View all veterinary jobs
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.
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 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.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has dropped the requirement that veterinary practices display a poster in waiting rooms which tells clients what the top ten medicines they supply are, and their costs.
The requirement was apparently dropped, initially for a six month period, following pressure from the Royal College, which felt says it felt the poster did not entirely serve its purpose.
The requirement for the poster was brought in following the Competition Commission investigation into veterinary medicine sales in 2005, as part of a range of measures. Some of the responsibilities were enforced via the RCVS as an alternative to legislation under the Fair Trading Act, to ensure that clients have access to sufficient information to be able to decide where to obtain veterinary prescriptions and medicines.
The poster, which was outlined in the Guide to Professional Conduct, and subsequently the Code of Professional Conduct, had to include information about prescriptions and repeat prescriptions, together with the 'ten relevant veterinary medicinal products most commonly prescribed during a recent and typical three-month period'.
How 'most commonly prescribed' has been calculated has often varied - for example, by price, volume, number of prescriptions, etc - and, in addition, different formulations, brands or pack sizes of the same active ingredient could cause confusion.
RCVS President, Jacqui Molyneux said: "Having seen how this has worked in practice, we have been keen to push for change because it was felt that the list could be confusing to clients.
"We have also been mindful of the fact that the ways in which consumers access information has changed radically over the last seven years or so, with internet searches becoming more prevalent.
"These factors conspired to make the list less meaningful as a tool that allowed consumers to shop around. It is thus hoped that the removal of the list will reduce potential misunderstanding among the public."
During the first six months following the change, the College and the OFT will monitor the situation. If there is no appreciable level of complaint from the public, the change will become permanent.
The other requirements of supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct Chapter 10 (Fair Trading Requirements) remain unchanged (www.rcvs.org.uk/fairtrading), and the OFT recommends that the notice advising clients that they can obtain a prescription from the practice be made even more prominent.
In addition, it remains important that veterinary surgeons communicate medicines prices clearly to their clients and other callers, and that invoices itemise individual products supplied (www.rcvs.org.uk/medicines).
The RCVS is to hold an online hustings on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm to help voters decide who they wish to vote for in the upcoming RCVS Council elections, and is inviting members of the veterinary profession to suggest questions for the candidates to answer.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "From feedback we've received, one of the reasons why people don't vote is because they know little about the candidates or their views. We hope this hustings will provide the candidates with a platform to address the veterinary electorate directly, and give voters the chance to put their own questions to those hoping to serve on Council."
The hustings will be run as a live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will be free to listen to. However, the College says that due to the high number of candidates standing for election, it isn't possible to hold a debate, so questions should be submitted in advance (see below). Each candidate will be allocated around three minutes to introduce themselves and answer up to three questions of their choosing. The whole event will run for just under an hour.
Anthony Chadwick, who runs The Webinar Vet, will moderate proceedings, and Gordon Hockey will be on-hand to address any factual inaccuracies.
Veterinary surgeons can register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs and submit their questions at the same time; alternatively, questions can be emailed to Ian Holloway at the RCVS (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk).
Questions should be relevant to the role of the RCVS and the role of Council Members (see www.rcvs.org.uk/about). If questions should remain anonymous, please say so.
Ballot papers and candidates' biographies and manifestos are due to be posted on 7 March. Votes may be cast online, by text message or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a veterinary surgeon for submitting a certificate of Clinical Inspection for Veterinary Inspectors ("TB52") for tuberculin tests he had undertaken on cattle, despite knowing that he had not fully complied with the standard operating procedures (SOP) for these tests.
At the outset of the three-day hearing, John Wilson admitted that, when acting as an Official Veterinarian (OV) he had not carried out tuberculin tests on cattle at a Wiltshire farm on 19 May 2011 strictly in accordance with the SOP required by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), an executive agency of Defra.
