The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.
James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.
All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.
The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.
The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.
The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.
Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored Joseph Lennox Holmes to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, two years after he was originally struck off.
Mr Holmes was removed from the Register in February 2012 after the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of multiple charges of serious professional conduct. Mr Holmes lodged an appeal against the decision, which was heard and dismissed by the Privy Council.
The original charges related to two separate complaints; the first involved numerous charges in respect of Mr Holmes' treatment of a King Charles Spaniel between October 2007 and March 2008; the second, several charges in relation to his treatment of three cats in 2008.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In removing Mr Holmes from the Register, the Committee found that "aggravating factors in both... cases included actual injuries to the animals... and a serious breach of the trust which Mr Holmes' clients had placed in him to make the welfare of the animals his primary consideration according to the standards to be expected of the profession". In addition, the Committee cited 10 further aggravating factors including lack of reference to continuing professional development (CPD) in clinical policies and practices; lack of reference to accepted practice; lack of appreciation of the importance of adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures; reluctance to consider referral as an option; and lack of understanding about what information is required by a client to enable fully informed consent to be given.
Following the dismissal of Mr Holmes' appeal by the Privy Council, his first application for restoration was heard by the Disciplinary Committee in February 2013. The Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored to the Register, citing the fact that his application was "premature" and that he had failed to truly appreciate the seriousness of the findings against him. The Committee was also unimpressed with the efforts he had made to keep up-to-date with skills and developments in practice and with his CPD, noting in particular that he had made very limited attempts to observe the function and experience the culture of a modern first opinion practice.
However, in this week's two-day hearing, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes was now fit to be restored to the Register. It heard that Mr Holmes had made a concerted effort to engage in CPD and bring his skills and knowledge up-to-date. During a period of observation at a veterinary practice, he had gained insight into modern practice and the need for veterinary general practitioners to be aware of the advantages in referring patients to specialists.
Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that, in the course of genuine efforts to do what was necessary to address the deficiencies identified during the original Inquiry and at the last restoration hearing, the Applicant has at last understood the seriousness of his previous misconduct and has learned new skills and, most importantly, to recognise his limitations from the extensive course of study, reflection, and other training that he has undertaken."
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes had gained a proper understanding of the importance of securing the informed consent of his clients and building a relationship of trust with them and, in addition, recognising the importance of maintaining close relations with fellow professionals and engaging with CPD opportunities.
Additional factors considered when making the decision included: that he had been off the Register for two years; that, through self-improvement, he had equipped himself to treat animals appropriately; the impact that being removed from the Register had in both personal and financial terms; his conduct since being removed from the Register; and, a number of positive testimonials from previous clients and professional colleagues.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
There are nine candidates standing in this year’s elections, including five existing Council members eligible for re-election and four candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Dr Linda Belton MRCVSAt a glance: Equine clinician. Director of George Veterinary Group, a 40-vet independent practice. Wants to safeguard veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom and prevent it being eroded as a result of corporatisation.
Dr Niall Connell MRCVSAt a glance: After a career largely in small animal charitable practice, Niall had to retire from clinical practice as a result of MS. Has been a council member since 2013 and now RCVS President-elect. By all accounts, something of a national treasure. Wants the College to: "regulate compassionately in partnership with our profession".
Mr John C Davies MRCVSAt a glance: Small animal practitioner who, having had his fingers burned in a failed joint venture arrangement and parts of his election manifesto redacted by the RCVS (it can be read in full here: http://www.johndaviesvet.com), now campaigns for justice, integrity, accountability, freedom of speech and due diligence at the College and in the wider profession.
Dr Joanna (Jo) Dyer MRCVSAt a glance: Small animal locum practitioner who was first elected to council in 2015 after successfully lobbying for changes to the CoPC Guidance following Chikosi. An all round good egg. Argues passionately against changes to the Code of Conduct to allow remote prescribing of POM-Vs.
Professor Timothy (Tim) Greet FRCVSAt a glance: Widely-published equine practitioner and past-pres of BEVA, BVA and WEVA. In favour of RCVS regulation of para-professionals. Argues that whilst technology is to be welcomed, diagnosis and prescribing must be restricted to animals 'under our care'.
Professor John Innes FRCVSAt a glance: RCVS Specialist in small animal orthopaedics (with 85 peer-reviewed papers to his name) and Referrals Director at CVS. Pledges to speak as an independent veterinary surgeon - not a corporate representative - if elected. On record as being pleased that the proposed RCVS telemedicine trial was delayed pending further consultation. In favour of 'nurse practitioner' becoming a regulated option for RVNs.
Dr Thomas (Tom) Lonsdale MRCVSAt a glance: Single-issue candidate with a 23-year history of standing for election to draw attention to the supposed evils of commercial pet foods. Based in Australia. 2000-1 outsider.
Dr Katherine (Kate) Richards MRCVSAt a glance: 15 years in farm animal practice before taking up various positions in industry and government. Champions a healthy work-life balance, fair pay, workplace flexibility and supportive work practices.
