There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.
The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.
At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.
The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.
In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.
This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so.
With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.
The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.
The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.
The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.
The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.
In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.
The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).
Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.
It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings.
Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Following the outcry from the profession over the disciplinary hearing into Mr M Chikosi, the RCVS' new Operational Board has clarified the the College's position on the use of blankets to move animals.
The hearing found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.
As a result, the Disciplinary Committee directed that Mr Chikosi's name be removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct. The College says that since the appeal window has closed without an appeal being made, Mr Chikosi has now been struck off.
However, the Committee also said: "... his [Mr Chikosi's] advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back."
This was widely criticised as being out of touch with the practicalities of real life and unsupported by any evidence.
Speaking on behalf of the Board, President Neil Smith said: "We fully support the decision taken by the independent Disciplinary Committee with regard to the Chikosi hearing, with one comment requiring clarification: the issue of whether a blanket can be used to move an injured dog. We consider that it is acceptable, in most cases, to transport an injured dog with the aid of a blanket.
"The profession should be reassured that our Standards Committee [the new name for Advisory Committee] will consider the general issues raised by the Chikosi hearing at its next meeting. This will not be a review of the decision, but form part of the routine consideration of DC hearings made by the Committee to see if they raise issues that require additional guidance and advice."
The RCVS's new Royal Charter has come into effect today, meaning that the whole of the veterinary nursing profession in the UK is now regulated.
The new Charter received the Great Seal of the Realm and was collected from the House of Lords by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and Policy Consultant Jeff Gill (pictured right). It had previously been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November 2014.
Under the changes instituted in the new Charter, there are no longer listed veterinary nurses and all those formerly on the List have effectively been moved to the Register and become RVNs.
As a result they will now be expected to undertake the minimum requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period, will need to follow the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses,and will be subject to the College’s disciplinary system in cases of serious professional misconduct. Any veterinary nurse removed or suspended from the Register will not be entitled to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery.
Gordon said: “This is a proud day for us and an important day for the profession as a whole. We worked very hard to get to this point and I would like to thank all those who helped us along the way including RCVS and VN Council members, College staff and the members of the profession and representative organisations, in particular the BVA and BVNA, that responded to our consultation on the proposed Charter last year.
“This Charter clarifies the role of the College and its aims and objectives while also modernising many of our regulatory functions. This represents another significant step towards the College becoming a first rate regulator.
“Critically, this Charter fulfils one of our long-term ambitions to create a coherent regulatory system for veterinary nurses and to recognise them as true professionals, dedicated to their vocation, their development and proper conduct.”
During this year’s renewal period for veterinary nurses (in the autumn), those formerly on the List will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration. The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses remains unchanged.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for former listed veterinary nurses can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
Mandisa (pictured right) was first elected to Council in 2014 and then re-elected last year. She is currently Chair of the Practice Standards Group, which coordinates the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, and a member of the Primary Qualifications Subcommittee and the Legislation Working Party. She has also served on Standards Committee and as well as chairing the Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) Coordinators Liaison Group.
Born in the UK, and raised in Trinidad & Tobago in the West Indies from the age of two, Mandisa moved back to the UK aged 18 to study for a BSc in Biological and Medicinal Chemistry at the University of Exeter. She then gained her veterinary degree from the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh in 2008.
Since graduating, her interests have lain in small animal practice and emergency and critical care, and she has worked as a veterinary surgeon in a number of practices in the West Midlands. She currently works for Medivet in the Staffordshire town of Newcastle-under-Lyme and lives in Stoke-on-Trent. She is a published author, having been the researcher on a paper about genomic variations in Mycobacterium published in BMC Microbiology.
More information about RCVS Council and its members can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/
Photo: Copyright RCVS
The changes are designed to make the process more accessible and the College says most were proposed as a result of candidate feedback. They are:
The changes will come into effect from 1 January 2025, in time for the 2025 Stat Exam cohort.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We have been listening to the concerns of various stakeholders, including those who have undertaken the Stat Exam previously and veterinary employers, and we used this feedback to work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to come up with a set of practical, deliverable changes that improve the experience of Stat Exam for all candidates, and hopefully alleviate some of the stress involved around timescales, opportunity and finance.
