The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who formerly practised in Norwich should be removed from the Register, having found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery following his Crown Court conviction for fraud.
During the one-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard how Francisco da Cruz had abused his position whilst practising as a veterinary surgeon at Hellesdon Vets, his then workplace in Norwich, by defrauding a insurance companies of around £10,000 with fictitious claims for veterinary treatment on non-existent pets.
Following an investigation by the City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), Mr da Cruz was convicted on five counts of fraud by false representation on 21 February 2013 at the Old Bailey in London, and later sentenced to eight months' imprisonment (suspended for two years) and 200 hours of unpaid community work; he was also ordered to pay just over £10,000 in compensation and costs.
Although Mr da Cruz had left the UK for Brazil shortly after his sentencing and was therefore not present at the hearing, the Committee was satisfied that he was deliberately evading the disciplinary proceedings, rather than being genuinely unable to participate in them, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
First accepting the copy certificate of conviction against Mr da Cruz as true, the Committee then had no hesitation in concluding that these convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a member of the veterinary profession. It found that the five counts of fraud were deliberate crimes of dishonesty, committed over a significant period of time and for significant financial gain. He had abused his position as a veterinary surgeon and abused the trust which the insurers placed in him as a professional.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has no real confidence that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour from the Respondent. His conduct subsequent to the criminal proceedings gives it no confidence that he has reformed himself to the extent that he will in the foreseeable future be fit to return to practice. So far from satisfactorily completing his criminal sentence, it appears that the Respondent has deliberately gone abroad to avoid doing so."
Bearing in mind that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish Mr da Cruz, but to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct within it, the Committee concluded that the convictions were too serious to allow any sanction other than removal from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's decisions are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
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.
Vets Now has published a response to the RCVS DC ruling in which Munhuwepasi Chikosi, a locum working for the company, was struck off for delaying an emergency OOH home visit.
The response is available in full here: http://www.vets-now.com/news/?item=4191
The RCVS Charitable Trust, has announced a complete rebranding that includes a change of name - RCVS Knowledge - and the refocus of its mission on supporting the flourishing evidence based veterinary medicine (EBVM) movement across the globe.
For the past 50 years, the charity has been known as a small funder of veterinary research and the home of the only freely-accessible library for the practising veterinary community in the UK.
Nick Royle, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge said: "RCVS Knowledge is a name that encompasses our three core offerings: historical knowledge represented by our valuable Historical Collection, present knowledge, represented by our library, and future knowledge, represented by the new evidence based veterinary medicine project, which is underpinned by our grants programme."
The RCVS Knowledge re-launch goes further than a mere name change, and comes as the charity refocuses its efforts to become a global intermediary for EBVM, a direction reached following a period of consultation, and on the back of a successful symposium on the subject held at the end of 2012.
Nick, a former CEO of the human evidence based medicine resource, The Cochrane Collaboration, said: "Today, veterinary surgeons and nurses are required to take account of an ever-increasing pool of scientific data, the owners' values and preferences, and their own clinical expertise when making clinical decisions. RCVS Knowledge is ideally placed to generate, collate and distribute this information to support evidence based practices. We aim to develop tools to assist practitioners to quickly make well-informed treatment decisions."
As part of the new direction, the Historical Collection will be made accessible and available online, following a start-up grant from the Wellcome Trust. Clare Boulton, Head of Library and Information Services, said: "The Collection contains priceless and fascinating material, covering topics such as early horse-care and management, veterinary expeditions of discovery through Africa, and research that made the British Cavalry horses of 1914 the finest in the world. But this is just the beginning. If you have relevant experience or some funds that could help us, please get in touch."
Meanwhile, RCVS Knowledge's Library and Information Service will be re-designed to make it much more than shelves of journals, but rather a resource with the capacity to steer first-rate care and innovation, and an information engine capable of driving evidence based veterinary medicine at a global level.
