The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
Under the protocol trial, the RCVS can launch private prosecutions against unqualified people practising veterinary surgery or using the title 'veterinary surgeon'.
The College says that where breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act cross over to other criminal offences, for example, fraud by false representation, they will be more properly dealt with by the relevant police force.
Local authority trading standards agencies will also deal with issues around, for example, misleading courses that purport to lead to registration with the RCVS but do not; concerns about dog grooming businesses and concerns about dog breeding establishments (other than where there is illegal practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons).
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “This protocol recognises that there are constraints on the time, resourcing, and budgets of both the police and public prosecutors which means that the pursuit of these breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, both of which carry minor criminal penalties, is not necessarily a priority.
“While we are always willing to work with the police and other agencies to pursue such breaches, the protocol details how we can act independently where appropriate and ensure we are fulfilling our stated ambition to safeguard the interests of the public and animals, as well as the reputation of the professions, by ensuring that only those registered with us can carry out acts of veterinary surgery.
“We would like to manage expectations around this trial period as we will only be launching private prosecutions where they meet the criminal evidential standards of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it is judged to be in the public interest to do so.
"We will also be relying on members of the professions and the public to report breaches and provide sufficient evidence to us, as we have no statutory investigatory powers.”
The trial period will last for one year and the College has set aside £50,000 to pursue private prosecutions.
The trial will be overseen by the Disciplinary Committee/ Preliminary Investigation Committee Liaison Committee while decisions on whether to pursue private prosecutions will lie with the Registrar/ Director of Legal Services.
Suspected breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act can be reported to the RCVS Professional Conduct Department on breachvsa@rcvs.org.uk.
Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:
Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.
Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;
Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;
Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;
Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;
Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and
Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).
Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.
He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.
The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.
It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.
The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.
The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.
"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.
In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.
In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.
"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.
“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.
"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.
"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”
The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Warwick Seymour-Hamilton, a former veterinary surgeon who practised in Kent, has had his third application for restoration to the Register refused by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee this week.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was struck off in 1994 following an inspection of his premises, equipment and facilities in Orpington, which were found to be in such poor condition that it constituted a risk to the health and welfare of animals brought to the practice and brought the profession into disrepute.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton had made two previous restoration applications in July 1995 and June 2010. Both of these were refused on the grounds of poor preparation for re-entering practice life as, in both cases, he had made no attempt to engage in continuing professional development or visit and observe other veterinary practices.
Representing himself at this week's hearing, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that, since the 2010 hearing, he had further developed an interest in herbal medicine and, after visiting a number of veterinary practices in continental Europe, had attended the College of Naturopathic Medicine in Dublin, gaining a qualification in herbal and naturopathic medicine. He told the Committee that he currently worked as a herbalist and naturopath with human patients but wanted to widen his work and research to include animal patients.
The Committee was concerned by his answers to a number of questions, Mr Seymour-Hamilton having described the hearing as an 'exploratory meeting' and indicating a lack of knowledge in a number of areas to do with veterinary practice and its regulation. The Committee felt that this demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding as to its function and terms of reference.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee expresses its surprise and concern at the lack of preparation for this hearing by the applicant, given that these issues have arisen at his previous restoration hearings, and that the result of a positive finding in favour of him would be his ability to practise unfettered as a veterinary surgeon forthwith."
In particular the Committee highlighted Mr Seymour-Hamilton's lack of understanding of the regulatory framework for veterinary practice as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, the requirements of continuing professional development and what 'fitness to practise' meant, beyond the practical issues of his physical and mental capacity.
Professor Burrows added: "Based on all of the evidence available to the Committee it is very clear that he has failed to satisfy... that he is fit to be restored to the Register and this application is therefore dismissed."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Mr Antonovs faced three charges.
The first was that in September 2020 whilst in practice at Beverley Vets4Pets, he attended work when under the influence of alcohol.
The second was that between September and December 2020, whilst at Peel Veterinary Clinic, he attended work on two occasions when under the influence of alcohol.
The final charge was that between February 2021 and February 2023, Mr Antonovs failed to respond adequately to requests from the RCVS regarding concerns raised about his conduct and/or health.
Mr Antonovs admitted the facts of the charges and the Committee decided that the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstances of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning as to his future conduct on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: "I am so proud of our performance in the Great Place to Work Awards and the efforts of everyone at the College, and especially our HR team, who have been tirelessly and creatively striving to make the College a wonderful place to work.
"Consistently being placed in the top 50 Great Places to Work is also a testament to the sustained hard work all of our employees and the important part they play in creating a supportive, interesting and good-humoured workplace.
