The RCVS and VN Councils have each agreed to raise registration and retention fees for the financial year 2011-12 by 2%. This means the annual retention fee for a home-practising veterinary surgeon will increase by £5, and the fee for a veterinary nurse, by £1.
To encourage members who cease to practise to request removal from the Register, rather than simply allow their membership to lapse, the fee for restoration following voluntary removal will be reduced by almost 50%, from £147 to £75.
All fees for the current financial year were, exceptionally, frozen to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on the veterinary profession. The increases agreed for 2011-12 are below current inflation figures, and in line with the RCVS financial policy of introducing small fee increases on an incremental basis in order to avoid sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
A list of the new fees can be found in the June edition of RCVS News, also available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvsnews.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is warning veterinary surgeons to be on their guard after it came to light that a fraudster is charging a £150 'non-refundable application fee' for an RCVS 'internship' which does not exist. Apart from anything else, the RCVS does not offer internships.
Information about the fake internship has been sent to individuals registered with German website http://www.vetcontact.com/. It includes details about the Royal Veterinary College and the RCVS, but is basically fiction. It refers to a made up 'RCVS Hospital' in the 'Flint Hills of London'.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "So far, only a handful of veterinary surgeons - all based overseas - have contacted us regarding the internship and queried the request for a non-refundable 'application' fee, although we are concerned that others may have been caught out.
"We would advise any veterinary surgeon to think twice before paying for a third party to facilitate an application for any placement or internship, and reiterate that the RCVS does not offer any such programmes."
The College is following up the situation with http://www.vetcontact.com/ and, if appropriate, will notify the police. In the meantime, anyone who is concerned that they may have fallen victim to the hoax should contact the RCVS Professional Conduct department on 020 7202 0728.
Less than a quarter of veterinary students starting their degrees in 2009 were male (24%), according to figures released today in RCVS Facts.
This is up slightly from 23% last year, but down from just over 30% in 1999: ten years before that, the gender balance of new students was approximately 50:50. Meanwhile, 53% of UK-practising veterinary surgeons are female.
RCVS Facts is part two of the RCVS Annual Report, and presents a statistical picture of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions. Other headline facts include a 21% increase in the number of practice premises registered with the College since 1 April 2009, bringing the total on the Register of Veterinary Practice Premises to 4,821; some 766 veterinary nurse students completing their training and becoming eligible to register (an increase of 28% compared with those eligible to register during the previous two-year period) and an increase of nearly 10% in the number of complaints received about veterinary surgeons, to 739.
Figures are also available for:
The reporting year is 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010, and part one of the RCVS Annual Report, RCVS Review, takes a more personal look at the activities of the College during the period, through the eyes of some of those involved. Topics include reviews of Extra-Mural Studies and the Practice Standards Scheme, the modular Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing producing the first diplomates, a focus on mental health and wellbeing, fund-raising for the RCVS Trust and the College's joint work with other authorities to bring justice in cases of fraudulent 'veterinary surgeons'.
Both publications are available online at: www.rcvs.org.uk/review and www.rcvs.org.uk/facts.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene at his professional premises and failing to properly maintain a Controlled Drugs Register or patient records.
In June 1994, the Committee found that Mr Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton, at that time the only veterinary surgeon practising at premises at 9 Orchard Grove, Orpington, Kent, was guilty of disgraceful professional conduct and should have his name removed from the Register. The state and condition of the premises were found to be such as to risk the health and welfare of animals taken to the premises, and bring the profession into disrepute. An application made by Mr Seymour-Hamilton for restoration made in 1995 was refused.
At a restoration hearing on 18 June 2010, Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he sought restoration to the Register because he wished to further his research work into plants with potential medicinal properties. Restoration, he said, would improve his professional status by giving him more credibility, particularly in terms of recognition by the medical and veterinary professions.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he had no intention of returning to clinical practice immediately, and neither the Committee nor the College had heard of any adverse conduct by the applicant since his removal.
However, Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, noted that if Mr Seymour-Hamilton were to be restored, the Committee would have no power to prevent him from returning to general practice.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's response to questioning by the Committee raised a number of concerns with respect to the future welfare of animals should restoration be granted. He told the Committee that he had not undertaken any relevant Continuing Professional Development in the past 15 years, and said he lacked knowledge of current relevant legislation, for example, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and basic 'Cascade' prescribing requirements. He also said that he had not read the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in the past 15 years and that it would not be satisfactory for him immediately to return to general practice.