The admitted shortcomings were that on 19 May, the second day of testing, Mr Wilson had failed to confirm the identity of all the animals, failed to inspect the animals digitally (ie using his hands) and had not measured the fold of skin at the injection site of all the animals. The College argued that this was contrary to the directions of the AHVLA and, in subsequently signing the TB52 certificate, he was either dishonest or should have known that the certification was incorrect. Mr Wilson admitted that he ought to have known the certification was incorrect but denied dishonesty, because he believed that he had conducted the test in a satisfactory manner and had correctly identified all the reactors in the herd.
Mr Wilson was a veterinary surgeon of over 40 years experience and unblemished record, and the Committee found his account of events to be accurate and honest. He said the farm involved was unprepared and test arrangements were chaotic, with poor handling facilities, and he would have been concerned for the safety of the animals and their handlers if he had complied fully with the SOP. He had advised the farmer to delay the test but his advice was rejected.
The Committee accepted that the testing had been carried out under exceptional and difficult circumstances. It noted that Mr Wilson had identified a reactor and taken appropriate actions, knowing that the outcome would be the quarantining of the whole herd. He had made no financial or other gain, other than the nominal fee charged for the work. Although failing to comply with the SOP fell short of what was expected of a veterinary surgeon, because of these circumstances, and as he had acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the animals and personnel, these actions did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that, even allowing for these difficulties and concerns, in signing the TB52 certificate a few days later, without any qualification, Mr Wilson ought to have known that it was incorrect, and his actions fell far short of the standards expected of the veterinary profession. They did not however find that he had been dishonest.
The Committee stressed the importance attached to accurate and reliable certification, in maintaining the confidence of the public and the profession, and in ensuring animal welfare.
Professor Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the committee said: "The Committee is aware, as confirmed by AHVLA, that this is a single, isolated event and the first offence in some 40 years of the Respondent working as a LVI [local veterinary inspector] or OV. After considering all the mitigating factors.and, given the exceptional circumstances of this specific case, the decision of the Committee is to reprimand Mr Wilson."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Leeds-based veterinary surgeon, whose convictions for threatening behaviour, theft, and assault made him unfit to practise, should be removed from the Register.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Dr Gary Samuel admitted his convictions. These related to his actions near his property in Cardiff on 10 July 2011, and were received at Cardiff Magistrates' Court on 22 November 2011. The Committee was asked to decide if these convictions made Dr Samuel unfit to practise veterinary surgery, and to decide upon any sanction.
The facts of the offences, as set out at the magistrates' court by the prosecution, were that Dr Samuel took a camera and memory card from a neighbour who was taking photographs of construction works behind his property. In doing so, he grabbed the neighbour from behind, twisting her arm, and later threatened her and her partner with a large piece of wood.
Although Dr Samuel wrote to the College saying he had pleaded guilty to the charges, he also denied some of the offences charged, suggesting that it was the neighbour who had been abusive towards him.
The Committee allowed the possibility that Dr Samuel was provoked by the taking of photographs and may have been subjected to offensive abuse by the neighbour, and considered that he acted impulsively and lost control of his actions. However, the convictions were for serious offences: the assault resulted in injury to the victim; the threatening behaviour involved a risk of injury to the victim and her partner; and, the theft involved dishonesty. Dr Samuel's conduct at the time was "reckless", and he had since displayed very limited insight into his behaviour.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee considers that the offences of which the Respondent was convicted, and to which he pleaded guilty, were serious, as is reflected in the suspended sentences, community service orders, fines, restrictions and penalties imposed by the court. The Committee accepts that this is not a case in which the welfare of animals has been put at risk, but takes the view that a serious sanction is required in order to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession, and public confidence in it, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour on the part of its members."
The Committee directed Dr Samuel's name should be removed from the Register.
Nominees for the RCVS Council and its Veterinary Nurses Council have been announced, with 13 candidates for the former and four for the latter.