"We are a service-led organisation and we want to make sure that we give our best to the veterinary professions and the general public. If our team enjoys the work, and the workplace, that will improve the service we are able to offer and, ultimately, benefit animal health and welfare."
A petition to protect the title Veterinary Nurse has received an impressive 1,285 signatures, including many from veterinary surgeons, and an official response from HM Government.
The petition, which was started by VetNurse.co.uk member Nick Shackleton Dip AVN (Surgical) VN on 6th June last year, explained: "The title veterinary nurse at present is not a protected title. A lot of people who work in practice call them selves veterinary nurses, when they have no theoretical training in such a position. As qualified nurses we feel that this issue should be addressed so that the general public are no longer confused as to the qualification and hopefully make them more aware of the hard work it is to gain the qualification. As we are heading for autonomy within the profession I think it is right and fitting that the title should be protected."
The Government response, whilst predictably noncommittal, did at least seem to recognise the issue: "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) maintains the Statutory List of veterinary nurses. In order to qualify, nurses must undergo a two-year period of vocational training which is assessed at work and through examination by the RCVS Awarding Body.
On being added to the Statutory List they are entitled to undertake a range of veterinary treatments and procedures on animals under veterinary direction. Only listed nurses are entitled to use the post-nominal letters 'VN'. The RCVS are introducing new arrangements for 'registered' veterinary nurses which provides greater accountability and transparency for those nurses whose names are entered on the register. These arrangements run in parallel with the Statutory List.
Some veterinary practices may employ staff who do not carry out the duties of a veterinary nurse but possibly use that title or wear a uniform which might imply that they are a trained veterinary nurse. We appreciate that there are issues surrounding best practice that the RCVS and the Veterinary Nursing Council to address.
It is generally accepted that the arrangements for regulating veterinary nursing could be modernised. This would, in due course, help provide greater protection for the title of veterinary nurses. Although Defra currently has no plans to undertake a fundamental review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, we are regularly in touch with the RCVS to better understand its priorities for regulatory reform.
The programme, which will look at the achievements and contributions of people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent, will see Dr Greene being interviewed by presenter Alex Beresford alongside a number of other prominent black Britons including athlete and broadcaster Colin Jackson, publisher and author Margaret Busby, Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees, and nurse and academic Dame Elizabeth Anionwu.
Mandisa said: “I am immensely honoured to be the first Black President of the RCVS and to use this opportunity to speak to the black community, and indeed all communities, about my love of veterinary science and the importance of the work we do in safeguarding animal health and welfare and wider public health.
"I am a great believer in the phrase ‘if you see it, you can be it’ and I hope that my various talks this month and, particularly the upcoming ITV documentary, will help people recognise that veterinary professionals can come from a diverse range of backgrounds and that, provided they have the drive and the ambition, there should be no barriers to them meeting their dreams."
Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.
At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.
Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.
Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.
Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.
The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.
The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.
The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College.
The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession.
In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.
The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:
To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month
Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.
To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.
To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).
To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.
To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.
To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor.
Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.
"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."
To carry out the practice of veterinary medicine, a veterinary practitioner must be registered in the jurisdiction in which they are practising ie a veterinary practitioner who practises veterinary medicine in the Republic of Ireland must be registered with the VCI; likewise, a veterinary surgeon who practises in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales, must be registered with the RCVS.
EU Directive 2005/36EC enables a veterinary surgeon who is lawfully established and registered in an EU member state to provide services on a temporary and occasional basis in another member state. This service allows registered veterinary surgeons to occasionally practise in other countries in the European Union for short periods, up to a maximum of 30 days per year.
From 1st January 2021, the Directive will no longer apply to veterinary practitioners from the Republic of Ireland who may want to provide veterinary services in the UK and that they would therefore need to be registered with the RCVS even if provision of these services is temporary and occasional.
However, in October 2019 the Presidents of the RCVS and the VCI signed a Mutual Qualification Recognition Agreement. The agreement means that the degree in veterinary medicine from University College Dublin can be recognised by the RCVS, and the current eight RCVS-recognised UK veterinary medicine degrees can be recognised by the VCI. The recognised qualifications are accepted as the basis for registration to practise veterinary surgery by the RCVS in the United Kingdom and veterinary medicine by the VCI in the Republic of Ireland.
The VCI and the RCVS emphasised that regardless of whether a trade agreement has been signed between the EU and the UK by 1 January 2021, this will have no bearing on the Mutual Qualification Recognition Agreement currently in place.
