within postgraduate education – will be important, as will be the promotion of non-clinical career pathways.”
The survey also covered issues such as students’ aspirations in terms of the type (size, ownership, sector) of practice in which they would like to work, and graduates’ future career plans. It also considers attitudes from both groups with respect to new technology.
The full research report “Voices from the future of the profession,” can be read at www.vetfutures.org.uk/resources.
The RCVS has launched a new animated video to help promote Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) accredited practices to the public, and explain the benefits of the scheme.
Launched in 2005, almost 60% of practices are now part of the PSS, which requires them to submit to a rigorous inspection every four years and meet a stringent standards across a wide range of areas including cleanliness and hygiene, facilities and equipment, staff training and development and customer service. Practices may also be subject to spot-checks between inspections.
Jacqui Molyneux, who heads up the RCVS Practice Standards Group said: “Our new video is a light-hearted explanation of the Practice Standards Scheme, how it can help animal owners decide which practice to go to and reassure them about the standards they can expect to find at an RCVS-accredited practice.”
The College says a similar version of the video will soon be available for RCVS-accredited practices to show to their clients, either on their own websites and social media channels, or in the waiting room.
Jacqui said: “Not only do we want to spread the word about the benefits of the Practice Standards Scheme and suggest animal owners look for the RCVS-accredited practice logo, but we also want to give accredited practices an engaging way of telling their clients about their achievement.
“Gaining RCVS accreditation is not easy, so accredited practices deserve every opportunity to demonstrate to their clients their commitment to supporting high standards of veterinary care. This fun two-minute video should help them do just that.”
Animal owners can search for an RCVS-accredited practice in their area, or elsewhere in the UK, using Find A Vet – the College’s online search tool – at www.findavet.org.uk.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and the BVA to help the profession prepare for and shape its own future, has published a guest blog in which an academic argues that the profession needs to introduce safeguards to prevent inappropriate profit-seeking behaviour.
David Main is Professor of Animal Welfare at the School of Veterinary Sciences at the University of Bristol, with research interests in welfare assessment, animal welfare education and intervention strategies to improve welfare.
In his blog (www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss), Professor Main says he believes the vast majority of individual veterinary surgeons and practices are not motivated by money and do have animals’ best interests at heart, but that the differences between the business structure of veterinary and medical practitioners in the UK means the profession is always at risk of standing accused of excessive profiteering.
He said: “Since we still live in the age of the media scare story, it would seem prudent for the profession to embed some anti-profit seeking safeguards in our regulatory controls before, rather than after, a problem is highlighted.” One suggestion he makes is for the prohibition of turnover-based incentive schemes in favour of incentives based on health outcomes.
He believes that such safeguards, which he says could be incorporated into the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, would be a “healthy demonstration” that the profession has animal welfare rather than profit as its main priority.
Professor Main also argues that the profession urgently needs to deliver on society’s expectation of vets as animal welfare experts: “Veterinarians could perhaps... do more at an individual level to act as animal welfare advocates. It is easy to inform clients on the technical rationale for a specific husbandry change but then walk away knowing full well the client will not action the advice. In the medical profession, advanced communication techniques are becoming more widely accepted to promote positive change within their patients. Perhaps we should be more explicit in teaching our veterinary students influencing skills.”
In response to David’s blog, this month’s Vet Futures poll asks visitors ‘Do vets always act as animal welfare advocates?’
The previous month’s poll, which was based on an article co-written by Erwin Hohn and Adi Nell from MediVet, asked to what extent vets would be willing to work collaboratively with others if it would benefit all. Of the 50 people who answered the poll, 60% said they would be completely willing to work with others, 32% a lot and 8% to some degree – no one said they would be unwilling to work with others.
The RCVS reports that its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial is now nearing completion with over two-thirds of its target number of cases either resolved or in process.
The year-long trial, which began in November 2014, aims to gather the evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme which would provide a way of adjudicating on concerns raised about a veterinary surgeon that do not meet the RCVS threshold of serious professional misconduct.
The aim of the trial, which is administered by the independent, not-for-profit Ombudsman Services, is to make determinations on around 100 cases in order to gather information about types of concern, time taken to resolve disputes, recommendations and how likely each party is to accept recommendations. As of this week some 72 cases have been referred to the trial scheme, with final decisions made in relation to 54 of these cases.
RCVS CEO Nick Stace was responsible for pushing forward the trial believing that “what is good for the consumer is good for the profession”. The College also says it brings it into line with a European Union Directive on alternative dispute resolution which, while not legally binding, specifies that regulators and other ‘competent authorities’ should have consumer redress systems in place.
Nick said: “The majority of cases are either being determined in the veterinary surgeon’s favour or finding that they need take no further action in order to resolve the dispute. Where recommendations have been made in favour of the client, the suggested remedies have generally been for a small goodwill payment to be made.
“However, the trial has not been without some frustrations so far. The fact that participation in the trial is entirely voluntary has meant that, in many cases, members of the profession have chosen not to take part.
“With this in mind, it is very important to stress the benefits of the trial to the profession – chiefly that many of the vets who chose to take part have had their actions exonerated by Ombudsman Services in a way that a concern being closed by our Professional Conduct Department does not. For clients, where a vet does have a case to answer, it gives them the chance to seek recompense without having to resort to legal action.
“Regardless of which way the decision goes in any of these cases, participating in the trial can bring these often long-standing and burdensome disputes to a close.”
The trial will continue to run until the end of October and a full report and recommendations will be presented to RCVS Council at its meeting on Thursday 5 November 2015. Full details of the trial and its parameters can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
Lincolnshire veterinary surgeon David Bull MRCVS has won a Vet Futures ‘Headlines of tomorrow’ competition with his entry: ‘Vets and medics collaborate to prevent human and animal obesity’.
The competition was held at BSAVA Congress in April where Vet Futures-themed fortune cookies contained a message asking those attending ‘What future headline do you want to see?’ and providing a weblink to enter the competition.
David, a joint partner at Vets4Pets in Lincoln South and an Advanced Practitioner in General Small Animal Surgery, said: "The headline was inspired by topical issues, having ‘One Health’ in mind and the issue of obesity in our patients, as well as the general human population. I feel that these are some of the big issues of our time, especially that of obesity which has been linked to so many other diseases and is essentially a self-induced problem.
“We see so many overweight cats, dogs and rabbits on a daily basis. It seems to be becoming a more common problem, as well as seemingly more accepted in society. This is to the extent that we have some clients that come in worried because they have been told that their dog is too thin, when in actual fact they are in an ideal body condition and are being compared to overweight pets which have become perceived as normal.”
Some of the other topics raised in the competition include the veterinary profession taking the lead in tackling ‘superbugs’, veterinary surgeons topping job satisfaction and wellbeing polls and the profession taking a leading role in One Health and medical advancements.