Ms Freedman said: "If the Committee were to reinstate the Applicant to the Register, it would have to be satisfied that he is competent and safe to practise immediately. The Committee has an obligation to protect the public and animal welfare and cannot simply accept his assurances that he would take steps to rectify his self-confessed shortcomings at some point in the future."
Having taken all the evidence presented into account, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Seymour-Hamilton was fit to be restored to the Register and dismissed his application.
The removal of names from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for non-payment of retention fees is now complete, with 386 veterinary surgeons having been removed, compared with 616 last year.
The RCVS says that the administration involved with removing a name for non-payment is time-consuming and costly. Hence, to be restored to the Register, the veterinary surgeon must pay the appropriate annual retention fee, and the restoration fee, currently £294, which multiplies each time if fees are not paid in successive years.
The College writes to members' Register addresses to remind them when fees are due and, where an email address is maintained by the member as part of their formal record, also sends an email. It is, however, the responsibility of members to inform the RCVS Registration Department of any changes to their contact details and to ensure that payment is made. It is illegal for veterinary surgeons to practise or undertake any veterinary-related activities if their name does not appear on the RCVS Register as a home-practising member.
To help ensure that members removed for non-payment are aware that they have been removed from the Register, the full list of those removed for non-payment and not restored by 10 June can be downloaded from RCVSonline. The current status of individual veterinary surgeons can be checked online (www.rcvs.org.uk/checkregister).
A veterinary surgeon whose name has been removed from the Register and who wishes to restore him or herself should view the information on restoration to the Register.
Alternatively, please ring the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707. Restorations made since 10 June are not shown on this list.
Changes to the registration procedure for veterinary surgeons, which are being put forward for approval by the Privy Council, have caused some concern in the profession.
Most contentious is the new requirement for veterinary surgeons to confirm their contact details annually, or face removal from the register.
Judging from the remarks in the VetSurgeon forums, many in the profession see this as just another example of bureaucratic-big-brother-pen-pushing-time-wasting (a perception that probably hasn't been helped by the RCVS stating that the change is driven by the need to meet EU Directive 2006/123/EC). Nor would Lynne Hill's remarks have done anything to calm the situation. She said: "If that [the requirement for vets to confirm their address once a year] is beyond the wit and the capability of supposed professional people that we expect to follow a guide to professional conduct, to act as professionals in everything that they do, then I really despair of this profession.
"I do not see anything wrong with the College asking people to confirm their address year in, year out when they make a payment. And if those people cannot be responsible for doing that then they deserve to go forward to be taken off the Register because, if they can't do that, God only knows what else they may well be doing in their professional lives!"
At face value, it's completely understandable why the new regulation was bound to get members' backs up. I mean, the threat of losing your license to practise because you didn't confirm something which hasn't changed anyway. It's a bit extreme isn't it?
The truth of the matter is probably a little more prosaic:
At present, many members pay registration fees by standing order, and may never have updated their contact details. You could argue that it is only right that the authority changed with regulating veterinary surgeons knows how to get hold of them. If a consequence of this is also that the RCVS is able to work more efficiently and cost-effectively (apart from anything else, it shouldn't have to spend so much time tracking down and chasing non-payers), then so much the better.
The RCVS Trust has announced 34 grants totalling approximately £165,000, being made to veterinary surgeons, universities and higher education (HE) establishments, to fund high-quality research projects in the UK and overseas, and support veterinary education.
Harper Adams University College and Myerscough College will be the first veterinary nursing colleges to receive funding under the Spencer-Hill equipment grants programme; this was the first time that RCVS-approved HE veterinary nurse training providers were able to apply for this funding. Harper Adams will receive £2,350 to purchase a Humphrey ADE-circle system, and Myerscough, £1,395 for an 'Emily' canine positioning mannequin.
Severine Tasker MRCVS, from the University of Bristol, and Janet Patterson-Kane MRCVS, from the University of Glasgow each received Blue Sky Awards of £17,000. Severine will conduct research into constructing defined feline coronavirus strains for determination of the role of virus genetics in the development of feline infectious peritonitis. Janet Patterson-Kane's research will investigate whether a new therapy for treating wounds in humans can be translated for use in horses.