“These changes will make the exam more accessible, as it will allow candidates to have two attempts at the written papers within the same diet, which need to be passed before being allowed to proceed to the practical exam and it will also help improve accessibility to the exam from the perspective of candidate finances.
www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam
This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.
In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.
In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.
Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."
Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."
The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.
In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."
MMI seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, while the Doctors’ Support Network provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.
&me was launched this time last year at the Palace of Westminster at an event sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham,) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression.
Overall eleven &me ambassadors have volunteered their own stories with mental ill-health:
A number of &me ambassadors will be taking part in an ‘&me live’ session at BSAVA Congress, from 5-8 April 2018 in Birmingham, providing a short overview of their story before taking questions from the audience. The session will take place from 8.30 to 10.10am on Saturday 7 April and will be open to all those attending Congress.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "The feedback our &me ambassadors have received is truly heartening.
"Steve Carter, for example, had both an ex-student and colleague comment on his story thanking him for all he’s done, while a Facebook post about Rob Pettitt reached nearly 25,000 people.
"The campaign highlights how it is possible to recover from mental ill-health and flourish in your career, with the aim of encouraging those at the start of their mental ill-health experience to seek appropriate help, whether that is something profession-specific, such as Vetlife or DSN, or their GP."
Louise Freeman, Co-Chair of the DSN, added: "Many healthcare professionals face similar pressures that can lead to mental ill-health, including long hours, intense pressure, and the nature of the job which requires practitioners to constantly provide care for others, without necessarily recognising the need for self-care at the same time.
"A recurring theme that we’ve seen from these ambassadors’ stories has been that they drew on support from friends and family, and we really hope that this campaign encourages other professionals to seek help if they feel they are struggling."
The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health.
To participate in the campaign, email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.
Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me, and a blog by Louise, 'Me and #AndMe', can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/me-and-andme/.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.
Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.
The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.
Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.
The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".
Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.
The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.
Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.
"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.
Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".
Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."
The proposed framework has grown out of the VN Futures research project, run jointly with the BVNA, which identified developing a structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses as one of the key demands of the profession.
It has been developed by the VN Futures Post-Registration Development Group in conjunction with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Education Committee and Veterinary Nurses Council.
The College says the proposed framework is designed to provide accessible, flexible and professionally relevant post-registration awards for veterinary nurses in order to provide an enhanced level of veterinary nursing practice, while also providing specific modules that veterinary nurses at all career levels can study independently for their continuing professional development (CPD).
Julie Dugmore, Director of Veterinary Nursing at the RCVS, said: "One of the strongest messages that came out of the research we conducted with the British Veterinary Nursing Association prior to the publication of the VN Futures Report was that there was a need for a more structured and rewarding career path for veterinary nurses.
"Throughout the VN Futures roadshow events nurses felt they were often entering a career cul-de-sac after a certain amount of time in practice and so the need for further post-registration qualifications which promote excellence and recognise advanced knowledge, skills, competency and experience in designated areas were strongly expressed.
"We have taken this feedback and developed it into a comprehensive framework for two defined post-registration qualifications and are very interested in hearing what both veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons have to say about all aspects of what we are proposing.
"Once we have collated the responses, we will incorporate the feedback into the framework for further consideration by the relevant committees and VN Council. The eventual aim is that these qualifications will, once sufficiently bedded in, lead to the development of an Advanced Veterinary Nurse status so that members of the VN profession with the sufficient skills and experience will get the recognition they truly deserve."
The two new qualifications included in the framework are a Graduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing and a Postgraduate Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing. Details of the courses’ structure, candidate assessment criteria, accreditation standards, student support, candidate eligibility rules, the RCVS enrolment process and the procedures for certification will be set out in a framework document as part of the consultation process.
The document also includes a prospective list of designations for the two courses covering areas of advanced veterinary nursing knowledge such as wellness and preventative health; rehabilitation and physiotherapy; anaesthesia and analgesia; triage, critical care and emergency nursing; pharmacology; animal welfare; education and teaching; management and leadership; research; and, dentistry.
The consultation will be launched in early July with an email sent to all veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons containing a link to the survey and asking for their views on the proposals. Details of the consultation, once launched, may also be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The VN Futures Report is available to download from www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures
The RCVS is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct.
The new Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
According to the College, the purpose of the review, which last took place over a decade ago, is to ensure guidance to the profession and the public is clear. For example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.
