The RCVS is calling for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to supply up-to-date email addresses for its Survey of the Professions, which will take place early next year.

The survey is carried out every four years and, for the first time, next year's will be online only. It will ask questions about how vets and veterinary nurses are using their qualifications, how they carry out continuing professional development, what kind of practices they work in and their views on the profession, amongs other things.

The surveys will be sent via email so correct addresses are needed to make sure that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can have their say. Email addresses should also be unique, rather than being a generic practice email address, for example, so that the survey is sent to an individual rather than a whole team. This is also important for other emails from the College, such as personal fee or deadline reminders.

The RCVS also needs up-to-date contact details in order to offer members a better range of online services, such as the ability to better manage their Register details.

In order to check and update their contact details veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses should visit the log in area at www.rcvs.org.uk/login. Alternatively, they can contact the College's Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or membership@rcvs.org.uk

The RCVS Council has approved the new Strategic Plan designed to bring the College closer to its vision of enhancing society through improved animal health and welfare, over the next three years.

The Strategic Plan is founded on feedback from the profession and the public about what the College does well and where it could do better, and an analysis of how other leading regulators operate. It includes 35 actions, clustered under five themes, all centred on the purpose of setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.

For example, the College aims to introduce a service charter - for the public and the profession - of rights, expectations and responsibilities for each of its functions.

Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "This drive for excellent service lies at the heart of our focus on improvement.

"The concept of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as well as the public, being our 'customers', was one that unsettled the profession when it was first mooted. But I believe that only by ensuring that we focus relentlessly on improving how we interact with our customers will we deliver a service for the profession, the public, and, ultimately, the UK's animals, which is worthy of the name first-rate regulator."

Amongst other things, the Plan also commits to:

• Reduce the time it takes for a complaint to be concluded in a fair and transparent manner
• Improve the advice line for the public and the profession
• Establish statutory powers to conduct language testing for those from the EU for whom English is not their first language
• Cost and design a trial for a new consumer dispute resolution service
• Develop communications with the profession and the public in plain English

The Strategic Plan can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/strategy.

Also at its November meeting, Council approved:

• A new draft Charter, which will be open to consultation soon
• The 2014 budget, which includes no fee increases for the fourth year
• Arrangements for the introduction of the new Advanced Practitioner status, which will be finalised and launched during the second half of 2014
• A motion to reaffirm its commitment to a transparent and fair disciplinary process

More information on all of these topics will be available in the November issue of RCVS News, online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.

You can also hear direct from the CEO via his post-Council video update: www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos.

The RCVS has clarified its role concerning new UK veterinary schools, saying that it has no mandate to control student or graduate numbers.

Responding to calls from the profession that it should comment on the desirability of any change in the number of schools or graduates, the College has confirmed that whilst it is committed to setting, upholding and advancing the standards that any new UK veterinary degrees would need to meet in order to be approved by the Privy Council, it has no role in capping student numbers.

The College also points out that the free market and mobility of workers in the EU makes any control at the level of a sovereign state effectively meaningless with respect to workforce management. However, the College says it is committed to ensuring that standards are maintained, and to continue working with bodies such as the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education, which evaluates veterinary degrees across Europe.

The College also seeks to support healthy debate through providing information on the state of the profession - an example of which is the survey that it recently commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies on job availability for veterinary graduates over the last five years.

The headline results from that survey were released in the summer, and showed that increasing graduate numbers over the last five years have so far appeared to have had little impact on veterinary job prospects, with 94% of graduate respondents seeking a role in clinical practice obtaining work within six months of starting to look.

The full RCVS Survey of Recent Graduates report is now available, and also shows that, of the 43% of veterinary surgeons who graduated in the last five years who responded:

• The average time taken to complete the Professional Development Phase is 16.3 months
• 76% of new graduates started seeking work as soon as they graduated
• The average time taken for recent graduates to find their first veterinary position was 2.7 months
• 92% of first roles were in clinical practice, of which 53% were in small animal practice, 27% mixed, 10% farm animal and 9% equine
• 58% of first clinical roles were within RCVS accredited practices, although only 16% sought this
• Only 34% felt this first role met all of their needs; the most commonly-cited, as well as the most importantly-rated, reason for dissatisfaction with first jobs was 'I did not receive enough professional support from my employers and colleagues'
• 55% of first jobs were in the graduate's preferred location
• Of the 43% who had already left their first jobs, the most commonly-cited reason was 'poor management'
• For 13% of graduate respondents, their first role came to an end because it was a temporary position. This figure ranged from 9% in 2009 to 21% in 2012.