Janet said: "Limb wounds in horses are very common and are notorious for developing masses of exuberant scar tissue - proud flesh - and not healing properly. This can necessitate multiple operations. The findings of current research at University College London by our collaborator, Professor David Becker, suggest that in human patients a protein, connexin 43, is not downregulated at the edges of wounds that are difficult to heal. Use of therapy to reduce connexin 43 expression in human skin wounds in which healing has stalled has been remarkably successful in achieving wound closure. The aim of our research is to determine if connexin 43 plays a similar key role as a 'master switch' for wound healing in horses. I am extremely grateful to the RCVS Trust for their support."
Six veterinary undergraduates will also receive EMS vacation research scholarships of £700 each, which can be used to fund expenses relating to a research project undertaken in the UK or overseas as part of a UK veterinary school's extra-mural studies requirement.
Full details of the RCVS Trust grant awards may be found at www.rcvstrust.org.uk/awards
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Andrea Jeffery, the first veterinary nurse to sit on RCVS Council, will take up her place from July this year.
According to the RCVS, the move recognises the increasing importance of veterinary nursing as a profession, and the need for veterinary nurse input on decisions of governance that impact on the whole veterinary team.
The composition of RCVS Council is dictated by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966: 24 elected veterinary surgeons, two appointees from each of the six approved veterinary schools and four members appointed by the Privy Council (usually three lay people and the Chief Veterinary Officer).
Within this mix, there has not thus far been a place for a veterinary nurse, however, the vet school appointees do not both have to be veterinary surgeons, and the University of Bristol has nominated Andrea, who will take up her place at RCVS Day on 2 July.
A past Chairman, and elected member of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, Andrea is Programme Director of the Veterinary Nursing and Bioveterinary Science Programme at the University of Bristol. Liz Branscombe will continue as Chairman of the Veterinary Nurses Council, and makes a report to RCVS Council each time it sits - in March, June and November.
Andrea said: "I am very grateful to Bristol for being forward-thinking and enabling a veterinary nurse to sit on RCVS Council in this way. This opportunity gives veterinary nursing a voice on Council and recognises the growing maturity we have as a profession, and the contribution of veterinary nurses to the practice team. I look forward to supporting the work of Liz and the Veterinary Nurses Council."
RCVS President, Sandy Trees said: "The legislation that defines the composition of RCVS Council was put in place when veterinary nursing was in its infancy. However, I am delighted that the University of Bristol has been imaginative enough to choose Andrea as one if its appointees. It is the same spirit of doing as much as we can to modernise, in the absence of new legislation, which has led us to introduce the non-statutary regulation of veterinary nurses and the voluntary Practice Standards Scheme."
Over 1,200 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, including around 800 UK-practising veterinary surgeons, have not yet paid their retention fees, and face being removed from the Register if they do not pay before 29 May 2010.
Veterinary surgeons must be registered with the College in order to practise legally in the UK. Retention fees are due by the end of March each year, and the College allows a further two-month period before removing veterinary surgeons from the Register, during which time reminders are issued.
There is still just time for payment to be made by credit card, bank transfer or cheque. Payments cannot be made over the telephone.
Those who have recently changed address, practice address or bank details are urged to check that payments have been properly processed. It is the responsibility of individual members to ensure payment has been made, even if an employer pays the fee. Those whose names are removed for non-payment after 29 May will no longer be able to practise legally in the UK, and would need to pay an additional fee if they wished to be restored to the Register.
Bill Mavir, VDS Chairman said: "Registration with the RCVS is a prerequisite for membership of the Veterinary Defence Society and the provision of professional indemnity insurance."
Results for the 2010 RCVS Council elections have been released today and, following a slight increase in turnout for the second year running, four existing Council Members and one former Member have been returned for another four years. However, new to Council this year and securing the most votes was Preston-based veterinary practitioner David Catlow.
4,232 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,541 cast their votes this year, an increase of 0.6% from 18.2% in 2009. The results of the voting are as follows:
CATLOW, David Frederick. 2,383. Elected. TAPSFIELD-WRIGHT. Clare Joan. 2,352. Elected.SHIELD, Christine Fiona. 2,133. Elected.MOLYNEUX, Jacqueline Rosina. 2,111. Elected.SMITH, Neil Christopher. 2,089. Elected.PARTRIDGE, Robert Duncan. 1,971. Elected.NELL, Adi. 1,781. ANDERSON, Roy Paxton. 1,455. GODDARD, Philip Campbell. 1,385. LONSDALE, Thomas, 380.