Niamh Muldoon, CEO and Registrar of the Veterinary Council of Ireland, said: “This historic agreement will enable graduates of Irish and UK veterinary schools to continue to seek to practise in the other country when they wish. We look forward to continuing to collaborate with our colleagues in the RCVS in the future for the benefit of the profession in both countries.”
Mandisa Greene, President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said: “I am very glad to be able to affirm our continuing working partnership with our friends and colleagues in the Republic of Ireland. We know that veterinary surgeons based both in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have clients and undertake work on both sides of the border, and this Mutual Recognition Agreement will help to ensure that UK and Ireland-qualified veterinary surgeons are able to register in each other’s jurisdictions where required. I too look forward to continuing to work closely with the VCI both on a bilateral basis, and via pan-European institutions such as the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe.”
During the webinar, which took place earlier this month, senior officers and staff from the College explained the new guidance, what it will mean for the profession, and answered questions submitted by delegates.
The webinar was chaired by RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS with a panel comprising Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and RCVS Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The webinar included an overview of the main changes, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “We have also now published a range of practice-based scenarios to help explain how the new guidance should be followed in various circumstances, and in relation to different species.
"These scenarios cover a variety of different situations, including how the guidance applies to two or more practices with mutual clients, consultancy services and the prescription of long-term controlled drugs.”
A second webinar will be held on Monday 17th July, with priority for those who wanted to attend the June webinar but were not able to do because it was over-subscribed.
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
The consultation, which was held by the College early in 2017, asked for the views of veterinary surgeons and nurses, animal owners, and stakeholders on the use of telemedicine in veterinary clinical practice.
The consultation was designed to help identify potential risks associated with telemedicine, identify areas where it may help address the needs of both clinicians and the public, and support the potential development of new professional standards and guidance.
The online survey of veterinary professionals received 1,230 responses, while the public consultation received 229 responses and the survey of organisations/stakeholders received eight responses.
The headline question asked of veterinary professionals was whether RCVS 'supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct' should be amended to allow remote examination to take the place of physical examination in certain circumstances. 41% said 'Yes', 40% said 'No' and 18% were unsure.
Veterinary professionals and organisations were then asked a series of questions in order to establish how they rated the risk associated with telemedicine according to activity type, practice type, clinical sign or syndrome, mode of technology, and familiarity with client, animal or environment.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority felt that providing just general advice presented a low risk. At the other end of the scale, most felt that the use of telemedicine to diagnose disease or injury would be either 'high risk', or 'not appropriate at all'.
Likewise, the majority said the risks would be low or medium where the client and environment were known and the animal seen before, for the same problem. By contrast, the majority said telemedicine would be either 'high risk' or 'not appropriate at all' when the client, animal and environment were all unknown.
When asked whether the current definition of 'under care' should be extended to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines where there has been no physical examination of the animal, 69% said 'No', 16% said 'Yes' and 15% were unsure.
However, when asked whether certain types of veterinary medicines should be able to be prescribed without a physical examination of the animal, the majority of respondents to the professional survey (52%) were in favour.
The results of the consultation were first considered at a special meeting of the Standards Committee in August 2017, where it was noted how the consultation had revealed significant confusion around current supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and that, at a minimum, clarification as to what was currently permissible was needed.
The Committee determined a key issue going forward was whether to change the Supporting Guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct regarding 'under care' to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V medicines based on telemedicine alone.
Given the complex nature of the issues and the wide-ranging implications, the Standards Committee presented a range of options for amending RCVS Guidance to RCVS Council at its meeting in November 2017. After discussion, Council asked the Standards Committee to continue their review and to present more detailed proposals to Council regarding the future of telemedicine in clinical veterinary practice.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership and Innovation, said: "We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation – although Council has not yet made any firm decisions, we felt it would be useful to share our research so far.
"The use of telemedicine is growing rapidly in human healthcare and it is only right the RCVS assesses the opportunities it could bring to improve access to veterinary services. It is critical, however, that we understand the issues it presents 'at the coal face' and consider all the available evidence before making any changes to our Guidance. The RCVS should ensure its regulatory framework fosters innovation and maximises the opportunities to improve the quality, efficacy and accessibility of veterinary services, whilst at the same time protecting animal health and welfare."
The Standards Committee will meet again in April 2018 to take further evidence and develop proposals to take the issue forward.
Meanwhile, the full summary is available on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/telemeds-summary/.
Fourteen veterinary surgeons stood for election this year and 8,542 voted, a turnout of 24.5% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 26.2% in 2020, 25.5% in 2019 and 22.7% in 2018.
