Mr Fioletti was found guilty of the murder of Stephanie Hodgkinson at Bournemouth Crown Court in January, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum 15 years.
The hearing for Dr Fioletti took place on Thursday 6 June, with the Committee deciding to proceed in his absence after Dr Fioletti said in correspondence that he did not want to attend the hearing nor be otherwise represented.
The Committee found the facts of the case proven by the certificate of conviction and went on to consider whether the conviction rendered Dr Fioletti unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Aggravating factors in terms of fitness to practise included the fact that it was an offence involving violence and loss of life and the injuries caused by Dr Fioletti to Ms Hodgkinson.
The sentencing remarks, which were cited during the disciplinary hearing, also made clear the devastating impact that Dr Fioletti’s actions had on Ms Hodgkinson’s family, including her two young children.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considers that, when consideration is given to the ferocity of the attack on Ms Hodgkinson and the number of stab wounds she suffered, when taken together with the finding by the sentencing judge, who presided over the trial, that the respondent “represent[ed] a significant danger to any female with whom you find yourself in a relationship”, members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way and would be concerned at the risk the respondent posed to some members of the public.
“This Committee considers that the offence of murder is so inherently deplorable and shocking that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession; and is certainly liable to bring the profession into serious disrepute and undermine public confidence in the profession.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Dr Fioletti.
In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, Mr Morris said: “The misconduct in this case relates to a savage, sustained and ferocious attack with a weapon on a defenceless woman in her own home.
"His victim trusted him to be in her home.
"He knew that she was the mother of two young sons, of whom she had custody, and to whom he knew she was devoted.
"He would have known that the effect of his attack on her would have devastating consequences for her sons and her other close relatives – and it did.
"This conduct constitutes disgraceful conduct of the most egregious and reprehensible kind.
“The Committee also considers that the misconduct raises serious concerns about the reputation of the profession in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.
"This was abusive and controlling conduct of the worst kind and conduct of which the respondent had been guilty of in past relationships, as the sentencing judge found.
"Such acts by their very nature run contrary to the very essence of the practice of the profession of veterinary surgery, which is intended to protect and enhance the welfare and well-being of animals and of work colleagues.”
In mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Fioletti had no previous criminal history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee found that only complete removal from the Register was appropriate in this case.
Paul added: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"The respondent’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.”
The Committee expressed its condolences to the family of Stephanie Hodgkinson for their incalculable loss.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.
One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system.
Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live:
Other proposed changes include:
The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.
Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.
“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.
"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.
“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.
"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.
“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.
"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.
“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”
Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.
“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.
“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”
The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.
The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.
The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/
The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497
Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:
Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.
She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.
She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.
In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.
In 2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.
Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months.
Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.
The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.
The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.
In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.
The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.
"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.
"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.
"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.
“This is a case involving serious malpractice.
"It was sustained over a period of time.
"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.
"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.
"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.
“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
At the roundtable, Liz Barton MRCVS, Head of Communications at Vet.CT, spoke about the application of AI in clinical practice, including in preventative medicine, diagnostics, treatment and prognostics.
Liz highlighted how the use of AI tools in clinical practice for tasks such as pattern recognition had led to many unforeseen and unexpected benefits, for example by picking up things that humans may not.
Dr P-J Noble, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Science at the University of Liverpool, explained how AI tools had proven useful in processing, assessing and annotating qualitative data gathered through the university's Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET) once they were programmed to recognise certain patterns, saving lots of research time and costs.
Dr Chris Trace MRCVS, Head of Digital Learning at the University of Surrey, spoke about AI use in higher education and how it has already started to be used beneficially both as a teaching and learning aid, as well as for assessment and feedback.
In the afternoon session, groups of delegates were asked to discuss practical questions over AI use in the veterinary professions and how it might be regulated.
There were discussions on how to help vet and VN students make the most of AI in learning and assessment, responsible use of AI in clinical settings, the risks of not using AI, how veterinary professionals can work with animal owners and keepers to ensure the safe and productive use of AI, and whether AI-led devices should be regulated.