The Grants and Awards program, for which the former RCVS Charitable Trust has been known, will be redesigned to celebrate professional excellence, and to address gaps in veterinary knowledge. Nick said: "We are aware of the responsibilities that veterinary surgeons and nurses face every day and feel we are in a position to support their decision making. We would like to urge every veterinary professional with an interest in EBVM, a curiosity about the history of their profession or a need to access up-to-date research to get in touch, so that we can keep you up to date with developments."
The RCVS has released the results of a survey which has found that increasing numbers of graduates over the last five years have had little impact on veterinary job prospects.
The survey was carried out for the RCVS by the Institute for Employment Studies, which asked the last five years' UK graduates who have registered with the College how long it took them to find work, how long they stayed in their first jobs, and why they moved on.
The online survey, which achieved a 43% response rate (1,354 responders), found that an average of 94% of graduates seeking a role in clinical practice obtained work within six months of starting to look.
The actual figure ranged from a high of 96% in 2008 to a low of 92% in 2010, and did not change significantly over the five years under consideration, despite UK graduate numbers increasing by around a quarter during the same period (from 650 in 2007, to 819 in 2012). Meanwhile, the College has registered an average of 618 overseas graduates annually during this time.
The survey did show that it was taking graduates slightly longer to secure their posts, with a shift from 85% securing work under three months in 2008, to 71% in 2012.
The results seem to suggest some small differences in the time taken for men and women to find their first jobs, with men finding jobs slightly quicker, although the vast majority of both genders found veterinary work.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "After the announcement from the University of Surrey that it will be opening a new vet school in the near future, there was a great deal of discussion amongst the profession about how easily new graduates could find employment. I undertook to get some real facts and am pleased to find that the picture is not as gloomy as predicted.
However, Jacqui said she was concerned that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents who left their first position after a relatively short period of time. Amongst 2012 graduates, over 40% of those who had left their first position did so within three months of starting work. However it must be stressed that only 18% of those answering the survey who graduated in 2012 had already left their first position. Jacqui said: "Although the turn-over in first jobs seems to be, in part, due to an increase in temporary posts, I am saddened to see that the most commonly-cited reason for graduates leaving their first job was lack of support from their employers or professional colleagues.
"This is an area that we, as a profession, must address. As I have told all the students I have admitted to the College, their first jobs will influence their whole careers, and getting adequate support is probably the single most important factor. Meanwhile, it is heartening to see that nearly all of those moving on have obtained further employment."
Although the survey was sent to all those UK graduates who had registered with the RCVS within the last five years, the contact details for those who had subsequently de-registered may not have been up to date, which may mean that those who had de-registered because they could not find work were not well represented. However, the College says it thinks it is more likely that these individuals would have switched to the 'non-practising' category.
A summary of the headline survey results will be available at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. The full findings, which also looked at the time taken to complete the Professional Development Phase and the type and location of work sought, will be available in due course.
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).
The RCVS has responded to the outcry sparked by the Disciplinary Committee striking off a veterinary surgeon that delayed an out-of-hours home visit to a dog that had been run over by its owner, a farmer.
The RCVS response addresses three main issues raised by the case:
However, the College has not yet responded to many of the other issues being debated, including:
For the full response, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/response-to-feedback-on-recent-disciplinary-hearing/
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 published a list of 369 veterinary surgeons who missed the 31st May deadline for retention fee payments, were removed from the Register and not restored by 24 June, on its website.
The College says it publishes the list to alert those vets who have not replied to its communications to check their Register status, and to remind veterinary employers to check the registration status of their employees. The registration status of any vet or VN can be checked online at www.rcvs.org.uk/check-the-register.
Information about restoration, and an application form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration, or by contacting the RCVS Registration Department: membership@rcvs.org.uk.
For a veterinary surgeon to be restored, a restoration fee needs to be paid, as well as the annual retention fee. The restoration fee is at least £299, and multiplies each successive year a removed member remains off the Register.
A veterinary surgeon's registration acts as a licence to practise and those removed from the Register may not practise unless and until they have been restored.