The nominations closed on 31 January, and the following are standing:
* denotes current RCVS Council member
* denotes current VN Council member
Applications are now open for new members to join the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees.
This is the first time that non-Council members have been able to sit on these two key committees, and follows the approval of a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, which comes into force on 6 April 2013.
Under the new legislation, the two statutory committees will move through a transition period until they completely comprise independently-appointed non-Council members, by July 2015.
This move will provide regulation in line with modern practice, by ensuring that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication, and by bringing lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
The LRO will also allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, reducing the workload on the individual Committee members whose primary appointment is to RCVS Council.
This first recruitment phase seeks:
RCVS President, Jacqui Molyneux said: "It's exciting that we can now seek to appoint non-Council members to the two committees involved in our disciplinary system - a breakthrough that has taken a long time to achieve.
"We are interested to hear from veterinary surgeons and lay people who are keen to contribute to the public good and support us in our regulatory role. It's an excellent opportunity to be part of the next chapter of the RCVS, as we become a more modern and effective regulator."
The recruitment process is being handled by Thewlis Graham Associates and details can be found at www.thewlisgraham.com. The selection committee will comprise Sir Michael Buckley, Christopher Laurence MBE QVRM TD BVSc MRCVS and Dr Joan Martin MA FCOT.
The closing deadline for applications is 5pm on Monday 4 March 2013.
The Royal College has announced that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute its disciplinary committees separately from its Council has been signed by Defra Minister David Heath, and will come into force on 6 April 2013.
The LRO will amend Part I of Schedule 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA) and require 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 will ensure that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication, and will bring lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
The RCVS has been working on the LRO with Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) officials since late 2010, and the Order was based on consultations undertaken by the RCVS and Defra.
According to the College, the Order was commended at every stage of Parliamentary scrutiny as an effective means to address the single biggest deficit of the VSA and to improve how the RCVS regulates the profession. During debate in Grand Committee of the House of Lords on 10 January, the RCVS received considerable praise for its strenuous efforts to modernise under the constraints of the present legislation, and the LRO received unanimous support.
Following the Order coming into force, 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. Information about how to apply to join these committees will be available shortly.
President Jacqui Molyneux said: "I am delighted the LRO has been made and I am immensely thankful for the hard work of the Defra team and my colleagues in the College. The LRO is the single biggest reform to the regulation of veterinary surgeons since the 1966 Act, and it will bring the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and improve the perception of the independence of the RCVS disciplinary processes."
Would-be candidates in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon Council and Veterinary Nurse Council elections are reminded that the nominations deadline is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Veterinary surgeons need two nominations from veterinary surgeons, and veterinary nurses two nominations from veterinary nurses, to stand in the respective elections.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses not presently on either Council can nominate one candidate each.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Six seats are due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The RVN Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has removed an Armagh-based nurse from the Register after finding that she'd entered the details of four injections into clinical records when she had no reasonable basis for doing so.
During the four-day hearing, the Committee considered two alternative charges against Ms Tracy Nicholl (nee Wilson) relating to her actions on 3 February 2011, whilst employed by O'Reilly & Fee veterinary surgery, Armagh.
Ms Nicholl was alleged by the College to have administered Dolethal, a pink liquid containing pentabarbitone and used for euthanasia, to a dog called Butch without being directed to do so. It was also alleged that she had made dishonest entries into the dog's clinical records, or had administered drugs without a veterinary surgeon's prescription.
Ms Nicholl was alleged to have administered the Dolethal via a fluid bag and giving set on the morning of 3 February, which she denied. The Committee found that, although a veterinary surgeon believed that she saw pink fluid in the line, uncertainties in the surrounding circumstances made the Committee unable to be sure the line contained pink liquid. Expert and forensic evidence revealed Butch had received Dolethal, but not the route of administration or the timing. Therefore the Committee could not be sure Ms Nicholl administered the Dolethal and dismissed this charge.
