RCVS Council has been considering the costs, advantages and disadvantages of bringing private prosecutions against people and organisations that breach the Veterinary Surgeons Act. 

A paper introduced by the RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson looked at the possibility of the RCVS prosecuting, for example, unqualified individuals undertaking veterinary work and courses falsely purporting to lead to a registerable qualification.

The paper also explored other options, including better educating animal owners about veterinary services and assisting people with concerns about the breaches of the VSA to raise them with the authorities.

Council heard that over the past year, the RCVS had assisted other agencies on investigations of suspected VSA breaches on a number of occasions.

It was considered that the RCVS could consider undertaking its own private investigations and criminal prosecutions when statutory prosecuting authorities did not have the resources to pursue these cases.

However, the RCVS has no statutory powers of investigation, so if it did pursue a private prosecution, it would have no powers to carry out a criminal investigation or compel evidence.

Council members voted for a further paper setting out a draft policy on private prosecutions, as well as what general information regarding breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could be provided to members of the public and the professions.

Dr Sue Dyson, who was struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee last year for dishonesty, has had an application for restoration to the Register refused.

Dr Dyson was removed from the Register after she was found to have fabricated a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector in support of a paper she had submitted to a journal, explaining why conducting her research had not required a Home Office Licence.

The original Committee made its decision on the basis that her conduct was knowingly dishonest, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in it, and, furthermore, risked undermining the Government’s system designed to promote animal welfare and research ethics.

In considering Dr Dyson’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors: her acceptance of the findings of the Committee at the original hearing; the seriousness of the original findings; public protection; risks to animal welfare if she were to be allowed to practise again; the length of time off the Register; her conduct since being removed; her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice; the impact of the sanction on her; and public support for her.

The Committee found that while Dr Dyson had demonstrated some insight into her misconduct, had expressed remorse and admitted dishonesty, it was undermined by her continuing denial that she had been knowingly dishonest in her conduct, having attributed her actions to being in a dissociative state at the time.

In terms of seriousness, the Committee considered that Dr Dyson’s misconduct was at the highest end of the spectrum, having involved being dishonest with multiple people on multiple occasions, and then inventing a fictitious Home Office Inspector to continue the deceit.

The Committee also considered that public confidence in the profession and the RCVS as the regulator would be undermined were Dr Dyson to be allowed to be restored to the Register without genuinely accepting full responsibility for her actions.

In her favour, the Committee considered that there was no risk to the health and welfare of animals and that she had provided ample evidence of her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice should she be allowed to practise again.

In addition, she had made some progress, for example she was able to show some insight by the steps she had taken to avoid finding herself in such a stressful environment in the future. The Committee also considered the many positive testimonials it received from professional colleagues and clients.

Ultimately, however, the Committee decided to refuse Dr Dyson’s application.

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession will not be maintained if a veterinary surgeon who has been found to have committed very serious acts of dishonesty refuses to genuinely accept that that is the case.

“Dr Dyson says that she accepts the original Disciplinary Committee’s finding that she acted dishonestly, but that acceptance carries little weight in light of what she said in her application and has said in her evidence to this Committee, because it involves a theoretical or objective concept of dishonesty which has no bearing upon her actual state of mind at the time of the actions in question.

“By not being truly accountable for her dishonest actions, Dr Dyson has thus far been unable to demonstrate anything other than limited insight into her disgraceful conduct.

“In such circumstances, the Committee considered there would be a real and continuing risk to the reputation of the profession and to public confidence in the profession if Dr Dyson were restored to the Register.

"Conduct of this kind is of a particularly egregious nature for a member of this profession and particularly so of one so eminent in her field and looked up to by so many.

"The Committee was of the view that if a veterinary surgeon, who has committed such serious offences and shown so little insight were nonetheless now allowed to practise, the public’s trust in the profession was liable to be seriously undermined.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

An unnamed veterinary nurse, of an unspecified gender, working at an undisclosed location, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for drug-related offences.

Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.

In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.

The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.

The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.

In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.

Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.

Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.

There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.

Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.

When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.

“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.

"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.

"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”

Comment
The College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.

One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.

However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.

So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.

It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.

The RCVS has begun the final stage of its review of the definition of ‘under care’ and the provision of 24/7 emergency cover, and is now consulting veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, students and the wider veterinary team on its proposed new guidance.

The review started with a series of focus groups amongst veterinary professionals across multiple sectors.

This was followed by an analysis of the information gleaned from the focus groups, additional stakeholder submissions, data from the College's Covid surveys, independent research studies and formal legal advice to formulate an online qualitative survey to gain the views and feedback of UK-based veterinary professionals.