Lizzie said: “This was a really positive and exciting event that involved a heady mix of trepidation over the risks and implications of AI now and into the future, and optimism over the beneficial impact it could have for education, diagnosis, treatment and patient outcomes.
"The discussions have certainly given us at the College a lot of food for thought on how we can put in place guardrails and guidelines on the appropriate use of AI in the veterinary sector.
“This is an area of technology that is evolving so rapidly that it would not be effective for us to put in place specific guidance for the use of AI tools, but instead we will be looking at how we can regulate the use of AI in the round and ensure our principles are sufficiently future-proofed to keep up with the pace of change.
“Any regulation will start with first principles, such as transparency and honesty around the use of AI in veterinary practice, the minimisation of potential risks, and the continuing importance of professional accountability for decision-making, even where such decisions may have been heavily influenced by the use of AI tools and AI-generated data.”
The input gathered from the roundtable will now be considered by a range of RCVS committees over the coming months.
A full report of the event will be published this summer.
The roles were confirmed by Buckingham Palace this month as part of a recent review of royal patronages.
RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS said: “We are delighted that His Majesty the King is our new Royal Patron, continuing his mother’s support for the veterinary professions.
“We know that His Majesty is a keen advocate for animal health and welfare, the environment and biodiversity, and so his interests align very much with ours in areas such as sustainability, tackling antimicrobial resistance, and in supporting veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to best meet their professional standards.
British Veterinary Association President Dr. Anna Judson said: “We’re honoured to welcome His Majesty King Charles as our Patron.
"This ongoing royal commitment recognises the vital contribution vets make to animal welfare and their critical role in society, from taking care of the nation’s pets through to ensuring animal welfare in food production, public health and international trade.
"On behalf of our members, we’d like to thank His Majesty for his commitment to BVA, our profession and the work we do.”
Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:
Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.
Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;
Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;
Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;
Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;
Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and
Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).
Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.
He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.
The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.
It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.
The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.
The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.
"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.
In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.
In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.
"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.
“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.
"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.
"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”
The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
7,383 veterinary surgeons voted in this year's election, a turnout of 19.7%.
This compares to turnouts of 16.7% in 2023, 18.6% in 2022, 24.5% in 2021, and 26.2% in 2020.
Of the 14 candidates, Professor David Barratt, Sinead Bennett and Zara Kennedy were all elected to serve for a four year term, with 1,747 votes, 1,796 and 2,264 votes respectively.
Mark Bowen (1,404), Richard Brown (1,030), Paddy Gordon (1,612), Gerard Henry (1,157), Peter Higgins (496), Penelope Morgan (1,584), Kate Richards (1,264), Richard Sanderson (1,380), Sally Schroeder (1,630), Lara Wilson (1,399) and the inevitable Thomas Lonsdale (257) were all unsuccessful.
The winning candidates will take up their posts at Royal College Day, which is open to all vets to attend on Friday 5th July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24
Mr Makepeace faced five charges.
The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.
He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.
The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.
The fourth charge was that was a repetition of the second.
The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.
Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.
In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.
This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.
The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.
With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.
The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.
All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.
Aggravating factors taken into account were:
Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.
Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.
"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.
“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.
"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The overall aim of this event is to gather stakeholders' thoughts and insights on the need for GP specialty training, the potential impact and advantages to the profession as well as any potential risks.
"Those in attendance will also discuss what appropriate content for this training should be and explore potential learning environments, and prerequisites for how the training might be implemented”.
“After an introduction to the VCCP project, we will then be asking participants to consider some of the key questions around the development of this curriculum.
"This includes: establishing the overarching purpose of the training programme with reference to the needs of the workforce, the profession and veterinary care services; identifying appropriate areas of content for the training; identifying suitable learning environments; and establishing consideration of the required mechanisms of supervision and support.
“In terms of attendees, we are very keen to have a good mix of people including those working in independent veterinary practices as well as corporate environments, those working in general practice, Advanced Practitioners, Specialists and those who work in the education sector.
"The focus groups will be on interactivity, finding solutions and building engagement – we want all voices to be heard and all ideas to be shared.”