Terms of office for the six successful candidates will (re)commence at RCVS Day on 2 July 2010.
Following a successful partnership last year, the RCVS again teamed up with this website to allow voters more opportunity to quiz the candidates directly and find out more about their views.
Once again, this seemed to prove popular with the electorate although it presented candidates with a large increase in their workload during the voting period. Page views in the election section rose 23% to 28,347 this year; 48 discussion threads were started (slightly down from 53) and total responses rose dramatically by 47% to 988.
A new incentive for members to vote this year was a pledge to donate 20p per voter to the DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal. A donation of just over £845 will therefore be made shortly.
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "An increase in turnout, if only a small one, is to be welcomed and I hope we can continue to increase members' interest in the composition and activities of RCVS Council. I'd like to thank all ten candidates who stood for election this year; my congratulations to those elected and my commiserations to those who weren't successful this time."
Note: there was no VN Council election this year as only two nominations were received for the two available places. These will be filled by Suzanne May RVN and Hilary Orpet RVN.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon from Kent having found him not guilty of serious professional misconduct.
Mr Francois-Guillame Saulnier-Troff - formerly an employee of North Kent Referrals in Blue Bell Hill near Aylesford - was charged with concealing from his clients that a fragment of metal had been left in their dog's body following surgery, and omitting any reference to that in the clinical records or notes.
At the hearing, the Committee heard that, during spinal surgery on Pippin, a Jack Russell terrier belonging to Mr and Mrs Bowers, a small metal fragment broke off a palpator and became lodged in the bony material. Mr Saulnier-Troff was unable to retrieve it.
However, Mr Saulnier-Troff did not inform Pippin's owners of this occurrence, either during the telephone conversation on the 15th of January immediately following the operation, or when he met with them for Pippin's post-operative check on the 2nd of February. He said that he had intended to discuss the fact with the owners when the dog was discharged and had requested that he be contacted when the owners came into the surgery. He had not been contacted, though, and on attending the practice two days later, found that Pippin had already been returned to his owners.
It was accepted by the Committee that Mr Saulnier-Troff had not considered the fragment of clinical significance, and that telling Mr and Mrs Bowers about it was not at the front of his mind at their subsequent meeting.
The Committee heard there was no reference to the fragment included in the clinical notes, discharge summary or referral report, but accepted that the discharge summary had not been prepared by Mr Saulnier-Troff and that the referral report had been drawn up and sent out without Mr Saulnier-Troff's approval or personal signature.
In their findings, the Committee made no criticism of Mr Saulnier-Troff for the breakage or non-retrieval of the fragment, concluding that he came across as a skilled and conscientious veterinary surgeon and that he was fundamentally honest. The Committee also described as "honest and straightforwards throughout," the accounts given by Mr and Mrs Bowers of their recollections of events. The Committee noted that Mr Saulnier-Troff had admitted that he ought to have told Mr and Mrs Bowers about the fragment and that he ought to have included details in the clinical notes.
Disciplinary Committee Chairman Mrs Alison Bruce said that they were "highly critical of the fact that Mr Saulner-Troff did not inform Mr and Mrs Bowers at any time of what had occurred or check that the clinical records had been completed either post-operatively or at the follow-up examination."
"The matters, which Mr Saulnier-Troff has admitted, flow from a failure on his part to speak to Mr and Mrs Bowers after the discharge had taken place and to check that he had completed a full clinical record which included reference to part of the palpator being left in Pippin's body,"
Mrs Bruce continued, adding that this was "indeed conduct which falls short of the standard to be expected. However, in the opinion of this Committee his conduct does not fall so far short that it amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
Mrs Bruce concluded: "In these circumstances, the charge is dismissed."
The RCVS has released the results of a competition held at BSAVA Congress earlier this month, in which veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team were asked to identify three animals from sound only.
The correct answers were a purring cat, a Chihuahua dog (the breed had to be specified) and a guinea pig.
Of 370 entrants, only 104 (28%) were correct. Some of the more outlandish answers included, for the cat noise: elephant, lion, whale and dolphin; and, for the guinea pig noise: ferret, meerkat, dove, chicken and frog. However, the majority of those getting it wrong were stumped by the requirement to specify the breed of dog, with Jack Russell Terrier or some 'yappy little thing ' proving a favourite.