However, the Committee found that Ms Nicholl did enter on Butch's clinical records that four drugs had been injected, when she had neither administered them nor been told that the drugs had been administered. Although she denied making the entries in evidence submitted to the hearing, in evidence from an interview with the College on 11 July 2011 she had admitted this and her initials were on the record entries.
The Committee noted these injections would be chargeable, and was satisfied the public would regard making these incorrect entries as dishonest. As Ms Nicholl was a highly experienced, senior nurse who also lectured to veterinary nursing students, the Committee was sure she knew she was acting dishonestly. Further, she had breached her responsibilities to clients by failing to maintain accurate case records, and the entries raised potential animal welfare issues. In mitigation, her actions affected no animal's actual welfare, and there was no evidence that Ms Nicholl had made any financial gain or repeated her conduct.
Ms Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "In addition to the fact that the charge involved dishonesty, there were a number of other aggravating features. The Respondent has not demonstrated any recognition of the seriousness of the record entry allegation, specifically the importance of keeping proper records ... It is in the wider public interest and to protect the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession that the Respondent's name should be removed from the Register."
Ms Nicholl is the first Registered Veterinary Nurse to be struck off since the introduction of the title.
On Tuesday 15 January the RCVS will hold a 'Meet the RCVS Day' for those standing or considering standing for election to RCVS Council or the Veterinary Nurses Council.
The event offers prospective candidates an opportunity to find out more about what the role of a Council member involves, and what would be expected of them, if elected.
Candidates and prospective candidates will have the chance to meet the RCVS Officers and senior staff, and to find out what goes on behind the scenes. The day will start at 10.30am, and finish at approximately 3.30pm, to allow plenty of time for questions. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.
For further information, or to book a place, prospective candidates can contact Fiona Harcourt, Communications Officer (f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773).
Nomination forms for RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Council and VN Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
The Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the register for three months, for not carrying out or arranging the euthanasia of a cat, and for dishonesty in his subsequent account of events.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mr Bogdanowicz admitted all the parts of the charge, which related to events occurring around 24 June 2011, whilst he was working at Best Friends Veterinary Group, Thrapston.
The Committee was asked to decide if Mr Bogdanowicz's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and to decide upon any sanction.
Mr Bogdanowicz had been requested by the owners of Jason, a 14-year old Maine Coon cat, to undertake euthanasia, rather than further treatment following abdominal surgery.
Unknown to Jason's owners, Mr Bogdanowicz instead allowed a registered veterinary nurse to take the cat home, from where it subsequently escaped.
Mr Bogdanowicz then colluded in an attempt made by the veterinary nurse to cover up what had occurred and only told the truth when discrepancies in the nurse's story were challenged by the practice.
In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied Mr Bogdanowicz's decision not to put the cat to sleep was taken without full reflection on the consequences of the decision.
It was also satisfied that there was no evidence of injury to Jason and no payment had been sought or made for putting the cat to sleep. He had apologised to the cat's owners and was truthful to the College after the complaint was made.
Mr Bogdanowicz had an otherwise unblemished career and produced impressive testimonials from his clients as evidence of the high regard in which he was held.
However, the Committee also found that despite having had several occasions to tell his employers the truth, Mr Bogdanowicz had done so only after inconsistencies were revealed in the account of the veterinary nurse.
By not asking for the cat to be brought back for a post-operative check, Mr Bogdanovicz had also abdicated his own professional responsibilities.
Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee considers that it is unlikely that Mr Bogdanowicz will put himself in a similar position again. Having heard his evidence, it has formed the view that he has learnt his lesson from these proceedings.
"The Committee considers that it would perform a disservice to the community at large to direct a lengthy suspension of Mr Bogdanowicz's name from the Register."
The Committee directed that Mr Bogdanowicz's name be suspended from the Register for three months.
A lecturer of special eminence in veterinary anatomy is sought for the 2013 RCVS Share Jones Lectureship.
This is a biennial award whose recipients give a public lecture on a subject agreed with the College.