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/rcvs-veterinary-clinical-career-pathways-stakeholder-focus-group-tickets-873231397617?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
COMMENT
Given the above-inflation rise in the cost of veterinary care, leading to the Competition and Markets Review and the proposed Formal Market Investigation, is now really the moment to be adding yet another layer of training and qualification, with attendant costs which will ultimately be borne by the pet-owning public?
And where is the need for a Specialist status for general practitioners?
Isn't one of the biggest issues facing general practitioners today the referall (sic) culture which has developed in recent years, leading to the deskilling of GPs, reduced job satisfaction and increased costs for pet owners?
Isn't it now the time to call a halt to further specialisation and instead focus on cutting costs, reducing the regulatory burden, and encouraging all GPs to regain lost skills so they can all deliver first class, affordable, pragmatic care for the masses?
Just a thought.
The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.
The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.
The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.
At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.
Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.
In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.
The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.
However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.
Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.
"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”
The Tweets
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
The course was developed with RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, Gurpreet Gill (pictured), and aims to increase self-awareness of unconscious bias, explore strategies to reduce it, and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Gurpreet said: “Unconscious bias is an area that some within the professions may not be familiar with and so this course provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact in the workplace.
“We also explore strategies that we can all apply to help reduce unconscious bias.
"This is important in helping to achieve fairer and more equitable working environments, and I’d encourage any veterinary professional, whatever your role, to undertake the course.”
The course is accessible free via the RCVS Academy, and takes about an hour and three quarters to complete,
Building on the unconscious bias course, the RCVSA academy has also launched a course for members of the Fellowship Credentials Panels, who are responsible for assessing applications to the Fellowship.
Dr Niall Connell FRCVS, Acting Chair of the Fellowship Board, the governing body for the learned society, said: “This course explores the complexities of assessing applications, ensuring that each candidate receives a fair and thorough evaluation.
"Participants will gain insights into best practices for reviewing applications, offering constructive feedback, and identifying and addressing potential biases that may influence decision-making.
"By completing this course, participants will gain a heightened proficiency in assessing applications and managing bias, enabling them to support the RCVS’ mission of fostering equity, diversity and inclusion within the Fellowship.”
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
All MsRCVS were set an email with a voting link and a unique voter code.
The College says it will be writing to the few vets for whom it has no unique email address with further instructions.
There are 14 candidates standing this year and you can now cast your votes for up to three of them by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2024.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the Annual General Meeting on Friday 5 July 2024.
Any vets who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com.
The CMA review generated 11,000 responses from people working in the veterinary industry, including 1/5th of the country's vets and nurses. There were a further 45,000 responses from the general public.
Issues identified by the review were that:
So far, the RCVS, the BVNA and IVC have all responded to the announcement, the RCVS welcoming the call for modernising the regulatory framework and the BVNA likewise (taking the opportunity to remind everyone that this would also be the moment to protect the 'veterinary nurse' title).
Meanwhile, IVC said that for its part, it has always tried to ensure its prices are competitive and that customers are informed of costs before treatment, adding that it believes price increases in the sector have been driven predominantly by the shortage of vets, necessary improvements to pay and conditions for veterinary professionals and inflation.
The CMA has now launched a 4-week consultation to seek views from the sector on the proposal to launch a market investigation.
The consultation closes on 11 April 2023 at which point it will consider the responses received and a decision will be made on how to proceed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-proposal-to-make-a-market-investigation-reference-into-veterinary-services-for-household-pets-in-the-uk
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
For the study, the RVC interviewed 13 small animal general practitioners, exploring their experience of providing pre-purchase consultations for brachycephalic dogs.
The study revealed a number of barriers to delivering effective pre-purchase consultations and advice about these breeds.
They included limited time and resources, competition for appointment availability, a perception that vets are only there to fix things, public distrust of veterinary surgeons (often over money), fear of damaging vet-client relationships, and the conflicting influence of breeders and the Kennel Club on clients.
Many veterinary surgeons that took part in the research felt that they had little or no power to overcome these barriers which are highly intractable at an individual veterinarian level.
A resulting moral conflict in veterinary surgeons between their perceived ethical and moral responsibilities to animal welfare versus the needs and wants of their clients and businesses was expressed by many vets in the study, and was felt to compromise their professional integrity and autonomy.