The RCVS says the new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance. It also includes:
Clare Tapsfield-Wright, Chairman of the Guides Review Working Party said: "Over the decade or so since it was last reviewed, not only has the Guide become unwieldy in places, but the way that regulators in general publish professional conduct rules has changed. Our draft new Code aims to clarify matters and bring us into line with best practice elsewhere.
"Animal owners are increasingly keen to understand the basis of what the veterinary profession considers to be good professional conduct. The new simplified Code should assist with this understanding."
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate document is under development for veterinary nurses, which will share broadly similar underlying principles and will be the subject of its own consultation.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who formerly practised in Norwich should be removed from the Register, having found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery following his Crown Court conviction for fraud.
During the one-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard how Francisco da Cruz had abused his position whilst practising as a veterinary surgeon at Hellesdon Vets, his then workplace in Norwich, by defrauding a insurance companies of around £10,000 with fictitious claims for veterinary treatment on non-existent pets.
Following an investigation by the City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), Mr da Cruz was convicted on five counts of fraud by false representation on 21 February 2013 at the Old Bailey in London, and later sentenced to eight months' imprisonment (suspended for two years) and 200 hours of unpaid community work; he was also ordered to pay just over £10,000 in compensation and costs.
Although Mr da Cruz had left the UK for Brazil shortly after his sentencing and was therefore not present at the hearing, the Committee was satisfied that he was deliberately evading the disciplinary proceedings, rather than being genuinely unable to participate in them, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
First accepting the copy certificate of conviction against Mr da Cruz as true, the Committee then had no hesitation in concluding that these convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a member of the veterinary profession. It found that the five counts of fraud were deliberate crimes of dishonesty, committed over a significant period of time and for significant financial gain. He had abused his position as a veterinary surgeon and abused the trust which the insurers placed in him as a professional.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has no real confidence that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour from the Respondent. His conduct subsequent to the criminal proceedings gives it no confidence that he has reformed himself to the extent that he will in the foreseeable future be fit to return to practice. So far from satisfactorily completing his criminal sentence, it appears that the Respondent has deliberately gone abroad to avoid doing so."
Bearing in mind that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish Mr da Cruz, but to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct within it, the Committee concluded that the convictions were too serious to allow any sanction other than removal from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's decisions are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The committee heard five charges against Dr Davies at a resumed hearing of an inquiry which was originally adjourned in January and then July 2018. The decision was made, at both the 2018 hearings, to postpone the final decision on the sanction.
The first two charges against Dr Davies related to convictions for drink driving in March 2014 and October 2015 for which she received driving bans of 17 and 45 months.
The third charge related to her breaching a number of undertakings she had entered into as part of the College’s Health Protocol, including her consuming alcohol on four occasions between May 2015 and January 2016 and missing a pre-arranged appointment with a consultant psychiatrist appointed.
The fourth and fifth charges related to being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016 which was also in breach of her undertakings under the Health Protocol.
At Dr Davies' first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, she admitted all five charges against her and also accepted that her conduct was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
At the conclusion of its hearing on 23 January 2018 the Committee decided to postpone its decision regarding sanction for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into undertakings, including not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement and to undergo blood and hair tests for alcohol consumption every two months.
At the resumed hearing on 30 July 2018, Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that she wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed evidence that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with her undertakings.
However, the Committee retained concerns about Dr Davies' return to practise and therefore required her to identify a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor, noting that the mentor would have to be acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity.
The Committee also required the continuation of the requirements for abstinence from alcohol and the programme of blood and hair testing.
A further requirement of the Committee was that Dr Davies should make a disclosure to any new employer of her appearances before the Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions it made.
The final requirement of the Committee was that the respondent should not accept a ‘sole charge position’ at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction. The Committee then directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.
The Disciplinary Committee resumed its inquiry on 7th August 2019, when Dr Davies submitted documentary proof and medical records to demonstrate she had complied with all her undertakings given at the last hearing. The Committee also heard from Dr Davies’ appointed veterinary mentor who provided a statement that concluded that she no longer needed monitoring or supervision.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Davies.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The view of the Committee is that the respondent has to date overcome her addiction to alcohol and, given that her competence as a practising veterinary surgeon is not disputed, that she should therefore be permitted to return to her chosen profession. However, in the judgment of this Committee the seriousness of the offences to which the Respondent has pleaded guilty means that a sanction of “No Further Action” cannot be justified."