Mr Peter Robinson MRCVSAt a glance: A long career in independent farm, equine and small animal practice, followed by a stint in sole practice in Dubai. Has been on Council for 4 years. Like Jo Dyer, argues that when it comes to remote prescribing and telemedicine, "we must not change the standards of ‘under our care'."
Ballot papers and booklets containing candidates’ details and manifestos have been sent by post to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a unique link to a secure voting site has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services, which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2019.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we saw another very strong turnout for the RCVS Council election with over a fifth of the profession casting votes. The turnout was again helped by regular email reminders and the fact the voting website can be easily accessed by just clicking on a link.
"I would like to remind the profession that, following last year’s changes to our governance structure after a Legislative Reform Order was passed through Parliament, you can now only choose up to three candidates. I do hope members of the profession take this opportunity to influence the governance and policies of the RCVS."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.
Kate’s election means that, come July and subject to ratification by RCVS Council, the offices of RCVS President, Senior-Vice President and Junior Vice-President will all be held by women for the first time in the College’s 177-year history.
A graduate of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Kate was a farm vet for 15 years, a partner in a 15 vet practice in Aberdeen. She then moved to the pharmaceutical industry as a veterinary advisor before joining the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). From there, she moved into non-veterinary Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles in several Whitehall departments including the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. As a senior civil servant she was Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland, handling a diverse policy portfolio and working across Whitehall, including No.10 Downing Street and the Devolved Administrations.
First elected to RCVS Council in 2015 for a four year term and again in 2020, Kate has previously served as Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee and RCVS representative on the UK co-ordination group for the Federation of Vets of Europe (FVE). Currently Vice Chair of the Education Committee, member of the Registration Committee and the Environment & Sustainability Working Party, Kate is an appointed veterinary member of Veterinary Nurses’ Council.
Kate is a qualified Official Veterinarian (OV), a Non-Executive Director on the Moredun Foundation and Scottish Agriculture College (SAC) Commercial Boards, a veterinary advisor on a Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) mental health project and on the Council of the Association of Government Veterinarians. She’s a member of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Veterinary Public Health Association. A Council member of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (2004-10), Kate served as a Trustee of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation (2014-17).
Current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will become Senior Vice-President, and joining Kate and Mandisa on the Officer team will be Dr Melissa Donald, who last month was elected Junior Vice-President for 2021-22. Current Senior Vice-President Dr Niall Connell was recently elected RCVS Treasurer.
The vacancy in the RCVS Officer team arose following Professor David Argyle’s decision to resign from Council in March, meaning that Council needed to hold two votes in quick succession: one at its scheduled meeting in March for the 2021-22 JVP position; and one today for the current JVP vacancy.
Kate said: “I am delighted to be elected JVP. It’s been an exceptionally challenging year for those in all walks of veterinary life, including students aspiring to join our profession. It will be an honour to lead the RCVS as its tenth female president, working with veterinary colleagues as well as reaching out to allied professionals acknowledging that there will be challenges to navigate as well as triumphs to celebrate.”
The RCVS has announced that the Codes of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses have been updated to state that you should not refer to yourselves or others as 'veterinary nurses' unless registered.
In fact, the change occurred back in June last year, but was only announced via RCVS News and as a one-liner within the 'Overview of decisions made at RCVS Council'.
The announcement raises the pretty fundamental question of what ARE veterinary surgeons and RVNs to call their unqualified colleagues, if not veterinary nurses? How indeed are those unqualified staff working in veterinary practice to describe their job title to their friends, down at the pub?
VetSurgeon.org sought to clarify the situation with the College, and the first point to make is that the new part of the CoPCs refers only to the use of the words 'veterinary nurse' when used in conjunction. The words 'nurse' or 'nursing' are not protected at all.
The College says that it is not within its remit to instruct veterinary surgeons or registered nurses as to how they should address unqualified staff, but suggested: 'Care Assistant' or 'Auxilliary'.
However, Ben Myring, RCVS Senior Policy and Public Affairs Officer said: "There is nothing to stop someone calling themselves a 'nursing assistant' or a 'head nurse'".
The Codes of Professional Conduct obviously apply only to those who are regulated by it. The title 'veterinary nurse' in unprotected in law and can therefore be used by anyone else.
So, the immediate implications seem to be as follows:
Do you have any other suggestions as to how unqualified nursing staff should be styled? Post them below.
The first MRCVS to be killed in the First World War has been honoured with a portrait at the College's offices in Belgravia House - 100 years after his death.
The portrait of Lieutenant Vincent Fox, who was from Dundalk, Co Louth, and was an alumnus of the then Royal Veterinary College in Dublin, was presented by his great grand-nephew, James Tierney, and received by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey.
Lieutenant Fox, a member of the former Army Veterinary Corps (AVC), was killed in action by a shell on August 26 1914 during the Battle of Le Cateau in northern France in which British and French forces fought to impede a German advance. He is now buried in the nearby Commonwealth War Grave Cemetery at Caudry.