Recent lectures have included 'Who says you can't be big and nimble? The fragility of giant land animals,' given in 2011 by Professor John Hutchinson, whose expertise includes the anatomy and locomotion of dinosaurs and crocodiles; and 'Sex and Regeneration: Lessons from Nature,' a study of deer antlers presented by Professor Jo Price.
Jo said: "It was a great privilege to be asked to deliver the Share Jones Lecture and it was an experience that I will remember as one of the highlights of my career. This lecture provides a unique opportunity for those of us with a deep interest in structure-function relationships to showcase the discipline of veterinary anatomy and inspire the next generation of veterinary scientists."
Any lecturer who has achieved special eminence in veterinary anatomy is eligible for nomination; RCVS membership is not a requirement. Nominations will be considered by the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in February, with decisions made by RCVS Council in March. To nominate a candidate for the lectureship, please email his or her CV, with a letter of recommendation, to Ms Anne Jermey (education@rcvs.org.uk).
The RCVS Disclipinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct a Brighton-based veterinary surgeon who failed to maintain a proper boundary between her professional and personal relationships with a client.
The eight charges considered at the seven-day hearing involved Marie-Louise Schlemm's treatment of Ratszy, a 16-year old Jack Russell with chronic renal failure, and her relationship with the dog's owner, Ms B, who suffers from mental illness, during May 2010. At that time, Ms Schlemm was employed by Coastway Veterinary Group in Brighton to work for its out-of-hours veterinary services, Vetcall, to which Ratszy had been referred by the PDSA.
The College alleged that Ms Schlemm deliberately misled Ms B as to the condition and prognosis of Ratszy, removed the dog without Ms B's consent, and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in her dealings with Ms B. Other allegations were that that she had suggested Ms B tell the PDSA a fabricated story in order that she might see the dog again; made an offer that Ms B and Ratszy could come and stay with her at her home; required Ms B to attend a supermarket car park at 12.30am to collect Ratszy; and took money from Ms B other than for the purposes of legitimate veterinary treatment.
The Committee found both Ms Schlemm and Ms B to be truthful and honest witnesses, and that Ms B's recollection was given to the best of her ability. However, where recollections differed, it relied on contemporaneously prepared clinical records to find that Ms Schlemm did not mislead Ms B to the effect that the dog was not dying. Although recognising that Ms Schlemm's actions were misguided the Committee found that the dog was not taken without consent.
Furthermore, the Committee said in making the offer that Ms B and Ratszy might come and stay with her, Ms Schlemm was wholly misguided and had blurred the distinction between personal and professional activities. By this time, she was aware Ms B suffered from mental illness and so should have allowed the mental health services to take control of the situation. Similarly, she should not have required Ms B to meet in a car park to collect Ratszy, behaviour the Committee described as bizarre and which had compromised Ratszy's welfare. Although the Committee gave Ms Schlemm the benefit of the doubt as to whether money taken was, in fact, to pay for alternative therapy for Ms B, she did not deal with the matter openly and it was a clear breach of trust to both Ms B and Vetcall.
In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Schlemm now had a genuine insight into her lack of judgement in her relationship with Ms B, had reflected on the decision of the Committee and fully accepted the "utter stupidity" of her actions. She had also attended courses on teamwork and managing client relationships, and had established good working relationships in a new practice.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "While the Committee has accepted that Ms Schlemm was motivated by good intentions towards Ms B and Ratszy, she breached the trust of both of Ms B and Vetcall in the way in which she behaved [and] acted in a misguided way in dealing with a vulnerable client, who was suffering from mental illness. In light of the serious nature of its findings, the Committee does not consider it appropriate to take no further action. The Committee has concluded that Ms Schlemm should be severely reprimanded for her conduct and given a warning as to her future conduct [and] reminds the profession of the importance of maintaining a proper boundary between the professional and personal relationships of client and veterinary surgeon."