 The answers were analysed by year of graduation, veterinary school, age and gender, and the full report is available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon from the Register for six months, having found that her falsification of clinical records amounted to serious professional misconduct.

At the two-day hearing, Dr Nicola Ersilova was charged with, and admitted to, three separate incidences of false and dishonest clinical record keeping following her treatment of a collapsed cat, whilst working at Vets Now in Thamesmead, London.

The Committee heard how Dr Ersilova had suspected that Lafite the cat, belonging to Mr Yingzhan Xiao, had been poisoned, so administered fluids and treated her with Lidocaine. A lay colleague, who was assisting with the treatment, subsequently observed Dr Ersilova standing staring at the cat, which had stopped breathing, then leaving the room to go and speak to Mr Xiao. The lay colleague's evidence confirmed to the Committee that Lafite's heart was still beating at this point, and that Dr Ersilova was then heard telling Mr Xiao that Lafite had died while being treated. The lay colleague later discovered that Dr Ersilova had listed calcium gluconate on Mr Xiao's bill and not Lidocaine and, when she questioned the entry, Dr Ersilova told her she was worried about getting into trouble if she had listed Lidocaine.

Whilst reporting these irregularities to the senior veterinary surgeon at Vets Now, the lay colleague noticed that Dr Ersilova had also written "CPR unsuccessful" in the notes, although she was certain CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) had not been attempted.

During a subsequent Vets Now investigation, Dr Ersilova admitted adding this false information concerning Lidocaine, calcium gluconate and CPR, saying during interview that she was aware it was serious professional misconduct and that she was prepared to take the consequences. Vets Now reported the matter to the RCVS.

The Committee considered that all evidence before it fully supported the charges against Dr Ersilova, that her conduct was clearly dishonest, and that her actions were inexcusable, especially for someone as experienced as she was. It stated that a veterinary surgeon's duty to make only truthful and accurate records was so manifest and well known to veterinary surgeons that there could be no real excuse to make such false, misleading and dishonest entries.

The Committee highlighted the comment by Dr Ersilova that she knew she had done something wrong but did not expect her colleague to report her, as providing no explanation, or excuse, for doing something which she knew to be wrong.

A number of submissions were made to the Committee in mitigation, including that Dr Ersilova had admitted her dishonesty to both her employers and the Committee; had an otherwise unblemished record over 22 years of practice; had received no immediate financial gain by her actions; and, did not cause any animal suffering.

Accepting these submissions, the Committee nevertheless felt it needed to balance them against other factors. Dr Ersilova's decision to falsify the records was premeditated and had not been taken without an opportunity for full reflection. There were numerous entries in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct that highlighted the importance of professional integrity and accuracy, and, given the importance which the Code attached to the duty of veterinary surgeons to be truthful and honest in all their dealings with their clients, the Committee found Dr Ersilova's conduct to be "most reprehensible".

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Professor Sheila Crispin, said: "It is of great importance that the public should be able to retain confidence in the honesty and integrity of members of the profession. Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the truthfulness of what a veterinary surgeon has written in the clinical records of any animal [they have] treated.

"It is [our] decision that the sanction of suspension adequately reflects the seriousness of the [Dr Ersilova's] conduct. The sanction imposed is ... the most appropriate to inform the profession how seriously such dishonest conduct will be taken, because such conduct clearly brings the profession into disrepute and ... cannot and will not be tolerated."

The Committee then concluded that the least period of suspension that could be justified was one of six months.

The RCVS is now accepting disclosures from veterinary surgeons about any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings they may have against them, as part of a voluntary period before the requirement to disclose commences in 2014.

The requirement that veterinary surgeons notify the College about criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings on registration, and on an annual basis as part of their registration renewal each March, was introduced as part of the Code of Professional Conduct in 2012 (section 5.3, see Notes to Editors). However, the College has allowed a bedding-in period for the Code before enforcing the requirement.