Paul Watkins, a veterinary surgeon and military historian, conducted the research into Lieutenant Fox, his career and his deeds in the First World War, with the help of his family. He said: "The family story was that he had been found dead in a church with no mark or scars on him and, in fact, this turned out to be completely true.
"The church where he died was in the village of Audencourt in northern France where a dressing station had been set up for the wounded.
"The key issue was that, in the absence of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Lieutenant Fox was ordered to take charge of the medical treatment of the men using his skills as a veterinary surgeon. I'm sure he did his very best under such extreme circumstances but he would have been very ill-equipped."
Talking more generally about the role of the AVC during the First World War, Dr Watkins said: "The AVC made very significant contributions to the war effort because there were so many horses and mules deployed. They would have been responsible for a range of tasks from husbandry - and educating other soldiers on husbandry - to the treatment of injured animals."
In total, some 67 veterinary surgeons are believed to have been killed in the First World War - of whom 34 died from disease, 24 died as a result of wounds and nine were killed in action.
On presenting the portrait, which was drawn by artist Dave Gleeson based on a photograph of Lieutenant Fox, Mr Tierney, from Dublin, said: "I am very pleased that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has accepted this portrait as future generations of vets will be able to see it here and learn about my great grand-uncle's story.
"He has become my hero because he died while trying to save human lives and, for me, that's a huge source of pride.
"While his story is very interesting, however, it's not just about him. There are 66 other names on the RCVS First World War memorial and they all have a story to tell as well."
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, added: "We are very pleased to receive this portrait of Lieutenant Fox in recognition of the sacrifice he made during the First World War. The fact that he died while tending to his wounded fellow soldiers demonstrates the caring nature of the profession and the wider contribution to society made by veterinary surgeons.
"In this centenary year I would also like to commend the contribution made by members of the profession as a whole during the war."
Throughout the centenary the RCVS Knowledge Library blog - written by Clare Boulton, Head of Library and Information Services - will be updated with stories about the conduct of veterinary surgeons in the First World War. Visit rcvsknowledgelibraryblog.org to see the updates.
The new series comprises six online discussions taking place over the course of the spring, covering everything from diversity to creativity to identity.
The upcoming programme of events is as follows:
Tuesday 1st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: Celebrating diversityChaired by Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership & Inclusion Manager. Panel members Lacey Pitcher RVN, Dr Olivia Anderson-Nathan MRCVS and Samantha Payne RVN will be talking about what celebrating diversity means to people, exploring how this links to mental health, and sharing their thoughts on why – and how – the professions should be working towards greater inclusivity, both in and out of the workplace.
Monday 21st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: The joy of creativityThis discussion will look at why creativity is so important for people’s lives and how it can be used to support mental health and wellbeing with a panel comprising Dr Silvia Janksa MRCVS and Olivia Oginska MRCVS.
Tuesday 5th April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Overcoming self-doubt and stressing outThis discussion will consider the main causes of stress in the veterinary workforce and how this may have shifted throughout the pandemic. The discussion will encompass coping strategies, the ways in which stress can be channelled in a more constructive way, and overcoming feelings of self-doubt.
Thursday 21st April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Identity – who am I away from work?This discussion will consider to what extent veterinary professionals should let their careers define them, the importance of understanding oneself in and out of a work setting, and how people can learn to value, accept, and appreciate their whole selves.
Tuesday 3rd May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Saying goodbye…letting go and learning to growThis discussion will consider how best to cope with the various types of loss that may be encountered in an individual’s professional and personal life, and how to learn, adapt and grow from these losses.
Thursday 12th May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Tackling loneliness in a hyperconnected worldThis Campfire Chat will discuss why meaningful connection and having a sense of belonging matters, and how individuals and communities can tackle loneliness in a hyperconnected world.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: “We all lead busy professional and personal lives and sometimes it means that self-care, which includes talking to others about how we’re feeling and about issues that we find important to us, can fall by the wayside.
“Our Campfire Chats offer a perfect opportunity – and excuse – to take a bit of time out of your schedule to engage in a structured but informal discussion about all manner of subjects, expertly led by a chair and panel with experience, lived and otherwise, on the topic being talked about.
“These events are for the whole veterinary team, we keep the sessions very informal, and there is also the opportunity to share or ask questions of the panel.”
To sign up for the first session, visit https://bit.ly/3GnQK0G.
For further information about the events contact Abi Hanson, Mind Matters Initiative Officer, on a.hanson@rcvs.org.uk
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comments on new proposals for bringing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 up to date.
In 2005, following earlier consultations, the RCVS Council called for extensive changes in the arrangements for regulating veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Last year, however, the Government made clear that it had no plans to bring forward amending legislation for the time being.
Council has now considered recommendations for more limited changes in the Act. The report of the Veterinary Legislation Group advises focusing on three priority areas: the composition of Council itself; the composition of the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees; and the jurisdiction and powers of the two committees.
Council would welcome comments on the recommendations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, interested bodies and the public.
"We now know that it will not be easy to get any changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so we need to think very carefully about the priorities and how to achieve them," says RCVS President Sandy Trees. "Before making any decisions, we want to hear views from a wide range of people who are affected by the work of the RCVS."