The winner of the competition was Liverpool-based veterinary surgeon, Anna Rowntree, who won an iPod Nano. She said: "I thought the competition was good fun and a real novelty. It certainly drew me to the stand and was not what I would have expected from the RCVS - it proves they can be approachable! I was very excited to have won and I still can't believe I have."
The noises competition linked to the College's theme for the event, 'Falling on deaf ears?', which examined how the organisation takes account of responses to its consultations, debunking the myth that those who take the trouble to reply are not listened to. The topic was addressed by President Professor Sandy Trees in a presentation on the Saturday of Congress. Visitors to the stand were also given RCVS-branded earphones to reinforce the listening message.
Copies of all three presentations made by the RCVS at BSAVA Congress are now available on RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk/ear_ear). They are:
An online quiz by the RCVS has shown that veterinary surgeons generally have good understanding of the Guide to Professional Conduct, but that misconceptions about the role of the college are rife.
Around 850 people completed the quiz since it was launched in November 2009, with veterinary surgeons accounting for 70% of those that took part. The average score was 20 out of 25
Despite the high average score, there were several questions which a very significant number of people got wrong. The worst related to the role of the RCVS: 76% of people wrongly thought that the College's remit included negligence, whilst 66% believed that the RCVS could not consider criminal convictions (it can).
Nearly half of those taking part were not aware that the standard of proof to which the RCVS Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied is 'so as to be sure' - the same as for a criminal court.
Other questions poorly answered related to 24-hour cover, delegation to paraprofessionals, consent and ownership of records. The RCVS Communications Board will consider how to improve communications in these areas.
In terms of age, the highest scoring age-band was 51-60, achieving an average of 20.5 right answers; the lowest was '30 or under', at 18.7. However, this is not backed up by distribution of complaints to the RCVS, where only 27% of complaints relate to those who have less than ten years' post-qualification experience, although this group makes up 43% of registrations.
The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the genders in terms of Guide knowledge, at 19.54 right answers for men and 19.46 for women. Meanwhile, only 34% of complaints to the RCVS are made about women, while they account for 51% of the Register. However, as women tend to dominate the younger end of the profession, this statistic may be linked to the fact that a greater percentage of complaints relate to older individuals, more likely to be men.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "We hoped the quiz would offer a light-hearted way for vets - and others - to review their knowledge of the Guide, which can be a dry read, and have been pleased with the response.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust's Adopt-A-Book campaign has raised almost £17k in sponsorship to pay for the restoration of books in the historical collection.
The latest book to be restored under the scheme is a nineteenth century edition of Every man his own farrier, by F. Clater, which has been restored thanks to veterinary surgeon Fiona Dalzell.
Fiona said: "I have always loved books, and especially old books, but I got inspired by the Adopt-a-Book scheme when I came to the RCVS for a meeting of the Veterinary History Society".
These editions, she says, are "works of art in their own right," and it has given her a "huge amount of pleasure to know that you can do so much just from a small donation."
RCVS Trust Director Cherry Bushell explained the idea behind a campaign: "When you think of 'adoption', you may more readily recall the rescue animals treated in veterinary practices than old books. However, these old books also need your help - and are an important part of the veterinary heritage that the Trust seeks to preserve."
Restoring a book can cost between £25 and £250, and adopted books carry a book-plate naming their benefactor. They can also be dedicated 'in memoriam'.
Since its inception six years ago, the Adopt-a-Book campaign has raised £16, 851, and funded the restoration of 139 volumes:
Those interested in supporting this work by adopting a book can view available titles at www.rcvs.org.uk/adoptabook or contact Clare Boulton, RCVS Trust Librarian (c.boulton@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0752).
A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons audit panel is to visit UK veterinary schools to assess how Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) is being carried out, identify good practice and make recommendations for improvement. The exercise is part of a package of measures which aims to improve the way that EMS helps veterinary undergraduates to gain skills and knowledge in a practice environment.
RCVS Council agreed to the implementation of proposals made by a Working Party set up to review the whole EMS process in November 2009. While the EMS system was largely agreed to be valuable and working well, some areas were identified for improvement. Many of the recommendations centred on a better understanding amongst all parties involved - students, practices and vet schools - of the aims and objectives of EMS for the student, and improved communication about expectations and outcomes.