From 2014, new registrants will have to disclose any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that may affect registration (for example, those from university fitness to practise procedures).

Veterinary surgeons already on the Register (including overseas and non-practising categories, as well as UK-practising) will only be required to disclose criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that have occurred since April 2006. Fixed-penalty motoring offences are excluded.

The veterinary profession has fallen under the Notifiable Occupations Scheme since April 2006, which means that serious convictions are already passed to the College from the police.

If a veterinary surgeon declares a criminal conviction, this will be initially considered by the Registrar, and, if necessary, referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee. In some cases, the matter will be referred on to the Disciplinary Committee to decide if the nature of the caution or conviction affects the veterinary surgeon's fitness to practise - in which case the usual sanctions of removal or suspension from the Register could apply.

Eleanor Ferguson, Head of Professional Conduct said: "We hope, through this new requirement, to increase the public's confidence in the veterinary profession, and to safeguard animal health and welfare. The move brings the veterinary profession into line with many others - including registered veterinary nurses, who have made such a disclosure since their Register was introduced, in 2007."

The RCVS has launched a dedicated advice line to assist affected veterinary surgeons, on 07818 113 056, open Monday to Friday, 11am-4pm.

Callers will speak to one of three RCVS solicitors who can advise on the process and the possible outcomes of disclosure. Alternatively, veterinary surgeons can contact disclosure@rcvs.org.uk.

Detailed information regarding the requirement, including examples of the kinds of convictions that may be referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee, and a disclosure form, can be found on www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.

The RCVS is seeking nominations for its 2014 Honours and Awards Round, and wants to hear about any individuals, of whatever age or experience, who have made an outstanding contribution to the profession.

The annual Honours scheme comprises two distinct and prestigious types of award: Honorary Fellowships for RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons and Honorary Associateships for non-veterinary surgeons. Both sets of awards are presented each year at RCVS Day - the College's AGM and award ceremony in London.

The College says it is keen for the Fellowship nominations net to be cast as widely as possible in order to offer recognition of veterinary achievements not only in more traditional fields like academia and clinical practice, but also in science, education, industry and politics.

In addition, Honorary Fellowship nominees no longer need to have been an RCVS member for 30 years, meaning that younger veterinary surgeons who have gone significantly above and beyond the call of duty will also be eligible for consideration.

Honorary Associateships are intended to celebrate the achievements of those who have contributed to the health and welfare of animals by working in fields related to the veterinary profession, and could be from a similarly wide range of backgrounds, for example, veterinary nurses, scientists, lecturers, farriers, charity workers, farmers, conservationists or those in industry and commerce.

Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "At my first RCVS Day this summer, I was hugely impressed with the calibre of candidates who received our awards, and delighted we were able to formally mark their achievements. The veterinary profession has a lot of talented people who deserve to be recognised for the contribution they have made, whether in science and academia, or in politics and clinical practice. Everyone knows someone who is worthy of this kind of recognition and I urge you to take the next step and nominate them for an award."

There are no restrictions on who can make a nomination, although the closing deadline is 13 September 2013. Full details on how to make a nomination are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours.

Following the outcry from the profession over the disciplinary hearing into Mr M Chikosi, the RCVS' new Operational Board has clarified the the College's position on the use of blankets to move animals.

The hearing found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.

As a result, the Disciplinary Committee directed that Mr Chikosi's name be removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct. The College says that since the appeal window has closed without an appeal being made, Mr Chikosi has now been struck off.

However, the Committee also said: "... his [Mr Chikosi's] advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back."

This was widely criticised as being out of touch with the practicalities of real life and unsupported by any evidence.

Speaking on behalf of the Board, President Neil Smith said: "We fully support the decision taken by the independent Disciplinary Committee with regard to the Chikosi hearing, with one comment requiring clarification: the issue of whether a blanket can be used to move an injured dog. We consider that it is acceptable, in most cases, to transport an injured dog with the aid of a blanket.

"The profession should be reassured that our Standards Committee [the new name for Advisory Committee] will consider the general issues raised by the Chikosi hearing at its next meeting. This will not be a review of the decision, but form part of the routine consideration of DC hearings made by the Committee to see if they raise issues that require additional guidance and advice."