A consultation paper is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Hard copies are also available from Jeff Gill, Policy Officer, RCVS, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF, j.gill@rcvs.org.uk, 020 7202 0735. The deadline for responses is 21 October 2009.
The awards were:
Queen’s Medal - to Dr John (Iain) Glen MRCVS (pictured right) who, at AstraZeneca, was responsible for the discovery and development of the anaesthetic drug propofol, one of the world’s most common anaesthetics for medical and veterinary use.
Honorary Associateships - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Professor Stuart Carter, Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Liverpool’s Institution of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences. The second was awarded to Anthony Martin, a philanthropist with a particular interest in supporting national and international charities working with the veterinary profession to improve animal welfare.
Impact Award - Two were awarded this year. The first went to Alison Lambert, the founder and owner of veterinary business consultancy Onswitch which helps veterinary businesses create customer-centred practice so that pets, horses and livestock receive the best care. The second was awarded to Dr Gwenllian Rees for her involvement in the Arwain Vet Cymru (AVC) project, a collaborative national antimicrobial stewardship program for farm vets in Wales.
Inspiration Awards - Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS was nominated for her leadership role at the BVA during the early stage of the coronavirus pandemic. The second award went to Professor Mandy Peffers, a Wellcome Trust Clinical Intermediate Fellow in Musculoskeletal & Ageing Science at the Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences at the University of Liverpool.
The International Award was posthumously awarded to Emeritus Professor Michael Day, the prolific researcher and writer.
A new award this year is the Compassion Award, which was given to David Martin MRCVS for his work helping practitioners identify the signs of non-accidental injury.
Another new award this year is the Student Community Award, given to Jack Church, who - on top of his studies - has been volunteering on a covid ward, and Lavinia Economu, for her work to inspire young people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and different socio-economic backgrounds into the veterinary professions..
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS, RCVS President, said: “I am so impressed by the breadth and depth of the awards nominations that we received this year which demonstrate the very best that the veterinary professions have to offer.
“From veterinary students to veterinary surgeons and nurses who have been practising for decades, all our award winners demonstrate that veterinary professionals and veterinary science has a profound and positive impact not only on animal health and welfare but also wider society. I am immensely happy and proud for them all and look forward to formally being able to present them with their awards later this year.”
A formal awards ceremony, hosted by Mandisa, will take place on Thursday, 23 September 2021. Further details on the event and how to attend will be published later this year.
This year the College is seeking nominations for six awards:
The Queen’s Medal: the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon for a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.
The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award: this award is aimed at veterinary nurses who have had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.
RCVS International Award: this award is for vets, vet nurses or laypeople who work internationally, from either within or outside the UK, in making an outstanding contribution to, for example, raising veterinary standards, veterinary education and improving animal health and welfare.
RCVS Impact Award: this award is for vets or vet nurses who have recently, or are currently, undertaking a project, initiative or similar that has a significant impact on the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.
RCVS Inspiration Award: this award is for vets or vet nurses at any stage of their career who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout. It is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals anywhere within the profession and recognises those who have gone ‘above and beyond’ what may normally be expected from a professional colleague.
Honorary Associateship: this honour is conferred to a small number of laypeople each year, in recognition of their special contribution to the veterinary sphere. It recognises the full range of individuals who contribute to the veterinary sphere including scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.
For this year’s honours and awards nomination period, the College has produced a video using footage from Royal College Day 2018, featuring interviews with those who were recognised with RCVS honours and awards on the day.
The video is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours where you can also download further information and guidance about the criteria for nominators and nominees for the awards, as well as how to make nomination.
Dr Niall Connell, RCVS Junior Vice-President, is taking the lead in promoting the awards this year. He said: "Throughout my time in the veterinary profession, and particularly since joining RCVS Council, I have met so many veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons who are truly inspiring individuals.
"The RCVS honours and awards scheme is a perfect opportunity to celebrate some of the individuals that have done or are doing something really special – whether that’s by inspiring their colleagues and peers or doing things that benefit animal health and welfare or society at large.
"Across all six awards there really is something for everyone – vets and veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers as well as laypeople are all up for recognition and so I’d strongly encourage everyone to think about someone they know who deserves recognition and get in touch.”
The deadline for nominations is Friday 18 January 2019.
For an informal talk about the awards and how to make a nomination you can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761.
The Legislation Working Party was set up on the recommendation of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, which considered that in light of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and the deficiencies in the existing legislation, now would be a good time to review the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The Working Party, which is expected to have its first meeting in May, will be chaired by RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May and will include the British Veterinary Association’s President, Gudrun Ravetz, RCVS CEO Nick Stace, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, Chair of VN Council Liz Cox, RCVS Treasurer and Junior Vice-President elect Amanda Boag, and RCVS Council members Kate Richards and lay member Richard Davis.
The Working Party’s remit will be to ensure that the College’s vision for the future of veterinary legislation is given proper consideration so that it can respond to future opportunities to support a new Act; to propose a list of principles on which new legislation should be based; and to make recommendations as to whether the new legislation should be a ‘Veterinary Services Act’ providing an umbrella for allied professionals and exploring compulsory practice inspection.