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 Disciplinary Committee has struck off the Register a veterinary surgeon who delayed attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, causing her to suffer unnecessarily.
Following a two-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending Mitzi, a fourteen-and-a-half-year-old Labrador cross, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.
On 9 September 2011, Mr Chikosi had been working as a locum veterinary surgeon at the Vets Now out-of-hours emergency service in Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, when Mitzi's owner telephoned him to say that his dog was severely injured and to request a home visit for the purpose of euthanasia.
At Mr Chikosi's request, the owner attempted to bring Mitzi into the practice using a blanket. However, it was not possible to get Mitzi into a Land Rover, and she uncharacteristically bit the owner's son, so her owner called the practice again.
Mr Chikosi repeated the request to bring the dog in, saying that he was unable to leave the practice because he was looking after other animals, but that he could possibly organise another veterinary surgeon to visit "probably within the next hour or two".
The Committee considered Mr Chikosi's actions in context of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2011, which listed a number of factors for veterinary surgeons to consider when deciding whether to attend an animal away from the practice premises.
These included the likely treatment needed, the possibility of the animal being safely conveyed to the veterinary surgery, the health status of the animal and ability of the owner to manage the animal's pain until veterinary attention could be sought during normal hours, and travelling time for the veterinary surgeon.
However, the Committee found Mr Chikosi had made no enquiries to determine whether Mitzi was in a fit condition to be moved, and offered no advice as to how her condition could be alleviated whilst waiting for the home visit. Further, his advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back.
The Committee concluded that, from the outset, Mr Chikosi took the stance that he was unable to leave the practice because he was the only veterinary surgeon present.
However, the Committee noted, from the information available, that there were only three in-patients, no critical cases and a qualified veterinary nurse was present. The Committee found there was no good reason why he should not have attended the farm, which was only 10 to 15 minutes' drive away.
The Committee said that, by the time Mitzi's owner called a second time, it was clear that the out-of-hours service was experiencing difficulty finding a second veterinary surgeon but, instead of going to the farm himself, Mr Chikosi waited another hour until the second veterinary surgeon arrived at the out-of-hours service.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that the delay caused Mitzi unnecessary suffering, which was evidenced by her uncharacteristically biting [her owner's] son. [Her owner] had recognised the severity of the injuries and the need for euthanasia as soon as was practicable. [Mr Chikosi's] failure to attend a seriously injured dog promptly in the circumstances described falls far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon."
He directed that Mr Chikosi's name be struck off the Register.
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 has written to the MPs drawn in today's private members' Bill ballot to call upon them to introduce legislation to protect the title 'veterinary nurse' and introduce an effective regulatory system that would ensure that those veterinary nurses found guilty of serious professional misconduct are prevented from carrying out medical treatment to or surgery on animals.
Currently the title 'veterinary nurse' is not protected, so anyone can legally refer to themselves as a veterinary nurse, regardless of their level of training.
Furthermore, veterinary nurses (VNs) are not subject to statutory regulation; the RCVS uses powers under its Royal Charter to award certificates to VNs who have undergone approved training. Qualified VNs (whose names appear in a List of certificate-holders published by the RCVS) are allowed to give medical treatment to, or carry out minor surgery on, animals under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA).
In 2007, the RCVS introduced a non-statutory Register of Veterinary Nurses. Registered veterinary nurses (RVNs) commit to follow a code of professional conduct, keep their skills and knowledge up to date and submit to a disciplinary system.
RVNs found guilty of serious professional misconduct can be suspended or removed from the Register at the direction of the RVN Disciplinary Committee (DC), but the RCVS has no power to remove them from the List. This means they can still legally give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery and perform other nursing duties specified under VSA (although they will then be formally listed as 'DC removal - Listed').
The RCVS has been working for some time to develop a framework for the regulation of veterinary nurses and has sent the ballot MPs a pre-prepared Bill, drafted by leading Counsel.