As a first step, the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee has put in place an audit of EMS at the veterinary schools. It has commissioned Dr Barry Johnson, who led the original Working Party, together with practitioners David Black, David Wadsworth and Dr Chris Chesney, to follow through individual cases, talking to the students, practitioners and clinical tutors and EMS co-ordinators at the vet schools, to build a picture of how administration, communication and follow-up is managed.
Barry said: "The objective of the audit is to identify areas of good practice that can be shared, and identify where improvements could be made - it will also promote dialogue between practices and the schools. The exercise will be repeated over the next couple of years to track changes."
The first audit took place at the Royal Veterinary College in February, as part of the full RCVS visitation of the undergraduate degree programme. The EMS audit panel will report its initial findings in June.
The full report and recommendations from the EMS Working Party can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/EMS.
The RCVS is to embark on a communications campaign over the next few months to raise awareness amongst the general public of the difficulties that vets face in providing out-of-hours emergency cover, and the responsibilities incumbent on animal owners to know what to do in a veterinary emergency.
Emergency cover has been high on the College's agenda for some time.
Over the last 18 months, the RCVS 24/7 Working Party has considered the ongoing desire of vets to continue to offer emergency care 24 hours a day, and the feasibility of delivering this, against a backdrop of the Working Time Regulations, geographical variations in animal and vet density, and increasing practice diversity.
Working Party meetings have been supported by a survey of how vets are currently meeting their 24/7 requirements, a seminar of stakeholders and regular informal polls at RCVS Question Time meetings.
It was agreed at the September 2009 meeting of Advisory Committee, to which the Working Party reports, that the majority of vets remain willing to deliver emergency cover 24/7. Advisory Committee recommended that a communications project be undertaken to help raise awareness amongst the general public and animal owners that although the veterinary profession continues to make this voluntary commitment, EU rules, geography and financial constraints impose some limitations.
This campaign will kick off soon and focus on spreading messages via animal-owner publications and websites. The responsibility of pet owners to know how they can access emergency care for their animal in advance of need will be stressed, as will the fact that in the absence of an NHS for pets, emergency care is a service for which practices must charge a realistic fee (which is likely to be higher than for day-time work).
The campaign will also outline vets' responsibilities as part of the Guide, so the public knows what it can reasonably expect. It would be helpful if practices could ensure they have clear information available on their 24/7 arrangements - as outlined in the Guide - should this campaign stimulate requests from clients.
Jerry Davies, who chaired the Working Party, said: "There is overwhelming opinion within the profession that we must continue to provide round-the-clock veterinary care. The main tenet of the Working Time Regulations is that workers should not have their health or, importantly, skills compromised by unreasonable working patterns. Vets, VNs and the animals they care for deserve the same level of protection.
"However, this legislation has made continuing to provide such care at a reasonable cost to the animal owner a significant challenge. Meeting this challenge will require the understanding and cooperation of the animal owning public.
"If clients can be flexible and accept slightly longer response times, an effective service can still be sustained. The key is for all animal owners to establish, in advance, exactly what will be involved should they need to access veterinary care in an emergency. This simple step will help optimise response times and eliminate the frustration, confusion and inevitable dissatisfaction that may arise if ill-prepared."
Following a five-year review of the Practice Standards Scheme, new standards will take effect from 1 April 2010, and be formally launched at the British Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress in Birmingham (8-11 April).
The Scheme, to which around 50% of practice premises are now signed up, exists to raise standards for the benefit of the public, as well as employees. The review was undertaken by the Practice Standards Group, which includes representatives from all of the key veterinary and veterinary nursing organisations. Its objective was to ensure that standards remain relevant and achievable, while representing better practice. The Group took on board improvements in practice over the last five years, and feedback from inspectors and practices.
Practice Standards Group Chairman, Jill Nute said: "It was important that the Group took account of what the public might reasonably expect of a well-equipped, professional practice. We have made some adjustments to the original standards, placing greater emphasis on clinical outcomes and training."
She added: "To ensure the Scheme goes beyond a 'box-ticking exercise', the emphasis for inspectors has moved towards assessing how standards are applied. For example, not just noting whether a protocol exists for the servicing of anaesthetic equipment, but asking staff involved how this is carried out and what checks are made on a daily basis to ensure the equipment is satisfactory."