Professor Stephen May said: "The UK leaving the EU will necessitate some changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act as it currently exists so this feels like an opportune moment to carry out a wholesale review of the legislative basis for regulation of the veterinary profession in the UK.
"Clearly using 50-year-old legislation has its limitations, and while we have been able to make use of legislative reform orders and changes to the Royal Charter to make significant changes to the College – for example, in terms of our disciplinary and governance arrangements – the fact is that this somewhat antiquated legislation is the basis for all we do.
"For example under the current Act veterinary nurses still lack statutory regulation and protection of title, there is no underpinning for our continuing professional development (CPD) requirements and specialist/ advanced practitioner status and the College lacks the power of entry or similar power needed for compulsory practice inspection.
"We hope that, by giving the legislation a fresh look, we can consider how it could better cover the veterinary industry as a whole and not just the rather narrow definition given in the original Act."
The Legislation Working Party is to meet at least four times and will report to RCVS Council in due course.
The results, in order of number of votes, are:
Elected: Susan Paterson – 3,976 votes
Elected: Mandisa Greene – 3,819 votes
Elected: Neil Smith – 3,544 votes
John Innes – 3,502 votes
David Catlow – 3,310 votes
Matthew Plumtree – 2,677 votes
Iain Richards – 2,635 votes
Karlien Heyrman – 2,487 votes
John Davies – 580 votes
Thomas Lonsdale – 542 votes
Due to the fact that a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that amends the College’s governance has completed its passage through the House of Commons and House of Lords and is expected to be signed off by the relevant Minister to bring it into law, only the first three candidates are expected to take up their posts on Council at RCVS Day on 13 July 2018.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "I would like to thank all the candidates who stood for Council this year and would like to, in particular, congratulate Susan, Mandisa and Neil for being re-elected to RCVS Council.
"The LRO that is likely to be signed off in due course will reconstitute the makeup of Council – with greater lay and veterinary nursing input – and will also reduce the overall size of Council, including the number of elected members. Because of this only the first three – as opposed to the first six under previous rules – candidates are likely to be taking up a four-year term at RCVS Day 2018. Our commiserations go out to all the unsuccessful candidates, especially in this unusual transitional year, and we thank them for their participation in this year’s election."
The results of the election will be formally declared at this year’s RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and awards ceremony – which takes place at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Friday 13 July 2018.
Tramadol has become a controlled drug and has been added to Schedule 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001
The change to the regulations, which was made by the Home Office means that the drug is now subject to special requirements when writing prescriptions.
The RCVS says practitioners should also note that:
Although tramadol is exempt from Safe Custody Regulations, the RCVS advises that all Schedule 3 controlled drugs are locked away.
The Home Office has also reclassified ketamine as a Class B controlled drug. However, it remains under Schedule 4 (Part 1) of the 2001 Regulations meaning that the legal requirements for supply, storage and record keeping remain the same.
The RCVS therefore continues to advise that practice premises should:
Further details about the specific requirements for controlled drugs can be found in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s Guidance Note No 20 – Controlled Drugs.
Practice premises can also contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department for further guidance on 020 7202 0789 or profcon@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Cardigan veterinary surgeon from the RCVS Register for five months, for failure to perform accurate bovine tuberculin testing and for falsely certifying the test results.
During the two-day hearing, Dewi Wyn Lewis, of Priory Veterinary Ltd, Cardigan, answered charges about inaccurate skin fold measurements and false certification relating to two visits he made as an Official Veterinarian to a farm in April 2009 to undertake tuberculin testing.
Mr Lewis accepted that he had not carried out the tuberculin tests in the way required by Animal Health (AH) - an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - and had taken short cuts to save time. However, he denied the charges, arguing that, although instructions to Official Veterinarians clearly required the use of callipers to measure the skin folds of cattle necks on Day One of testing, not using callipers and using his finger and thumb did not amount to failing to measure.
He also argued (and it was accepted by the Committee) that, regarding Day Two of testing, there was inconsistency in AH's instructions on calliper use, which in written form required using callipers for measuring every animal but in practice accepted use of callipers when a reaction could be detected by manually palpating the skin. On Day Two, Mr Lewis said, he had done what AH required: he had used callipers on the cattle he identified for closer examination.
The Committee, however, found that by failing to use callipers on the first day, as required by AH, Mr Lewis had failed to measure the skin folds of almost all of the 104 cattle. The Committee was also satisfied that, on the second day, 10-20% of the herd were not even touched by Mr Lewis and the Committee accepted the evidence of the three other witnesses present during the testing, which indicated that Mr Lewis had failed to carry out careful assessment and manual palpation of every animal.