The study set out a series of recommendations:
Dr Rowena Packer, Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science at the RVC and lead author of the study, said: “This is the first time that the impact of brachycephaly on the practising veterinary surgeon has been explored.
"Our concerning results highlight the importance of recognising that the brachycephalic crisis is not only negatively impacting animals, but it is affecting human wellbeing too.
“Our study highlights the conflict that vets are experiencing - bound both by their duty of care to their brachycephalic patients, but also to animal welfare at a population level.
"Trying to balance both of these responsibilities in the current working environment is proving very challenging for some, leading to moral distress.
"It is, therefore, essential that we protect the mental wellbeing of vets on this issue as well as from an animal welfare perspective.
“As the brachycephalic crisis continues to prevail, the support of leading veterinary organisations is vital in providing a united voice regarding the known harms of brachycephaly and support in facilitating PPCs to ensure vets are protected, and potential owners are fully informed when it comes to acquiring decisions.”
Dr Dan O’Neill, Assoc Prof of Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and co-author of the study, said:
“Over the past decade, the RVC has generated a vast evidence base revealing the true extent of the serious health issues of dogs with brachycephaly.
"This new study now focuses RVC research towards protecting the wellbeing of practising veterinary surgeons who are also shown as victims of the brachycephalic crisis.
"The clear message here is that we all need to ‘stop and think before buying a flat-faced dog’.”
The event, which took place in Manchester in October last year, saw veterinary mental health researchers from across Europe come together to share their insights into a variety of areas of veterinary mental health including moral injury, suicide and suicide prevention, the impact of racism, veterinary nurse mental health, and workplace stressors for autistic veterinary professionals.
There were 77 attendees, including a mix of academic researchers and veterinary professionals.
Talks included an address from Dr Leah Quinlivan on ‘Evidence-based care for people who have self-harmed: risk prediction, psychosocial assessments and aftercare’, presentations of research into the impact of racism on the mental health of veterinary professionals and the impact of moral injury on wellbeing.
Angharad Belcher, Director for the Advancement of the Professions and of the Mind Matters Initiative gave a talk about the work of MMI, including its newly published 5-year strategy and evaluation documents.
She said: “The fourth Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium was a massively inspiring and insightful day.
"The field of veterinary mental health research is still relatively small so it remains of utmost importance that we continue to band together to share our knowledge on this subject, so that we can continue to learn and grow together and put these important learnings into practice.
“For us, it is vital that these new ground-breaking research projects are made available to all who want to learn more about helping to improve the mental health and wellbeing of those working within the veterinary professions.
"There is some truly fantastic work going on which provides us with hope that we can all continue to work together towards a brighter future.
“There is no doubt that there is a long way to go, but improvement starts with education and research so I would urge anybody who is interested in what is being done to help improve and support the mental health of those working within the veterinary professions, and who is keen to help us keep these vital conversations going, to have a look through the report or access videos of the talks.”
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/videos-from-the-day-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2023
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2023
The Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of approved educational institutions (AEIs), delivery sites and the training practices (TPs) responsible for providing the training and support for student veterinary nurses.
The College reviews the standards framework every five years to ensure that AEIs, delivery sites and TPs have the structures to best provide contemporary and innovative approaches to education for student veterinary nurses, while being accountable for the local delivery and management of accredited programmes.
The new draft framework includes updates relating to sustainability and academic integrity.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “We are looking for veterinary nurses in all walks of life – as well as student nurses and veterinary surgeons – to provide constructive and specific feedback on our proposals.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for our students, prepare them for life in clinical practice, and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
“In fact, animal health and welfare and public safety is central to our standards.
Students will be in contact with patients and their owners throughout their education and it is important that they learn in a safe and effective way.”
The consultation runs until 5pm on Wednesday 3 April 2024 and all members of the veterinary team – including RVNs, student veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons – can take part in order to provide detailed feedback on each of the six core standards and each of individual requirements within these standards.
A PDF version of the new draft Standards Framework is available to download from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations.