The Committee therefore decided that the most proportionate sanction was for Dr Davies to be reprimanded as to the conduct she admitted at previous hearings and that she be warned as to her future conduct.
Ian added: "The respondent must understand that she has been given an opportunity to prove that, for the remainder of her time in practice, she can meet the high standards expected of all registered veterinary surgeons from both other practitioners and from members of the public who entrust the care and treatment of their animals to members of this profession."
At the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee considered whether she had accepted the findings of the Committee at the original inquiry hearing, the seriousness of those findings, whether she had demonstrated insight into her past conduct, and the protection of the public and the public interest.
In her restoration application, Dr Burrows included continuing professional development (CPD) certificates for the courses she had completed since her removal from the Register, letters/informal witness statements from the veterinary surgeons and nurses she had worked who had expressed a willingness to employ her again, together with character references and reflection statements.
She also made a detailed opening statement in support of her application, in which she said that the period since her name was removed from the Register was extremely difficult and also that she now unconditionally accepted all the Committee’s original findings in May 2021, some of which she had previously denied and had failed to acknowledge.
Dr Burrows went on to state that she only had herself to blame for her actions and that she now understood and accepted that the original sanction of removal from the register had needed to be severe given the serious breach of trust to the public, to the veterinary profession and the insurance industry that was a direct consequence of her dishonest actions.
Since removal from the Register, Dr Burrows had taken on the role of receptionist in a Vets4Pets practice in Cardiff, which required her to deal directly with the public and their insurance requests and entitlements.
She stated that as a result of her involvement over the past 18 months in processing insurance claims, she acknowledges the “delicate” relationship between veterinary surgeons, clients and insurers.
Additionally, working as a receptionist, had allowed her to recognise the need for contemporaneous and clear clinical notes.
She also highlighted her CPD, which was relevant to insurance, as well as the fact she’d undertaken a professional ethics course to assist her rehabilitation, reflection, and insight.
In support of Dr Burrows’ restoration to the Register, the Committee took into account three witness accounts from people who work at the Vets4Pets branch where Dr Burrows works as a receptionist.
All witnesses gave positive reflections on Dr Burrows’ character and assured the Committee that they would provide the correct level of support to allow her to return to work safely and that they would have all the necessary safeguarding measures in place to ensure that the public’s and the profession’s interest is always at the forefront.
Judith Way, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was impressed by the fact that busy professionals chose to give up their time to provide witness statements and give evidence in support of Dr Burrows’ application.
"All witnesses were clearly supportive of Dr Burrows’ request for restoration to the Register.
“The Committee found Dr Burrows to show remorse and she does now accept the findings of dishonesty that were made against her in the original enquiry hearing and stated that her conduct was dishonest.
"In the Committee’s view, the evidence given by Dr Burrows on affirmation was very believable and she now accepts her dishonesty together with the gravity of her dishonesty.
“The Committee also formed the view that the steps she has taken to address her dishonesty serve to confirm that she is passionate about the prospect that she be allowed to return to practise.
"The Committee was impressed by Dr Burrows and the evidence given and is now satisfied that she will ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in the future.
“Having taken all evidence into account, the Committee is satisfied that the future welfare of animals under Dr Burrows’ responsibility will be properly protected, and that her future dealings with insurers will be honest in all respects and that the interests of the public will be met.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
What is 'quality improvement', you ask? Good question. Sure, it's an improvement in, er, quality. But of what?
'Quality improvement' is a term adopted from the human healthcare sector, variously defined as anything which makes: "healthcare safer, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable (NHS)", or "the combined and unceasing efforts of everyone—healthcare professionals, patients and their families, researchers, payers, planners and educators—to make the changes that will lead to better patient outcomes (health), better system performance (care) and better professional development (BMJ)."
The RCVS research project, which is being conducted by RAND EUROPE, will assess current perceptions and adoption of quality improvement in the veterinary profession.
Specifically, it'll look at the drivers, barriers and expectations associated with QI, with the ultimate goal of strengthening the support provided to the profession.
Chris Gush, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge, said: "We are delighted to be launching this research project with RAND Europe.