In this final stage, the public consultation, all veterinary professionals, vet and vet nurse students, practice managers and all those who work in the veterinary practice team are invited to share the extent to which they agree (or disagree) with each element of the proposed new guidance on ‘under care’, their views on the requirements for a 24/7 follow-up service following a remote prescription and other safeguards, and their feedback on the proposed definition of limited-service providers.

There will also be a consultation with members of the animal-owning public, which will likely include questions asking for information about animal owner experiences with remote prescriptions, the perceived advantages and/or disadvantages of remote prescribing, and views on 24/7 care and how important a service this is to respondents.

Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, RCVS President and former Chair of the Standards Committee, said: “The past two years have shown us that the veterinary professions are highly capable of adopting new ways of working.

"It also revealed that we can adapt our established ways of practice to better respond to shifts in public expectations and advancements in technology.

"However, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that any changes continue to allow us to provide safe and effective care for our patients, and meet the appropriate expectations of our clients.

“Whilst we recognise and reflect on the need for change, the proposed guidance seeks to protect animal health and welfare and maintain public trust by ensuring that decision-making remains firmly in the hands of individual veterinary surgeons, as to what they, in their professional judgement, consider appropriate in a specific situation.

“This consultation, then, while not a referendum on whether RCVS guidance on ‘under care’ and 24-hour emergency first-aid and pain relief should change – that decision having been made by Standards Committee and approved by Council based on the evidence gathered, including the views of the profession and objective evidence, and legal advice – is a crucial opportunity for veterinary colleagues to tell us whether we have got the draft guidance right, whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient, and whether there is anything we might have missed or should amend.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare.

The new President of the RCVS), Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, has promised to spend much of the year listening to veterinary professionals and communities across the UK, to better understand the issues affecting them.

Melissa, who was invested at the RCVS AGM last week, graduated from the University of Glasgow School of Veterinary Medicine in 1987, starting her career as a food animal intern at Iowa State University in the United States before moving into mixed veterinary practice in Ayrshire in 1990.

Over the next 25 years, she and her husband Kenny developed Oaks Veterinary Centre into a small animal practice with a focus on dentistry.

Melissa was first elected to Council in 2016, was re-elected in 2020 and has served on a number of committees including the Education Committee and Finance & Resources Committee.

Since 2019, she has served as Chair of the Standards Committee, leading the development of proposed new guidance on under care and out-of-hours emergency care and pain relief.

Melissa has also been President of the British Veterinary Association’s Scottish branch and the Ayrshire Veterinary Association and, outside of work, enjoys running, and caring for her dogs, cats and sheep.

In her opening speech as RCVS President, Melissa outlined her sense of community with her fellow vets, as a relatively small but prominent profession that punches above its weight, and how she intended to strengthen this as President.

Melissa said: “When I looked this up in June, there were over 300,000 doctors registered with the General Medical Council.

"We, the veterinary profession, have around 30,000 registered with the RCVS to look after farmed, pet, lab animal, exotic, zoo and wildlife species.

"In other words, all animals EXCEPT the human, and we protect humans too, with public health work!

“Even excluding farmed fish, over 300 million animals are being cared for by 30,000 professional veterinary surgeons and their teams.

"That is the scale of our small but mighty community.

"Being part of a community doesn’t mean we all have to be clones of each other, but a group that can agree to disagree, and is there for each other in times of need.

“With this close proximity to each other, communication is key.

"My mother has offered me many wise words over the years, most frequently being ‘engage brain before opening mouth’ but just as important as speaking is listening and actually hearing what is being said.

"So, over this year I will try to get out and about as much as possible, focus on hearing what our community is saying and engage in many conversations as we work together."

Three veterinary surgeons have been suspended for one month by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after admitting dishonesty in relation to the submission of mobility score assessment readings required as part of a dairy animal health and welfare scheme.

Alexander McKinstry and Andrew Rutherford were both charged with writing letters indicating that Rebecca Inman had undertaken an assessment when in fact they had done the assessments themselves, the former without Ms Inman's knowledge, the latter with. 

The charges were that all three, who worked at the same practice group in North-West, had been dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare. 

At the outset of the hearing, all three admitted the charges against them and the Committee found serious professional misconduct in the case of all admitted charges.

The Committee then considered the sanctions for all three of the respondents.

In the cases against Mr McKinstry and Mr Rutherford, the Committee considered that the conduct was premeditated, that they had an increased position of trust and responsibility as practice directors at the time of the misconduct and that it was a breach of trust for the farm clients.