If you have any questions about the document or how to respond to the survey, contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Team on vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk
Of particular note is the guidance that prescriptions should no longer be written in mg/kg, as it may lead to errors when the dose is calculated.
The Standards and Advice update also answers questions about:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/prescribing-pom-vs-joint-guidance-from-the-rcvs-and-vmd/
Each candidate will produce a written reply to two questions of their choice, which will be included on their candidate profile webpage ahead of the start of the election.
The 14 candidates who are standing in this year’s election for the three available elected places on RCVS Council are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24.
The three candidates with the most votes will join Council for their four-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
The College says it will only accept one question per person and questions must be decent.
Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will not be passed on to candidates.
You can email your question to: vetvote24@rcvs.org.uk
RCVS Council recommended the increase due to inflationary pressures and increased business costs.
Dr Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS, RCVS Treasurer, said: “We recognise that these are difficult economic times, so Council has endeavoured to limit the fee increase as far as possible; however, in proposing these new fees, Council has had to take account both of increased costs due to inflation, and of additional costs related to ensuring we are fulfilling our regulatory remit to the best of our abilities and meeting our strategic priorities.
“For example, increased costs related to the additional number of veterinary degrees coming on stream, modernising our membership database, our Charter Case Committee, the trial of our private prosecutions protocol against non-vets breaching the Veterinary Surgeons Act, and much more besides.”
Vets need to pay their annual renewal this year by 1st April.
Anyone who hasn't paid by 1st May will face a late payment charge of £35.
Anyone who hasn't paid by 1st June risks removal from the Register.
As part of the annual renewal process, vets also need to confirm their registration and contact details, declare any convictions and declare they are compliant with the College’s requirements for continuing professional development (CPD).
Anyone who expects to encounter any difficulties in paying their fees is asked to contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0722.
The RCVS ERP provides an ethics review mechanism for researchers who are based in practice and don't have access to this process through university and industry connections.
The subcommittee has representation across a range of areas of veterinary expertise, including veterinary nursing, and also includes lay researchers and scientists.
Since its formation as a trial service in 2016, the ERP has reviewed more than 530 research proposals on behalf of the College.
Nicola said: “I am honoured to be offered this position.
"Having been a member of RCVS ERP for the past three years and undertaking a similar role as the Chair of the Clinical Research Ethical Review Board at the Royal Veterinary College, I felt that I had the right expertise to take on the role
“It is vitally important that all research, regardless of where it is undertaken, undergoes ethical review to ensure that robust results are produced especially when they have the potential to influence clinical practice, and so I really welcome the work the ERP has been undertaking.
“As chair of the ERP I hope to build on the success of my predecessor and continue to support those working in clinical practice that is not associated with a university to undertake valuable research and add to the body of evidence that supports our clinical decision-making.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
Amongst the proposals agreed by Council was to move towards an independent appointment system for Council membership to replace the current election system.
In addition, Council voted:
Council was tied on whether to separate the position of RCVS President and the Chair of RCVS Council, meaning that this will come back for decision at a later date following the consultation.
RCVS President susan paterson, said: “The unique way that RCVS Council is currently constituted with annual elections to Council is an old model of self-regulation which is no longer found in other professions including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, solicitors and social workers, among others.
“As a responsible regulator we have a duty to operate in a way that recognises modern principles of regulation, and best meets our objectives to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare by setting, upholding and advancing the educational, ethical and clinical standards for the veterinary professions.
"The College’s recommendations would see us retain self-regulation in the sense of independence from government, and maintain registrants within our governance framework, while better assuring the public that we are acting on their behalf.
“It is our firm belief that, among other things, moving to an all-appointed Council member system, whereby those who serve on Council are selected via an independent process based on their knowledge and experience to ensure input from all parts of the veterinary sector, will better serve our aims, as will having a better balance of professional and lay members.
"Of course, veterinary expertise, knowledge and experience will also remain a vital part of any future arrangements throughout our committee structure, so the veterinary voice will be as important as ever in our policy and decision-making processes.
rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/18-january-2024/
Further details about the consultation process will be published in due course.