The statutory regulation of VNs is widely supported by the veterinary nursing profession and the public. This is evidenced by a 2012 HM Government e-petition, calling for the statutory regulation of veterinary nurses, which received over 2,500 signatures. Furthermore, the regulation of veterinary nurses by statute is supported by the British Veterinary Nursing Association and the British Veterinary Association, the representative bodies for veterinary nurses and surgeons in the UK.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said:"I urge MPs selected in today's Ballot to take forward legislation for the statutory regulation of veterinary nurses and the protection of the title veterinary nurse. The nation's animals and owners deserve better than the current situation.
"There is widespread support amongst the public and profession for such legislation, so the RCVS has had a Bill drafted by leading Counsel and is prepared to offer significant support to any MP willing to pick up this worthy cause."
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.
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2013 Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections.
4,661 veterinary surgeons voted, the highest turnout seen in ten years. 1,329 veterinary nurses voted, the highest ever number.
Veterinary surgeons voted incumbents Christopher Gray, Peter Jinman, Bradley Viner, Christopher Tufnell, and Jeremy Davies back onto the RCVS Council. However, the highest number of votes was given to Thomas Witte, who will be new to Council when he takes his seat in July. Veterinary nurses voted similarly by returning Andrea Jeffery to VN Council, whilst giving to Amy Robinson, another newcomer, the largest number of votes.
According to the College, turnout in both elections has increased markedly on last year in both absolute and proportional terms. Votes were cast by 4,661 veterinary surgeons (18.8%) and 1,329 veterinary nurses (12.5%), compared to 3,625 (15.1%) and 743 (7.5%), respectively, in 2012.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "We're delighted with the increase in turnout. It's difficult to pinpoint the reasons for the increase, but hopefully, it's because increasing numbers of vets and nurses are feeling more engaged with the College. We have also undertaken extra communications activities this year, such as the 'hustings', which we hope have helped."
The Council election 'hustings' was a new venture this year, with RCVS Council candidates able to select three questions, submitted by voters, to answer in a live webinar run by The Webinar Vet.
Veterinary surgeons and VNs could cast their votes by post, online, or by text. The majority of vets voting chose to cast postal votes (3,247), as did the majority of VNs (1,055). Whilst voting online was used by 1,330 veterinary surgeons, only 227 VNs chose it as a means of voting. Voting by text was used by only 84 veterinary surgeons and 47 VNs.
The successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 5 July.
The full results of the two elections are as follows:
RCVS Council electionWITTE, Thomas Hermann - 2,251 (Elected)GRAY, Christopher John - 1,974 (Elected)JINMAN, Peter Charles - 1,949 (Elected)VINER, Bradley Phillip - 1,927 (Elected)TUFNELL, Christopher Wynne - 1,883 (Elected)DAVIES, Jeremy Vincent - 1,830 (Elected)STURGESS, Christopher Paul - 1,809 CONNELL, Niall Thomas - 1,596 ROBINSON, Peter Bayley - 1,366 ELLIS, Robert Nigel Ward - 1,302 GRANT, Lewis George - 832 TORGERSON, Paul Robert - 824 LONSDALE, Thomas - 337 Twenty-two votes in the RCVS Council election were found to be invalid.VN Council election
ROBINSON, Amy - 725 (Elected)JEFFERY, Andrea Karen - 607 (Elected)BADGER, Susan Frances - 459TOTTEY, Helen Wendy 332 One vote in the VN Council election was found to be invalid.The 2013 RCVS and VN Council elections were run on behalf of the RCVS by Electoral Reform Services.
The Royal College is inviting veterinary surgeons to the first-ever Virtual Question Time, which is being held online with The Webinar Vet, from 8-9.30pm on Wednesday 24 April.
Lizzie Lockett, Head of the RCVS Communications Department said: "This is an ideal opportunity to put your burning questions to members of the RCVS Officer team and to VN Council. Our regular Question Time meetings are popular, so we are following their format by asking delegates to set the agenda via their choice of questions. This time there is the extra advantage that busy vets and nurses can take part from the comfort of their own homes. If the Virtual Question Time proves successful, we may hold these events regularly."