The numbered 'tiers' have gone, as these were shown to be confusing. The descriptive categories (Core, GP, Hospital), together with differentiations (equine, small animal, farm animal, emergency services clinic), remain. In addition, to encourage more farm animal practices into the Scheme at GP level, 'where applicable' has been added to certain GP standards, so that those without small animal or equine facilities can comply.
There are some new standards - such as the requirement for annual appraisal systems for all clinical staff. In other cases, as expectations of better practice increase, standards that were previously for Hospitals must now be met by General Practices, and some of those for GPs now apply across the board.
Another change has been in the Manual (see www.rcvs.org.uk/newPSSmanual), which now incorporates guidance alongside the standards rather than in a separate document. The new format clarifies the derivation of each standard, so that legislative requirements are distinguished from those required under the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and those indicated by better practice.
Practices already on the Scheme will be given plenty of time to comply.
Visit stand 911 at BSAVA Congress for more information, or attend Hall 6 at 3.30pm on Saturday 10 April for a presentation on the changes.
VetSurgeon.org is once again playing host to the RCVS Elections Section, where veterinary surgeons can now come and question the candidates lining up to regulate them.
This year, there are 10 candidates fighting to win one of 6 places on council. You can 'meet the candidates' here, read their manifestos, and then ask them questions either privately - via the 'Start Conversation' link in their profile - or publicly in the RCVS Forum.
There is a new incentive to vote this year: the RCVS will donate 20p to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Haiti Earthquake Appeal on behalf of every voter that takes part.
The RCVS has also made it easier to vote, with the addition of SMS text voting to the online and postal options.
However, I hope more than anything else that the opportunity to challenge the candidates and find out what makes them tick in the RCVS Elections Forum will be fun and really help inspire you, the electorate, to get involved.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week directed that the name of a man who had been illegally practising as a veterinary surgeon in the North West of England be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of fraudulent registration.
In March 2008, Russell Lewis Oakes had been charged with fraudulent entry onto the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, on the basis that he had (either (A) knowingly, or (B) unknowingly) submitted a fake degree certificate and letter of 'good standing' from Murdoch University, Australia. Mr Oakes agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence provided the Committee confined itself to consideration of charge B alone.
The hearing commenced on 18 April 2008, but the Committee decided to adjourn, as Mr Oakes was also subject to a police investigation which required that the hearing be held in private. The Committee felt that it was in the public interest for an open hearing to take place in respect of both charges at a later date. Mr Oakes' bail conditions prevented him from practising as a veterinary surgeon at this time.
On 16 October 2009, Mr Oakes was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court, on a guilty plea, of a substantial number of offences, including those under consideration by the Committee: he was sentenced on 11 January 2010 to two years in prison.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee's hearing resumed and concluded on 5 February 2010. Mr Oakes was not present.
The Committee was provided with evidence from RCVS staff regarding the registration process, and received statutory declarations from representatives at Murdoch University. The latter confirmed that signatures on the certificate submitted by Mr Oakes were fake and that there had never been a student with his name at the University. Furthermore, a letter purporting to be one of support from Professor Edwards of Murdoch University contained text he would not have written and was signed with a false signature.
The Committee was also provided with evidence from equine veterinary surgeon Seamus Miller, who had become suspicious of Mr Oakes' qualifications and membership of the College. He outlined incidents which had cast doubt on Mr Oakes' competence. Mr Miller's complaint had initiated enquires which led to the charges against Mr Oakes by the College, and the Committee recorded its commendation of Mr Miller, and his colleagues.
Having found that Mr Oakes knowingly submitted fraudulent registration documents, the Committee was bound, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and paragraph 17 of the 2004 Rules, to direct that his name be removed from the Register.
Alison Bruce, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Even if it retained any discretion by virtue of Section 16 of the Act in respect of sanction, the Committee would have had no hesitation in directing Mr Oakes' name to be removed from the Register in this case. This was a deliberate and dishonest offence by a man without the necessary qualifications to practise as a veterinary surgeon, and it had the effect of exposing members of the public to his fraud, and their animals to harm."
The College has revised its registration procedures in the light of this case, and now requests that all registrants produce original copies of certificates and letters of 'good standing' at the registration ceremony.