The Committee then considered whether Mr Lewis had dishonestly signed the certificate, or had signed a false certificate which he ought to have known was inaccurate. The Committee noted that there were no previous Disciplinary findings against Mr Lewis, and was prepared to believe his assertion that, although he knew he had not carried out the tests in strict compliance with AH's instructions, he genuinely believed his methods to be at least as accurate as measuring with callipers and did not think he was doing anything wrong or dishonest. The Committee could not then be sure that Mr Lewis had realised what he was doing was dishonest. However, the Committee noted that 'false' also means 'inaccurate' and, as Mr Lewis ought to have known that as his testing methods were not adequate, he also should have known that a considerable number of measurements on the certificate were inaccurate and that the certificate itself was inaccurate.
After considering the facts of the case, the Committee concluded that Mr Lewis's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and directed that he should be suspended from the Register for five months, after which he may return to practice. In relation to the sanction, the Committee said: "In reaching this decision it is relevant that the false certification was not dishonest and that there was professional and personal mitigation put forward on behalf of Mr Lewis. The Committee has paid regard to the fact that Mr Lewis is an experienced veterinary surgeon who is highly thought of in his local area. It does not believe that there is any likelihood that he will repeat his previous conduct."
The Committee also said it gave considerable weight to the fact that Mr Lewis had had to wait an additional three-month period for the hearing because of an earlier adjournment.
The petition follows the news that IVC is to launch its own telemedicine service, joining three others already in the game, at least one of which is pushing for a relaxation of the rules surrounding the prescription of POM-V medicines.
For clarity, veterinary surgeons are currently allowed to remote prescribe medicines for animals that meet the definition of 'under his care' (i.e. seen immediately before, or "recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe").
In other words, there is nothing to stop bricks and mortar practices offering video consultations and prescribing medicines to those of their existing clients that they have seen recently enough.
What Shams and the BVU are petitioning against is the idea of allowing companies staffed by veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines for animals that they have never seen in the flesh.
They argue that remote prescribing will:
First and foremost risk animal patient welfare and herd health
Create a two-tier system of care within the profession
Break down the practice-based vet-client relationship
Disrupt veterinary services due to complications related to out-of-hours emergency cover, transfer of patient and patient histories etc. of remotely treated patients
Cause clients to face increased costs by paying for telemedicine consultations and then requiring examination and treatment in practice
Negatively impact the financial condition of veterinary practices and professionals.
These all seem very possible consequences of allowing remote prescribing, indeed some have already come to pass in the world of human medicine following the launch of Babylon.
The counter argument is that remote prescription will improve access to veterinary care as people don’t have to flog down to the practice for a flea treatment and the cost of a consultation is reduced. There is surely truth in that.
The other point that is fundamental to this debate is the type of drug being prescribed remotely. With so many small animal parasiticides having already gone OTC, is it really necessary to talk to a veterinary surgeon before buying a POM-V flea treatment? Perhaps not.
However, that doesn’t necessarily present a case for remote prescribing such drugs; if they don’t need veterinary input, then you could equally argue they just need reclassifying.
So, should you sign this petition? Well, I think so, yes. Remote prescribing will come. It’s inevitable. But given the risks, surely the pragmatic starting point is to trial remote prescribing amongst existing clients of bricks and mortar practices, and only if that is successful to broaden it to non-clients of bricks and mortar practices.
If both those proved successful, and with technology advancing in the background, it might then be sensible to look at whether non bricks and mortar practices could remote prescribe. But that’s quite a big ‘might’.
Meantime, you can sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-stop-authorising-prescription-of-pom-v-without-physical-examination-of-the-patient
You can discuss the petition with Shams here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/nonclinical/f/6/t/28273.aspx
Mr Wilson faced two charges. The first was that in October 2017, he provided inaccurate information to an insurer in respect of a Labrador he treated by saying that the dog was presented to him with a lame left foreleg on 13 June 2017, when in fact the dog was presented for treatment on 7 June 2017 and that his conduct was therefore dishonest and misleading.
The second charge was that between 17 January 2017 and 17 January 2018 he failed to have any arrangements in place for Professional Indemnity Insurance (a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct) and then, that between 8 January and 5 December 2019, he failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS regarding his Professional Indemnity Insurance.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee to adjourn the hearing subject to the Committee accepting his undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.
Mr Wilson’s legal representative at the hearing submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that granting the application would be in the public interest on the basis that Mr Wilson was 68 years of age and had now retired from the profession and closed his practice, that he had dedicated his entire working life to veterinary practice, had a previously long and unblemished career with no other complaints, and that he was well-regarded by clients and professional colleagues.
The application was not opposed by the RCVS whose representative informed the Committee that, relating to the charge of dishonesty, the College had taken into account that the insurance claim form was not submitted by Mr Wilson himself, and that there is no evidence of any financial motivation behind the charge nor any allegation of harm to an animal.
Taking into account the submissions from Mr Wilson’s representatives and from the RCVS, as well as precedent cases for such applications, the Committee decided that Mr Wilson’s voluntary undertakings went well beyond any sanction that could be imposed by the Committee and considered that the application would protect the public interest, confidence in the profession, and the welfare of animals.