"We know that many of our colleagues across the profession have embedded quality improvement into their practice to great benefit, while we are also aware that it can be a challenge to do so all of the time.
"This research will provide an unprecedented body of evidence on the experiences and perceptions of QI, which will be critical to how we work to support the sector in this area going forward."
Integral to the research is a survey which all members of the profession are invited to take part in, here: bit.ly/QIvetsurvey.
The survey will be live for six weeks, closing early April. It takes around ten minutes to complete, with a prize of one £150 Amazon voucher on offer. Responses will be anonymised.
You can read more about Quality Improvement on the RCVS Knowledge website, here: https://knowledge.rcvs.org.uk/quality-improvement/
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s election, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr "Not Again" Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
The biographies and statements for each candidate can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
At the time of writing, the College is still waiting for the Legislative Reform Order (LRO) concerning its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, to be approved.
Under current arrangements six candidates will be elected to RCVS Council – however, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places on Council.
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 12 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Once again this year the College is inviting veterinary surgeons to email a question for the candidates to vetvote18@rcvs.org.uk or tweet it using the hashtag #vetvote18 by midday on Monday 26 February.
Each candidate will then be asked to answer two questions from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election commences.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said:"After last year’s record turnout in the RCVS Council elections we are continuing to work with Electoral Reform Services (ERS) to make it easier for members to vote for their preferred candidates.
"While the traditional paper ballot papers and booklets will be posted as usual, ERS will once again send personalised emails linking members to their unique secure voting website and then send regular reminders to those who haven’t yet had the chance have their say."
The RCVS Registered Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Northants-based registered veterinary nurse who admitted to acting dishonestly with her employer, a client and a pet database company by taking home a patient that was supposed to have been euthanised.
During the two-day hearing, the Committee heard how Sally-Ann Roberts, formerly of the Best Friends Veterinary Group in Thrapston, had deliberately gone against the wishes of the owners of a 14-year-old Maine Coon cat called Jason that he be euthanised, rather than treated further, and instead had taken the cat home with her for "intensive nursing". Jason had subsequently escaped from Ms Robert's residence, leading her to fabricate a story, first to the pet database company, and then to Jason's owners and her employer, that he had escaped from the practice, before being returned by a member of the public two days later and then euthanised as originally requested.
Ms Roberts acted with her veterinary surgeon colleague Przemyslaw Bogdanowicz, who chose not to euthanise Jason and who, for his part, received a three-month suspension from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in December 2012. She repeated the false account on a number of occasions, both orally and in written statements, and also forged the signature of Jason's owner on official documentation in order to substantiate her story.
Only when Ms Roberts was interviewed for a second time by her then employer's area manager, did she finally admit to what had actually happened. Shortly afterwards, Ms Roberts was suspended from the practice and, following an internal disciplinary hearing a few days later, was dismissed by them for gross misconduct, along with Mr Bogdanowicz. There was no evidence available as to what ultimately happened to Jason.
Explaining her actions to the Committee, Ms Roberts said she was upset that Jason's owners wanted him to be euthanised and felt that he could recover if given some love and attention. She had asked Mr Bogdanowicz to discuss this possibility with Jason's owners, but he had refused, agreeing instead that she could continue Jason's treatment at her home. After Jason escaped, Ms Roberts said she was "devastated" and had "panicked", inventing the story of Jason's escape to cover her actions, which she now acknowledged were "wrong" and "stupid", and which she "bitterly regretted". Ms Roberts expressed sorrow and remorse for her behaviour, which she said would never occur again, and stated that being a veterinary nurse was everything to her.
In view of the admitted facts, the Committee judged that Ms Robert's dishonesty and breach of client trust, as well the distinct risk of injury to which she exposed Jason, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee balanced a number of aggravating factors (in particular, the forged signature) against Ms Roberts' "strong mitigation", which included her admitting the entirety of the charges against her, her medical and personal problems at the time, the insight she had shown into the effects of her actions on Jason's owners and her previous unblemished career.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speak on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that the Respondent has shown insight into the seriousness of her misconduct and that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. In light of the Respondent's admission, her insight, her remorse and the high regard in which she is held by her professional colleagues, it is the Committee's view that the sanction of two months' suspension is appropriate and proportionate."
The Committee's full decisions on facts and sanction are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: "Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders."
"The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession."