Discuss here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/non-clinical-questions/30878/what-do-you-think-about-the-rcvs-proposals-to-stop-council-elections-and-move-to-appointed-members-with-equal-or-almost-equal-number-of-lay-members/243481
Dr Vlad Butnaru faced two charges, the first of which was that in May 2021, he had signed a passport and/or passport application for a horse and electronically signed a declaration stating that he “had read the above microchip, which had previously been implanted for the animal” when, in fact, the microchip had not been inserted into any horse and he had not read it.
The second charge was that, in relation to the matters set out in the first charge, Dr Butnaru’s signed declaration was false, and that he had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, he risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare, and failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
Dr Butnaru admitted the first charge on all counts, and that the declaration he had signed was false.
He also admitted that his conduct was misleading and that he had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
However, he denied that his conduct had been dishonest and that he had risked undermining a procedure designed to promote animal welfare.
In its decision, the committee noted that Dr Butnaru kept introducing new versions of what happened for the first time at the hearing and changed his account as he went along, as well as being evasive when answering questions.
The Committee therefore felt that Dr Butnaru could not be considered to be a reliable witness, and whilst it did not know the true reason why he was prepared to sign a false declaration on a passport application, it was satisfied that he'd made a false declaration dishonestly.
The Committee also found that Dr Butnaru had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate as, if the passport had been issued on a false premise because of misleading information provided by Dr Butnaru, then it could not function as it was meant to which, in the Committee’s view, clearly risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare.
The Committee found that Dr Butnaru had breached the parts 6.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct, as well as Principle 1 of the 10 Principles of Certification, namely that ‘a veterinarian should certify only those matters which: a) are within his or her own knowledge; b) can be ascertained by him or her personally; c) are the subject of supporting evidence from an authorised veterinarian who has personal knowledge of the matters in question; or d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP).’
The Committee found there were no mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors, on the other hand, were that Dr Butnaru had participated in premeditated misconduct, made financial gain from his actions as he was paid to make the false declaration, abused his professional position, and showed blatant or wilful disregard of the Horse Passport System and of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that all proven charges amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect.
On considering the sanction, the Committee once again considered the aggravating factors, as well as additional mitigating factors in that Dr Butnaru had no previous disciplinary history, showed limited insight by admitting to some of the charges, showed expressions of remorse, and was provided with a positive testimonial.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was cognisant of the importance of a veterinary surgeon’s signature on any document.
"This should have been obvious to any veterinary surgeon, but particularly someone of Dr Butnaru’s 11 years’ experience (at the time of signing).
"The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Butnaru of any decision to remove him from the Register, but had to weigh his interests with those of the public.
“In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, Dr Butnaru’s previous unblemished record and the need to act proportionately.
"However, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons and protecting the welfare of animals, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient.
"His actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register and thus the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register.”
The mandatory regulation of veterinary practices, including statutory powers of entry and inspection, is one of the main parts of the College's proposals for new primary legislation that would replace the current Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The working group, which is expected to present the details of a Mandatory Practice Regulation system to Council by the end of 2024, will be chaired by RCVS President Sue Paterson FRCVS.
It will include Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS and Practice Standards Group Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, alongside veterinary, veterinary nursing, lay and external representatives.
Sue said: “With over 70% of practice premises currently under its ambit, our Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) has shown how keen practices are to maintain high standards.
"However, it is a voluntary scheme and, as a result, there is no mechanism to ensure standards across all practices, or to ensure change in those rare situations where it is needed.
“At present, the RCVS only regulates individual veterinary surgeons and nurses, and the veterinary sector does not have an equivalent to the Care Quality Commission, which considers human healthcare premises.
"This means that the onus for maintaining standards within the workplace falls on regulated individuals rather than the business structure.
"We will consider what a scheme that puts more statutory responsibility on business owners to maintain standards should look like.
“I look forward to working with colleagues in RCVS Council, VN Council and other veterinary organisations via this group to really flesh out what this regulatory system might look like in the future, to make sure it is appropriate, robust, proportionate and enforceable.
"Establishing these details will also prove invaluable in our lobbying work with government, ministers and MPs.”