Professor Alistair Barr FRCVS, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee. Taking into account proportionality, and weighing in the balance the public interest, the interests of justice, the need to protect the welfare of animals, as well as the interests of both parties, the Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The guide explains:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/standards-and-advice-update-advice-published-on-amended
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/veterinary-medicines-guidance-notes-vmgns
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."
This year, 13 veterinary surgeons stood for three available places on Council.
6,583 veterinary surgeons voted, a turnout of 18.6% which was significantly down on previous years (24.5% in 2021, 26.2% in 2020 and 25.5% in 2019).
Sue Paterson led the field with 2,358 votes, Olivia Cook came in second with 1,994 votes and Abbie Calow was close behind with 1,820 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Many congratulations to all successful candidates, who we look forward to welcoming on to RCVS and VN Councils in July.
"Thank you once again this year to everyone who made the decision to stand in this year’s elections and to those who took the time to vote for their preferred candidates.
"We’re not exactly sure why both elections saw falling turnouts this year, but we do appreciate how extremely busy the professions are at the moment, and that everyone’s time is at a premium.
"As part of our ‘Council culture’ project we are looking at ways of improving all aspects of communicating the work around RCVS Council, VN Council and their committees, including around standing for and voting in elections.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found on the 2022 election page.
The Horse Trust provides a range of services to support working horses, while Medical Detection Dogs trains dogs to alert their owners to cancers and other medical conditions, providing pre-emptive non-invasive warning.
Stephen said: "These two charities' work in strengthening and supporting the human-animal bond is truly remarkable. Though The Horse Trust was originally founded in 1886 as a retirement home for working horses, and this remains a core focus of theirs to this day, it has now evolved to provide a whole range of services, from education to research to rescuing neglected equids.
"Medical Detection Dogs, though founded much more recently in 2008, has already done an incredible amount in its short history - 76 of its dogs are now partnered with people with critical medical conditions, ensuring essential emotional as well as medical support."
Jeanette Allen, CEO of The Horse Trust, said: "The Horse Trust is extremely grateful to the RCVS for this enormously generous donation. We care for 130 horses, ponies and donkeys that have either retired from public service or been rescued from appalling conditions. We also provide dedicated training programmes for first responders who have to deal with horses in crisis situations, as well as being the second largest funder of equine specific veterinary research in the UK. We survive as a charity on donations, and this one is most welcome and greatly appreciated."
Claire Guest, co-founder and chief executive of Medical Detection Dogs, said: "We are so grateful to the RCVS for their very generous donation. We receive no government funding for our work, so we rely entirely on the generosity of organisations like the RCVS. Thanks to this donation, we can continue our pioneering research into the detection of human disease using the extraordinary smelling power of dogs."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Riding for the Disabled Association, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and Vetlife.
The WikiQuiz project - a free online question and answer tool which enables vets, vet students and vet nurses to test their knowledge - is now online thanks to £4,770 of funding from the RCVS Trust.
WikiQuiz is a new resource to enable vets and students to structure and direct their learning, and links directly to information on WikiVet, the free research and academic collaboration resource put together by over 40 academics, veterinary surgeons and students from the Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh and Nottingham, and the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). However, unlike its namesake Wikipedia, WikiVet is designed to be an accurate, peer-reviewed source of information for the veterinary profession and tailored to the undergraduate veterinary curriculum. Some of the material is also of interest to veterinary nurses, in particular those pursuing advanced professional qualifications.
Nick Short, Head of E-Media at the RVC said: "WikiQuiz is purpose-built for vets and students to structure and direct their learning. The questions and answers in WikiQuiz will help vets and veterinary students and work out what topics they might need to study, and link them directly to relevant information published on WikiVet.
"The Wikipedia concept is familiar and popular with students and vets; however, the information on the site can lack quality and relevance", he continued. "In creating WikiVet, we've used the look and feel of Wikipedia - but by making WikiVet available only to veterinary students, surgeons and nurses, introducing a peer-review system and appointing an editorial board to oversee the site, we can ensure the information published is relevant and accurate.
"We are hugely grateful to the RCVS Trust for supporting this project."
Cherry Bushell, RCVS Trust Director said: "Veterinary undergraduates and veterinary surgeons alike need to be able to assess where there are any gaps in their knowledge as part of planning their learning and development. The WikiQuiz resource helps them to do this.
"Using good quality online tools and information can save vets and students valuable time - which is one reason why we chose to support WikiQuiz. The WikiVet project also fits very well with the online Library services provided to vets, veterinary nurses and students by the Trust."
Veterinary surgeons, students and nurses can apply for a free log-in to WikiVet at http://www.wikivet.net/.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received the funds from the EU (which amounted to a few thousand euros), and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At first glance, one might ask why? After all, who - other than the pilot - would fly with Thomas Cook sober?
However, there's a world of difference between being not entirely sober and Ms Heyes's level of intoxication, which according to the judge at Greater Manchester Magistrates Court, made her 'every passenger's worst nightmare', and earned her a sentence of 80 hours community service, a victim surcharge of £80 and £250 in costs.
At the start of her disciplinary hearing, Ms Heyes admitted the facts of her 2020 conviction, but denied that the conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Heyes's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Disciplinary Guidance states: “A conviction may be related to professional or personal behaviour and whether it renders a respondent unfit to practise is a matter of judgment for the Disciplinary Committee.