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: "We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
"It takes real courage to reach out for help when you're struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call."
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible viawww.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
532 veterinary practices responded to the survey, which was sent to 3,096 veterinary practices for which the RCVS had a unique email address, on 3rd April.
The survey found that:
Three-quarters of those who responded to the survey answered a question on how the RCVS could better support veterinary practices through the crisis. The most frequent response (27%) was that the RCVS needed to provide clearer guidance, in particular as to what services it was permissible for veterinary practices to provide [the College published its updated guidance and flowchart on 9 April].
Of those who responded to the question, 15% felt that the RCVS was doing a good job or that there was nothing more it should do, while just 2% of responses expressed negative sentiment towards the RCVS.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “I would like to thank all those practices who took the time in what is already a very fraught situation to respond to our survey and provide the evidence we need to gain a holistic picture of coronavirus’ impact on the business and economics of veterinary practices. We plan to continue running these surveys on a regular basis in order to gauge impact over time and the findings will feed into our policy and decision-making.
"This ongoing research will also be a vital tool when we are talking to Government and other bodies about the impact of policy on the veterinary sector. On this note, we are aware of the challenges of a minimum furlough period of three weeks given the need for practices to take steps to offer 24/7 emergency and critical care, and have written to government on this with some case studies around the impact this is having.
"To those on the ground it won’t come as too much of a surprise that the impact of the coronavirus has been profound in areas such as practice turnover and staffing, with many vets, veterinary nurses and other support staff being furloughed with the aim of signing them up to the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
"There are some bright spots in the data we’ve gathered – very few practices reported that they had made or were planning to make staff redundant, and many practices reported mitigating the challenge of social distancing by carrying out consultations with new and existing clients remotely.
"Since the survey took place we have also taken steps to meet some of the requests for greater clarity and guidance from the RCVS with the publication of our flowchart helping practices to decide what treatments it is appropriate to carry out safely amidst the COVID-19 pandemic."
The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
The next practice impact survey is planned for early May.
The Strategic Plan was developed throughout the course of 2016 with input from a number of stakeholders including RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, key committees and College staff. Most importantly, the evidence for change came from the wide and deep consultations that took place within Vet Futures, the joint RCVS and British Veterinary Association project that aims to help the veterinary profession prepare for and shape its future.
The other four ambitions described in the plan are:
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO, said: "The hallmark of our 2014 to 2016 Strategic Plan was getting the basics right by clarifying our identity, improving our core functions, setting out our service agenda and strengthening our foundations. The plan gave us a firm foundation to build upon and improved levels of confidence in the College from stakeholders which has allowed us to be more ambitious and outward-looking with this new plan.
"Within the new plan there are challenging ambitions and stretching objectives that address some of the big issues affecting the veterinary team, whether that’s playing a more global role post-Brexit, the importance of embracing new technology, or the pressing need to consider culture change within the profession to ensure it continues to grow and learn.
"I would ask each member of the profession to take a look at the Strategic Plan and I am very happy to receive comments and feedback on the plan by email at nick@rcvs.org.uk."
To download the Strategic Plan, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The reports summarise the results of two surveys that were conducted between July and August last year.
Of the 28,718 veterinary surgeons who were sent the survey, 22% fully completed and submitted the questionnaire.
Some of the main findings included:
Around 40% of veterinary surgeons and over 40% of veterinary nurses said they had experienced concerns for their personal safety aside from catching Covid.
These safety concerns mostly related to client interactions at the practice either during the day or out-of-hours.
Many respondents experienced conflict between their personal wellbeing and professional role, and found it difficult to juggle their work and caring responsibilities.
Many respondents also said their mental health was adversely affected by the experience of working during the pandemic.
A large majority of respondents said they had personally seen an increase in caseload due to new animal ownership.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “While many of the results of the survey may not be especially surprising and confirm what we have already been told anecdotally, it is very important that we have this hard data to hand on the overall impact of the pandemic on individual members of the professions.
“These two reports complement the six surveys that we have conducted with veterinary practices on the economic impact of the pandemic to give us as clear and holistic a picture as possible about the challenges that the professions and the veterinary sector as a whole have faced since March 2020.
"This not only provides a useful historical snapshot, but builds an evidence base to inform future temporary changes should the pandemic continue into more waves, or should future such crises arise.