The meeting will be run as a free, live-audio webinar. RCVS President Jacqui Molyneux will open proceedings, and introduce the panel, before answering questions from the participants.
Questions may be put to the College in advance and can also be submitted as discussion unfolds on the night. These can be on any issues affecting the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions - there is no set agenda - and might range from the First Rate Regulator initiative, new vet schools, veterinary nurse training and clinical governance, to proposed changes to the Practice Standards Scheme and recent amendments to the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
The session will also be recorded so those unable to attend on the night can still listen afterwards.
The meeting can be counted towards continuing professional development for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Registrations and questions can be submitted online at http://thewebinarvet.com/rcvs/#.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog's veterinary treatment.
At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheena Brimelow, formerly employed by Kinver Veterinary Practice in Kinver, Stourbridge, not guilty of charges relating to seven insurance claims submitted between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2009. These related to her parent's dog, a Cairn terrier, which she had treated at her then employer's practice. Ms Brimelow admitted that she had submitted invoices with her claims showing the retail prices for several items, when she had paid the practice only the cost prices. She said that she had deleted records from the practice computer showing the retail prices so that the ingoings and outgoings in the practice finances were accurate.
The Committee considered whether Ms Brimelow had either behaved dishonestly or, in the alternative, ought to have known not to have included the sums she did in the insurance claims forms. The Committee found that Ms Brimelow was an honest and reliable witness. She had explained openly what she had done, entirely consistently, from the first time the allegations had been put to her by the practice owner. It noted that an insurance company representative also considered her actions to be "a genuine misunderstanding," although subsequently a complaint was made by the insurance company to the College about Ms Brimelow's actions. The Committee found there were no clear guidelines in the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. It also felt that, as a result of the insurer's communications failures, it was not difficult to believe that Ms Brimelow was unaware of how claims concerning the insured pets of veterinary practice staff members were expected to be handled.
From the evidence presented in the hearing, the Committee calculated that Ms Brimelow had benefited by only £90.50. The Committee noted that she had offered to repay any monies to her employer or the insurer, and that the insurer's loss adjusters had thought this was a matter for Ms Brimelow and her employer. The College had also referred the matter to the police, who said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the matter, a decision they based on the low value of the loss and Ms Brimelow's offer to pay back the money.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee notes the reasons given by the police for undertaking no criminal investigation in this case, and agrees with that analysis. The Committee must apply the same standard of proof as would have been applied in a criminal case. In all the circumstances, the Committee is far short of being satisfied so that it is sure that Ms Brimelow acted dishonestly in this case."
"The Committee considers that [Ms Brimelow] was naïve and misguided in handling the insurance claims in the way that she did," he continued. "However, the Committee considers there was a lack of proper guidance within the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. In these circumstances the Committee is not sure that the College has proved that the Respondent ought to have known that she should not have included sums on the claims form, which did not represent the costs that she had incurred."
Both elements of the charge were accordingly dismissed.
The Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute the RCVS disciplinary committees separately from its Council has come into force and has amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA).
The LRO brings the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and, says the College, improves the independence of its disciplinary processes, marking a major step towards the College becoming a 'First Rate Regulator'.
The amendment made by the LRO requires that the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently. This 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 Preliminary Investigation Committee and will allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings.
The first external members will join the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees from July 2013. After a two-year transition period, members of the RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of these committees.
RCVS Registrar, Gordon Hockey, said: "The LRO has been the culmination of many years hard work by the RCVS and Defra, with the support of the British Veterinary Association. At first glance the change that the LRO makes to the Act may appear minor, but the reform fundamentally improves the way the veterinary profession is regulated, and will help to ensure public confidence in the RCVS disciplinary processes."
The RCVS is seeking applications for a paid, part-time parliamentary internship from veterinary surgeons and students who have completed the third year of a veterinary degree.
Applicants are also required to demonstrate a commitment to the advancement of the veterinary profession in the UK.