"Behaviour unconnected with the practice of veterinary surgery can cause concerns about the protection of animals or the wider public interest.”
The Committee concluded that the conviction and underlying behaviour was sufficiently serious that it required a finding that Ms Heyes was unfit to practise veterinary nursing on public interest grounds and that it also breached Code 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses which states: ‘Veterinary nurses must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession’.
The Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Ms Heyes, taking into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the risk Ms Heyes caused to passengers, including children and that she had behaved recklessly, falling far below the standard to be expected of a member of the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered this was a single and isolated incident, Ms Heyes had no previous disciplinary findings against her and following her conviction she had shown developing insight.
It also noted that she had continued to practise as a competent and dedicated veterinary nurse.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided to reprimand Ms Heyes because of its finding that the charge amounted to disgraceful conduct and rendered Ms Heyes unfit to practise.
"Such a sanction was necessary in the Committee’s view because the conviction brought the profession into disrepute.
"Whilst the charge was not so serious as to require suspension or removal from the register, the Committee decided it is necessary to issue a formal warning to Ms Heyes as to her future conduct.
“Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case including the positive references and the fact that a number of mitigating factors set out in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance were present in this case, the Committee was satisfied that this sanction would meet the public interest and protect the reputation of the profession and uphold standards within the profession; thereby maintaining public confidence in the College as the regulator for veterinary nurses.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The new changes are being introduced in the following phases:
The new Environmental Sustainability Award allows practices to demonstrate that they have embedded environmentally sustainable behaviours and are excelling with their sustainability goals.
The Award includes points for reducing waste, consolidating medicines orders and minimising drug wastage, and calculating the practice’s carbon footprint and setting reduction targets.
The changes and additions to the standards at Core Standards and General Practice level cover the sustainability of a wide range of practice areas, including requiring a sustainability policy, communicating sustainability achievements, and minimising anaesthetic gas usage.
As well as improving environmental sustainability, the new and amended standards also include requirements to help make practices more socially sustainable, through measures including increasing diversity and inclusion.
The PSS has produced a list of resources to support veterinary practices with meeting the new environmental sustainability standards and implementing sustainable practices in general.
Mandisa Greene, Chair of the Practice Standards Group, said: “We want to assure PSS-accredited practices that the new standards won’t mean an overhaul of ways of working or result in expensive investment in resources.
"Instead, the standards explain ways that practices can increase their sustainability by putting in place new measures gradually over the next 12 months, in time for them becoming mandatory.
"As with all standards updates, the PSS team are always available to answer any questions that practices have and anyone who is unsure about how to apply them is encouraged to get in touch with the PSS team.”
During the last Standards Committee meeting, there were also several approved clarifications to the standards in the form of guidance notes and minor changes across a range of accreditation levels.
These include updates to the guidance notes for requirements on sterilisation of dental instruments, environmental swabbing of clinical areas, and anaesthetic monitoring.
The new version of the standards that includes all the latest changes, and a separate document listing all the updates, are available to download here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/practice-standards-scheme/additional-resources
Any questions from practices about the updates can be sent to the PSS team at pss@rcvs.org.uk
RCVS Council had introduced temporary guidance allowing the remote prescription of drugs for animals not under care back in March, to ensure that animal health and welfare could be maintained during lockdown without risking the health of veterinary teams or their clients.
Since then, the College has twice extended this guidance, because of the ongoing situation.
However the College says it now recognises that many practices are returning more to 'business as usual' and that the guidance and associated flowchart should be updated according.
Consequently, before deciding to prescribe POM-Vs remotely, the updated guidance now requires veterinary surgeons to first consider whether the animal is already under their care; or, if not, whether it is possible to physically examine the animal in order to bring the animal under their care. If the answer to both questions is ‘no’, POM-Vs may still be prescribed remotely providing the guidelines set out in the College’s coronavirus advice hub are adhered to.
Surprisingly, the College says that its surveys of the profession have thus far identified no immediate safety concerns around remote prescribing.
RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “The reason for maintaining the possibility of remote prescribing without a physical examination was that we recognised that the current situation is unpredictable, and while the ability for the public to visit practices in person has improved over the last few months, we felt that situations might still arise where that would not be possible, and where access to remote prescribing would be necessary. These could include further local lockdowns, ongoing quarantine arrangements, and the remaining fact that some members of both the veterinary team and the public continue to shield.
“It remains our intention that this guidance will continue to be a temporary measure and may be subject to further extensions or updates given the uncertain nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
RCVS Council will review the position on 8 October, with any changes being effective by 1 November at the earliest.
Meanwhile, the RCVS review of ‘under care’ and out-of-hours emergency cover has now resumed, starting with a number of virtual focus groups and consultation with stakeholders within the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions.
The findings from these focus group discussions will then inform a wider survey to be sent to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in early 2021, along with stakeholder organisations and the animal-owning public. Remote prescribing will continue to form a part of this review.