“The results of the two individual surveys make it clear it has been a tough time for the professions.
"A good proportion of respondents also acknowledged that positive developments have come from the past two years, including the way the profession has demonstrated remarkable resilience, flexibility and adaptability, as well as forging a stronger team spirit under such difficult circumstances.
“However, a large number of both vets and vet nurses who responded said that the experiences since March 2020 have left them feeling more pessimistic about veterinary work and their place within it.
"I would like to reassure members of the veterinary team that the RCVS is aware and understands.
"We tried throughout the pandemic to support the professions with relevant temporary guidance changes, and we are now working with a range of stakeholders on critical issues such as the workforce crisis, which has been in part caused by Covid.
"We are also developing tools, training and resources to support the professions, via our programmes such as RCVS Leadership and Mind Matters.”
The full coronavirus impact survey reports can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
22% (6,785) of veterinary surgeons eligible to vote did so, compared to the previous record of 18.8%.
The votes were as follows:
For the two places available on VN Council one new member was elected and one existing member re-elected for four year terms. Andrea Jeffery was re-elected with 1,293 votes, while Susan Howarth was elected with 1,064 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Congratulations to all those elected to RCVS Council and VN Council and thank you to all those who stood as candidates in both elections.
"We would especially like to thank Jerry Davies, Peter Jinman and Bradley Viner who are standing down from RCVS Council this year after deciding not to seek re-election, in addition to Chris Gray and Tom Witte for their contributions to RCVS Council and Marie Rippingale for her contribution to VN Council.
"Thank you also to all those who took the time to ask questions of our candidates and cast a vote. This year we made a concerted attempt to make it even easier for the electorate to vote, with secure links to the voting websites sent by email and regular email reminders to those who hadn’t yet voted. The fact that both record numbers and proportions of the professions voted this year is testament to our efforts to further increase engagement with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
"However, while we welcome these significant increases, we recognise that it is still a relatively small proportion of the profession voting in these elections and so will continue to think of new ways to engage with the professions not just at election time, but across our many activities."
All the successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 7 July 2017 at the Royal Institute of British Architects where the formal declaration of both election results will also take place.
All Schedule 2 controlled drugs (with the exception of quinalbarbitone) and certain Schedule 3 controlled drugs are legally required to be stored in a locked container which is compliant with the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973; however, the College considers it advisable for all Schedule 3 controlled drugs to be stored in the controlled drug cabinet.
Controlled drug cabinets must only be accessed by a veterinary surgeon, or another nominated responsible person at the practice. In the case of a nominated person who is not a veterinary surgeon removing controlled drugs from the cabinet, the legal and professional responsibility remains with the veterinary surgeon whose direction they are under.
The College’s full guidance, including advice on use, location, and design and construction of cabinets, can be found in the Controlled Drugs Guidance and the Practice Standards Scheme Manual. Many police forces in the UK also have Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers who offer advice on various matters, including safe storage.
To download the Controlled Drugs Guidance, which includes further guidance on areas such as storage and destruction of controlled drugs, please visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/publications/controlled-drugs-guidance/
To access the PSS Manual, visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/
Contact details for Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers by area can be obtained from the Association of Police Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers: http://www.apcdlo.org.uk/contact.html.
The outreach programme began earlier this month at the Devon County Show (pictured right), where the College used the opportunity to spread the word about its petsneedvets campaign, handing out over 1000 promotional bags in the process.
Next on the itinerary is the Royal Welsh Show near Builth Wells from the 23rd to 26th July. From there, the College will be heading to the BBC Countryfile Live event, held in the grounds of Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire from the 2nd to 5th August.
Ian Holloway, Director of Communications at the RCVS, said: "Following the success and popularity of our stand at Countryfile Live over the past two years we decided that this year we would broaden our horizons and attend some of the UK’s most prestigious and well-attended regional events.
"We have our ever-popular careers materials available, and it was wonderful to see dozens of young people at the Devon County Show asking us about how they can become veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as they always have the past two years at Countryfile. This is a really encouraging level of interest in the professions and we’re very happy to provide information to help them fulfil their aspirations.
"Attending more and different public events is a trend we are very keen on continuing with and we will be looking at other events to attend in different parts of the UK for next year."
For more information about upcoming events involving the RCVS visit www.rcvs.org.uk/events
Photo: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
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