The internship is to support the activities of Professor the Lord Trees, with the successful applicant expected to work three days a week whilst Parliament is sitting (around 150 days a year). The role is for one year, starting in October, and is London-based, with a salary of £15,000 (not pro-rata). A housing allowance may also be available.
Applicants should send a CV and covering letter to Lesley Evans, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF or email l.evans@rcvs.org.uk. The deadline for applications is 22 April 2013, with interviews taking place in late May/early June.
Further details about the role are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/work-for-us.
The Royal College is calling for views on the Day One Competences required of newly qualified veterinary surgeons, via an online survey.
The survey can be accessed from the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations), and can be completed until 31 May.
The College says that the survey is the first step in a review of the Day One Competences, which define the level to be expected of new veterinary graduates when they first qualify. The competences set out in broad terms what is required of new graduates at the end of their veterinary degree, and provide the foundation for curriculum design and student assessment in UK veterinary courses.
RCVS Council member David Catlow, who chairs the Working Party undertaking the review, said: "The Day One Competences are deliberately general as they aim to convey the important principles that all students must master by the time they graduate, regardless of the precise curriculum they have followed, so they are safe to practise in a range of veterinary contexts from day one after they graduate.
"As it is over ten years since these competences were confirmed, we are reviewing them to ensure they remain valid, and to seek to ensure they reflect current and likely future expectations."
The Working Party will report to the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee (EPSC), and includes representatives from the veterinary schools and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), as well as a recent veterinary graduate.
Since being confirmed by the RCVS, the Day One Competences have also been adopted across Europe, through the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE), and in countries such as Australia.
The RCVS has appointed Nicola South to the new role of Customer Experience Manager, a new role intended to help improve the experience for vets, veterinary nurses and the public in their dealings with the College.
Nicola said: "I'm extremely excited and proud to be joining the staff at the RCVS, and at such a significant time, just as the First-Rate Regulator initiative is underway, which will lead to a change of focus in how we deliver our services to meet all of our customers' needs. My arrival has been met by a staff made up of extremely dedicated and passionate individuals, and I'm really looking forward to working as a team to deliver an improved customer experience for everyone."
CEO Nick Stace said: "Nicola brings to the College a wealth of customer service experience gained from the hotel and tourism industries. Improving our customer service delivery is a priority, and I am delighted to have Nicola on board who will help to champion these improvements across the organisation."
Nicola joins the RCVS from Orbit Group Ltd, where she was Service Excellence Advisor for the East and South Region.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has released a series of photographs taken at its last council meeting on 7th March 2013.
Anyone for a photo-caption competition?
The full album can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcvs/sets/72157633046308352/
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.
Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.
After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.
The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.
In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."
The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that the retention fee payment deadline is 31 March. Fee payments received after 1 April are subject to an extra £35, and veterinary surgeons whose fees remain unpaid after 31 May are removed from the Register.
Veterinary surgeons also need to confirm or update their Register details annually as part of renewing their registration. Although the deadline for this is 30 September, members may find it convenient to do this at the same time as making fee payments. UK- and overseas-practising members need to confirm additionally that they have met the continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. Renewals can be made either online or via the form included with the annual renewal notice, regardless of how payments are made.
Fees can be paid through the RCVS website, by cheque, direct debit (which will need to have been set up in advance) or bank transfer. Particularly relevant for those making payments on someone else's behalf, is to remember to write the vet's name and Register number on the back of the cheque, or as a bank transfer reference. The RCVS processes over 22,000 registrations every year and needs to know to whom each payment relates.
For those who have set up a direct debit, the RCVS generally aims to take the payment on 31 March. As this will be a Sunday this year, the payment will be taken as soon as possible afterwards. To set up a bank transfer (which can be from a bank account online, telephone banking, or a branch, depending what the bank offers) the RCVS account details are available by telephoning the Finance Department (020 7202 0723). Payments cannot be taken over the phone.
The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."
This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:
RCVS Council
VN Council
*denotes existing Council member
For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.
Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).
To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.