The RCVS Registered Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Northants-based registered veterinary nurse who admitted to acting dishonestly with her employer, a client and a pet database company by taking home a patient that was supposed to have been euthanised.

During the two-day hearing, the Committee heard how Sally-Ann Roberts, formerly of the Best Friends Veterinary Group in Thrapston, had deliberately gone against the wishes of the owners of a 14-year-old Maine Coon cat called Jason that he be euthanised, rather than treated further, and instead had taken the cat home with her for "intensive nursing". Jason had subsequently escaped from Ms Robert's residence, leading her to fabricate a story, first to the pet database company, and then to Jason's owners and her employer, that he had escaped from the practice, before being returned by a member of the public two days later and then euthanised as originally requested.

Ms Roberts acted with her veterinary surgeon colleague Przemyslaw Bogdanowicz, who chose not to euthanise Jason and who, for his part, received a three-month suspension from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in December 2012. She repeated the false account on a number of occasions, both orally and in written statements, and also forged the signature of Jason's owner on official documentation in order to substantiate her story.

Only when Ms Roberts was interviewed for a second time by her then employer's area manager, did she finally admit to what had actually happened. Shortly afterwards, Ms Roberts was suspended from the practice and, following an internal disciplinary hearing a few days later, was dismissed by them for gross misconduct, along with Mr Bogdanowicz. There was no evidence available as to what ultimately happened to Jason.

Explaining her actions to the Committee, Ms Roberts said she was upset that Jason's owners wanted him to be euthanised and felt that he could recover if given some love and attention. She had asked Mr Bogdanowicz to discuss this possibility with Jason's owners, but he had refused, agreeing instead that she could continue Jason's treatment at her home. After Jason escaped, Ms Roberts said she was "devastated" and had "panicked", inventing the story of Jason's escape to cover her actions, which she now acknowledged were "wrong" and "stupid", and which she "bitterly regretted". Ms Roberts expressed sorrow and remorse for her behaviour, which she said would never occur again, and stated that being a veterinary nurse was everything to her.

In view of the admitted facts, the Committee judged that Ms Robert's dishonesty and breach of client trust, as well the distinct risk of injury to which she exposed Jason, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee balanced a number of aggravating factors (in particular, the forged signature) against Ms Roberts' "strong mitigation", which included her admitting the entirety of the charges against her, her medical and personal problems at the time, the insight she had shown into the effects of her actions on Jason's owners and her previous unblemished career.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speak on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that the Respondent has shown insight into the seriousness of her misconduct and that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. In light of the Respondent's admission, her insight, her remorse and the high regard in which she is held by her professional colleagues, it is the Committee's view that the sanction of two months' suspension is appropriate and proportionate."

The Committee's full decisions on facts and sanction are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.

During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.

In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.

Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.

One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.

The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.

The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.

Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.

Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.

"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."

Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.

The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

Guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on client confidentiality and microchipping has been amended by the RCVS.

The amendments deal with situations when a client presents an animal registered in another person's name, and a new flow diagram has been added to provide additional practical advice for vets and VNs dealing with these types of situations.

Animals can be registered in a different name to that of the client for various reasons. For example, an animal may have been re-homed or sold, but the details on its microchip have not been updated; it could have been stolen; or, the owners may be involved in a civil dispute.

Veterinary surgeons in practice may be unsure what to do in these situations. The new guidance informs veterinary surgeons about their options and provides advice on client confidentiality and data protection issues.

The College advises that veterinary nurses employed by a veterinary surgeon or practice should discuss the issues with a senior veterinary surgeon in the practice before breaching client confidentiality.

The amendments apply to Chapter 14 of the supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. The supporting guidance and flow diagram are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/confidentiality.

The RCVS has announced that the first members of its reconstituted Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees have been appointed and will join the Committees from July 2013.

Beverley Cottrell and Catherine Goldie (pictured right) have been appointed to the new Disciplinary Committee (DC), and are retiring as elected veterinary surgeons on Council to take up the posts. Veterinary surgeons Jane Downes and Charles Gruchy, and lay members Stuart Drummond, Ian Green, Chitra Karve and Mehmuda Mian, will also join the DC.