Additionally, Mr McKinstry had put Dr Inman’s professional reputation in jeopardy by not informing her of his conduct.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that there was no harm or risk of harm to animals, the conduct was not done for personal financial gain, that both had been open and frank in their dealings with the RCVS and had shown insight into their behaviour, and their previous good character and unblemished careers.

Regarding Dr Inman, the aggravating factors were the abuse of her position of trust as a registered mobility scorer and the breach of trust with the farm clients.

In mitigation the Committee considered that it had been an isolated incident involving, from Dr Inman’s point of view, a single telephone call.

It also considered that there was no risk of harm, no personal financial gain, her open and frank admissions in dealings with the RCVS, demonstration of insight, previously unblemished record, and efforts to avoid repeats and remediate past misconduct.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee carefully weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors and all the particular circumstances before it.

"The Committee concluded that a period of suspension was sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.

"It had a sufficient deterrent effect upon others in the profession and was sufficient to mark that the disgraceful conduct was unacceptable.

“The Committee considered all of the factors before it, and decided that given the personal mitigation in this case, as set out above, a period of one month was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee regarding this case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) have jointly published new guidelines on accommodating religious clothing and beliefs in veterinary education and clinical settings.

Although developed by the RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group ostensibly for use by Universities, EMS placement host practices and other educational establishments, it is recommended that all veterinary practices review the guidance.

The Guidance on Religious Clothing and Beliefs covers issues such as: balancing accommodations for religious dress with clinical considerations, and making accommodations for religious observance in academic timetabling and exams.

Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager said: “This document is about recognising that personal religious beliefs should be respected and accommodated as far as possible, while also not compromising professional responsibilities such as infection control, effective communication and the health and safety of individuals and their colleagues.

"Most importantly, it is about creating a welcoming and inclusive environment and ensuring that all students are able to express their religious identity whilst participating in educational and workplace settings.

“Although the guidance is not exhaustive, we would highly recommend that, where relevant, educators, practices and other veterinary workplaces review, adopt and adapt this guidance for their own settings to ensure that all members of the professions are welcomed and included.”

The Guidance on Religious Clothing is available to download from: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/guidance-on-religious-clothing-and-beliefs/ 

The RCVS has launched a new digital learning platform, with free-to-access interactive CPD-qualifying courses for veterinary professionals.

Called the RCVS Academy, the new platform offers training in the following areas:

• Leadership and coaching
• Working in the UK
• Ownership and consent
• Resolving complaints
• CPD recording and reflecting

The College says the content has been developed in partnership with members of the profession to make sure it meets the needs of the veterinary team, including new graduates and registrants, and those who have been in the profession for many years.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “As part of our ambition to be a compassionate regulator, we would like to ensure that all veterinary professionals have access to learning resources that will help them meet the standards set by their peers on RCVS Council.

"We’re aware of the pressures that veterinary professions are facing and the Academy has been built to respond to changing learning needs.

“The learning resources available on the platform have been designed to help vet teams develop their understanding of the RCVS professional guidelines and also how they can apply them in their everyday role. "

https://academy.rcvs.org.uk/

Uxbridge-based Daniel Doherty MRCVS has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee from the Register for one month after being convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

Mr Doherty was convicted, with others (who were also convicted), in a conspiracy to deceive members of the public by passing off puppies that had been bred in puppy farms as being the home-bred offspring of domestic pets living in family homes.

Mr Doherty’s role was that he provided vaccinations and vaccination/health check cards which, the court found, materially contributed to the impression that the puppies had been home-bred locally and were in good health.

Mr Doherty was initially convicted of this offence, resulting in eight months’ imprisonment in April 2018.

However, he subsequently appealed the conviction, which was quashed and resulted in a retrial.

On retrial, Mr Doherty was convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours community service and a £100 victim surcharge.

When deciding on the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to meet the public interest.

In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account that Mr Doherty had, as part of his original conviction, already served eight months in prison before the original conviction was quashed and replaced, on retrial, with a suspended sentence.

He had therefore already, in effect, had a period of suspension from practice, which meant that the deterrent factor in a sanction of suspension had been partially met.

In reaching its decision, the Committee also took into account the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the view of the court that Mr Doherty had been motivated solely by animal welfare concerns and not financial gain, and that it was this overriding concern that had allowed others to exploit his willingness to continue to vaccinate puppies despite their source.

There were no concerns as to Mr Doherty’s skill or dedication as a veterinary surgeon and with regard to the single issue of the appropriate vaccination of puppies and their onward sale, the Committee noted the changes that Mr Doherty had made to his practice procedures to avoid any similar problems occurring in the future.

The full decision and findings from the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has ruled that whilst the care given to a diabetic dog by Paul Roger MRCVS fell short, it did not amount to serious professional misconduct. 

Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.

At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).

Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).

In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.

However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.

The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.

Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.

A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.

She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.

Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.

The Committee found the admitted facts proved.

The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.  

Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.

Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.

"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”

As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.

Craig Mostert MRCVS has been suspended from the Register for 18 months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after pleading guilty in the USA to providing false statements about exported flea and tick medicines and subsequently not declaring the conviction to the College.

Dr Mostert admitted to his conviction but denied that it rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

He also admitted not disclosing his conviction to the RCVS but denied that it amounted to dishonesty or was misleading and that failing to do so amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee first considered whether Dr Mostert’s conviction affected the public interest, which included the need to maintain public confidence in the profession by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour for members of the profession.

The Committee noted that the conviction involved dishonesty relating to false statements about the value of goods sent to the USA.

The Committee felt that a conviction for a serious offence involving dishonesty would have a negative impact on public confidence in the profession, and that its reputation would be damaged if proper standards of conduct and behaviour were not upheld.

The Committee also noted that as the products that Dr Mostert imported into the USA were not labelled as coming from a foreign market and were not labelled as needing to be administered by a vet, his conviction also related to animal safety, as anyone who accessed the medications could believe that it was safe for them to be given to an animal.

The Committee then considered Dr Mostert’s failure to declare the conviction to the College on three separate occasions.

Dr Mostert testified that, at the time, he did not believe he had to disclose his conviction as it occurred in a country where he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon. 

He also said he had not taken the time to read and interpret the application form accurately.

However, the Committee considered that the wording around convictions on the application and annual renewal forms is very clear and that, as a veterinary surgeon, Dr Mostert would be familiar with such documents.

The Committee considered that it was inconceivable that an experienced veterinary surgeon, making a declaration of this kind to his regulator, would not have understood that a serious conviction in the USA, dating from June 2017, was a conviction that he was obliged to disclose.

The Committee therefore found Dr Mostert’s failures to declare his conviction dishonest.

Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, noted that in deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the case did not involve any actual harm to an animal or human and that Dr Mostert had had a long and otherwise unblemished career.

However, a key aggravating factor was that the action that led to the conviction resulted in financial gain through the creation of a business enterprise and that Dr Mostert falsely declared the value of goods.

The extent of any financial gain was not known to the Committee, but the business operated on the basis that false declarations were repeatedly made.

Judith said: “After careful consideration the Committee has concluded that in all the circumstances, a lengthy period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the case and satisfy the public interest. The Committee has decided that the appropriate length of suspension is one of 18 months.”

The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS is marking Neurodiversity Celebration Week by launching a new ‘neurodiversity resource hub’ area of its website and adding new modules on the topic to its Mind Matters Initiative Kite App.

Neurodiversity Celebration Week is a worldwide initiative that challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences, and the neurodiversity resource hub (www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/) aims to help members of the veterinary professions better understand how, for over one million people in the UK, neurological differences mean they learn and think in a way that is different to what is considered ‘neurotypical’.

Among the resources contained in the hub is information about neurological conditions closely associated with neurodivergence such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia and dyslexia, as well as information for employers about neurodiversity, including inclusive working tools and sources of government support.

A new ‘kite’ with six new modules are also being added to the MMI Kite App – a specialist microlearning platform for topics related to veterinary wellbeing – that deal specifically with issues related to neurodiversity. The six modules cover: what is neurodiversity; the importance of talking about neurodiversity; different types of neurodiversity; bespoke considerations for neurodivergent individuals; how neurodivergence can lead to innovation through thinking differently; and, exploring further how different brains work and how we can make our brains work best for us.

The College is also publishing a blog on the resource website by Dr Kirstie Pickles, Clinical Assistant Professor in Equine Medicine at the University of Nottingham, about her current MMI-funded research investigating the various workplace stressors that affect autistic veterinary professionals and what adjustments can be introduced to mitigate these stressors.

Lastly, at BSAVA Congress on Saturday 26 March between 3pm and 4pm, the RCVS has organised a discussion session on neurodiversity.

The discussion will be led by Roxanne Hobbs, a consultant in workplace inclusion particularly around neurodiversity, and will look at how to nurture and cultivate neurodiversity in the veterinary professions. 

Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As a project focused on the mental health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, the Mind Matters project has a commitment to recognising and providing a space for all forms of diversity, and so we are very glad to be supporting Neurodiversity Celebration Week again this year.  

“We hope that our neurodiversity resource hub and our other initiatives during Neurodiversity Celebration Week will be useful source of information for everyone and will aid people in understanding neurodivergence, how it can manifest and how it can be supported in the workplace and educational settings.”