The National Association of Veterinary Physiotherapists (NAVP) is calling for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) to establish an independent register of veterinary physiotherapy practitioners. According to the Association, such a register would eliminate individuals practicing without proper training and qualifications and raise the standard of veterinary physiotherapy by providing a disciplinary role.
NAVP President and leading veterinary anatomist Dr Sue Kempson is heading the NAVP campaign for the establishment of an independent register. In a letter to the President of the RCVS, Dr Kempson said: "Recognition by the veterinary profession of the role of physiotherapy in post-operative rehabilitation and in supporting both companion and performance animals is growing. However, we do believe that referring veterinary surgeons are increasingly faced with a dilemma caused by the wide differential between qualifications offered by the various organisations representing practitioners in areas such as physiotherapy. There is an urgent need for a distinction to be made between these different types of qualification. To this end, there should be a clearly defined independent register of practitioners with appropriately validated qualifications which are clearly understood by the veterinary profession."
In partnership with Harper Adams University College, the NAVP has introduced a fully-validated post-graduate course in veterinary physiotherapy which offers a choice of Post-Graduate Diploma or Masters Degree. Only one other professional body, the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Animal Therapy (ACPAT) currently offers a similar qualification at this level.
Dr Kempson said: "The establishment of a register of physiotherapists would greatly assist vets and their clients to make informed decisions on their choice of therapist. It would eliminate those individuals without proper training and qualifications and help raise the standard of veterinary physiotherapy by providing a disciplinary role. At present there are no sanctions on those people practicing without the necessary qualifications or those whose work is sub-standard or who are guilty of professional misconduct.
"We do not believe that such a register should rest with any individual professional body or be affiliated to specific educational courses. To have authority, it requires independence and a register held under the auspices of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would carry the credibility that the veterinary profession requires."
The completion date for the RCVS surveys of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions is Monday 8 February, and the College is urging anyone who has not yet completed their survey to do so.
The data collected will be used to help develop policy, in discussion with government and other bodies, and in response to requests from journalists and members of the public who wish to have an accurate picture of the veterinary profession today. So it's important that as many people as possible complete their surveys.
For the first time, a standard set of questions about well-being (the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) has been included. Over time, data collected will enable the College to monitor population changes in mental health and well-being, and work with other organisations to address any issues identified.
If you have mislaid your paper copy, the survey can be completed online:
Veterinary surgeons click here: www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm
Veterinary nurses click here: www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm
All responses are confidential.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.
James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.
All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.
The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.
The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.
The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.
Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The deadline for candidate nominations for the RCVS and VN Council elections is fast approaching - so please hurry if you plan to stand.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council, and two on the VN Council, due to be filled in the 2010 election, but candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence. We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards - and, like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients."
The elections will be held in March, and decided by all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who use their vote. The results will be announced early in May, with those elected taking their seats at RCVS Day in July and serving four-year terms.
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members' expenditures on hotels and travel are reimbursed. Their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council can be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk). All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.
All veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and VN students are to be invited to take part in an RCVS survey of their profession and, for the first time, these surveys will measure mental wellbeing at a population level.RCVS Registrar, Jane Hern said: "Both surveys are being undertaken on our behalf by the Institute of Employment Studies - an independent research organisation. As in previous surveys, all the data will be anonymised by the IES before being shared with us. This will ensure individuals cannot be identified."The information will provide a snapshot of the veterinary profession and help the RCVS to understand and analyse changing trends. Some of the anonymised data will also be shared with researchers at Defra and at the School of Medicine, University of Southampton, who will analyse selected topics in more depth.Jane added: "These surveys produce very useful information about the veterinary and veterinary nursing profession, not least because they usually get a good response rate.
"We will use the information, for example, in our discussions about new veterinary legislation, 24/7 and the Professional Development Phase for newly-qualified vets. So please make sure that you send the form to the IES - or fill it in online - before 8 February."The RCVS normally surveys veterinary surgeons every four years, and last surveyed veterinary nurses in 2008. To obtain concurrent data regarding vets and VNs, both these surveys are taking place at the same time. Forms can by sent back in the freepost envelope provided, or completed online at www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm (vets) and www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm (VNs). The findings of previous studies can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/surveys.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he accepted the seriousness of its finding.
In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.
At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon, including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs). These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.
The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also taken as relevant in this regard.
The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer suffers from an alcohol problem.
Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his name being restored to the Register."
She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of particular importance that any member who has been removed should recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."