The new Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) members will include veterinary surgeons Andrew Ash and William Reilly, plus lay members Penny Howe, Sarah Pond and Elana Tessler.

These new appointments result from a legislative reform order (LRO) made to separate the RCVS disciplinary committees from the RCVS Council. The Royal College says this will improve the independence of the disciplinary process and bring it into line with regulatory best practice.

The LRO came into force on 6 April 2013, and amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA). The VSA now requires that the RCVS PIC and DC are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently. The change to the legislation ensures that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints, and adjudication.

The LRO also brings lay people formally into the PIC and will increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings.

RCVS Registrar and Head of Legal Services, Gordon Hockey said: "The LRO fundamentally improves the way the veterinary profession is regulated, and will help to ensure public confidence in our disciplinary processes. I am delighted by the constructive and collaborative working relationship that we had with Defra and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), which has allowed this major reform to be introduced."

To make these appointments, a long-list of lay and veterinary surgeon candidates was put together by recruitment consultants, and a shortlist was referred to an independent selection committee chaired by Sir Michael Buckley and including Christopher Laurence and Dr Joan Martin. The selection committee's choices were then ratified by RCVS Council at the June 2013 meeting.

As part of a transition phase, both committees will also include some Council members; after a two-year period, members of RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of either committee.

The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.

At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.

On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.

Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.

Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.

In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."

The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off a Wiltshire-based veterinary surgeon for charges relating to tuberculin (TB) testing on cattle that he undertook and certified at four farms during June and July of 2010.

At the end of the ten-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Sorin Dinu Chelemen guilty of 32 charges relating to his work as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for Animal Health, while employed as a locum at Endell Veterinary Group, Salisbury. Mr Chelemen, who represented himself at the hearing, disputed all of the charges. He also said he had had poor knowledge and comprehension of written and spoken English at the time, which had since improved.

Mr Chelemen gave the Committee detailed accounts of what he said occurred in relation to the TB testing at all four farms. However, in almost all the points where the facts were denied, the Committee found a stark divergence between his evidence and that given by witnesses for the College.

The Committee was generally unimpressed by Mr Chelemen's account of events, finding many of his allegations and explanations for his actions to be incredible or unreliable. For example, he claimed that during his Animal Health training, he had not been given a copy of the 'Manual of Procedures' containing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for TB testing. Although the Committee accepted Mr Chelemen's English had been poor at the time, leading to communication problems, he had satisfactorily demonstrated that he knew how to perform TB tests in accordance with these SOPs when he started work at the practice. Overall, the Committee found Mr Chelemen's attitude was that he had not done anything wrong and nothing was his fault, and that he had little understanding of the professional responsibilities incumbent on an OV.

By contrast, the Committee considered all the witnesses called by the College to have given clear, credible and consistent evidence. Complaints had been made about three farms that were separate and unconnected, and where the tests had been conducted on different dates. These complaints, if not identical, were very similar. The evidence was overwhelming that Mr Chelemen had not followed the SOPs when carrying out testing at three of the farms.

The Committee noted that the measurements recorded by Mr Chelemen did not show the differences which would be normally expected. Mr Chelemen had not measured the animals in accordance with the SOPs when he knew he ought to have, and he had been dishonest in certifying the tests.

When considering sanctions, the Committee found an aggravating factor was that Mr Chelemen's actions undermined procedures to prevent the spread of disease. In particular, he failed to notify the owners of animals on three farms that he had found reactors or inconclusive reactors, resulting in those animals not being isolated. Nor did he submit paperwork to Animal Health about these animals, which was a fundamental breach of his duties as an OV.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that Mr Chelemen had no previous RCVS disciplinary findings against him; and, that the OV training he received was limited, having regard to English not being his first language and relative inexperience as a TB tester. It also took into account that this disciplinary case had been in progress for three years, his poor health and his financial and family circumstances.

Mrs Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is of the view that this is a most serious case, in which the integrity of TB testing was undermined, and animal health was put at risk, which may have resulted in the spread of disease. Furthermore, this case involves findings of dishonesty, which has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

She directed that Mr Chelemen be struck off the Register.