Danny scored a total of 4,759 votes, leaving the other successful candidates Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum nevertheless trailing in his wake, with 3,228 votes, 2,957 votes and 2,368 votes respectively.
The VN Council election also had fourteen candidates standing for one elected place, the other having been taken by Susan Howarth RVN who was automatically re-elected as the only candidate standing at the time of the original deadline in January.
Donna Lewis was elected with 404 votes from those cast by 2,341 veterinary nurses, which amounted to a turnout of 12.4% of eligible voters. That compares with a turnout of 17.1% in 2020, 14.5% in 2017 and 10.9% in 2016.
All of those elected to either RCVS or VN Councils will formally take up their seats at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 9 July 2021.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Thank you to all those who stood as candidates and all those who voted in this year’s elections, especially in view of all the extra demands on everyone’s time at the moment. Many congratulations to our five successful candidates with whom we look forward to working over the coming months and years.
“Even though the elections were held during the ongoing pandemic, the RCVS Council election still produced the third highest turnout on record, and turnout in both elections was above the average for those held over the last ten years.
“As always, we made concerted efforts to let people know about this year’s election, which included additional reminder emails sent on behalf of the RCVS by our election provider Civica Election Services, as well as regular email reminders and social media posts from the RCVS. We do, of course, always endeavour to improve turnout, and will continue to review this going forward.”
Photo: Left to right, Danny Chambers, Tshidi Gardiner, Colin Whiting and Louise Allum.
The RCVS has launched a new College honour, the RCVS Queen's Medal.
RCVS President Col Neil Smith said: "The Queen's Medal will be the most prestigious honour that the RCVS can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon and will be reserved for those whose distinguished careers and outstanding lifetime achievements deserve wider recognition."
The honour was created following a review of the RCVS honours system, which demonstrated the need for a new aspirational award.
The RCVS wrote to the Cabinet Office last year, together with letters of support from Peers and MPs, many of whom attended the reception, to request permission to name this new honour after Her Majesty the Queen.
Col Smith said: "We are honoured that Her Majesty has supported the proposal and allowed the College to name the award after her, and express our sincere thanks to those Parliamentarians who supported our endeavour."
The first RCVS Queen's Medal will be presented at RCVS Day in July 2014. The nomination form for the Queen's Medal can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/Queensmedal.
Unite and the British Veterinary Union (BVU) have written to the government asking for the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), which regulates such governing bodies as the General Medical Council, General Dental Council, and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), to have 'scrutiny' of the RCVS.
In a letter to junior minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, the BVU chair Dr Shams Mir cited the case of Munhuwepasi Chikosi struck off the register of veterinary surgeons by the RCVS in June 2013.
Dr Mir said that this case was "widely seen by the veterinary profession as blatant miscarriage of justice and many expressions of 'outrage' were published in the veterinary press and online.
"One popular online veterinary forum recorded over a thousand posts criticising and challenging various aspects of the decision."
The current statutory duties of the RCVS, established by Royal Charter in 1844, are determined by the Veterinary Surgeons Act (VSA) of 1966, which Unite says is now 'outdated.
Dr Mir said: "BVU petitions the government to extend the remit of the PSA to incorporate the RCVS to ensure appropriate overview and scrutiny.
"The RCVS proposed new Royal Charter could be exploited by the RCVS to give itself proxy powers to introduce incontestable new regulatory measures."
Unite has asked for an urgent meeting with Mr. Eustice.
Unite professional officer Jane Beach said: "Our initiative is designed to safeguard the interests of both the public, and practicing vets and veterinary nurses in the UK.
"Basically, the way that the RCVS is presently constituted means that it is both judge and jury in disciplinary matters. It sets the rules and hands down the judgements - and we believe that an extra layer of scrutiny needs to be introduced which we would like to be the PSA."
The programme, which was developed in collaboration with the NHS Leadership Academy, is designed to teach a number of skills that underpin good leadership, including decision-making, resilience, implementing an inclusive culture and encouraging reflective learning approaches. It comprises two free-to-access courses and an optional paid for assessment.
The College says that one of the programme's most popular aspects is its audio drama, which follows the lives of veterinary professionals living in the fictional county of Glenvern. The stories that depict the characters’ working lives seek to reveal the diverse leadership challenges that veterinary professionals face on a day-to-day basis. This in turn prompts the listener to reflect, consider how they would respond, and learn from their own experiences as well as those of other people.
The first course was piloted this summer, with over 550 veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, students and practice managers helping the College to develop and refine the material, whilst a group of learners are currently piloting the second course in the series.
Simon Patchett MRCVS, who works at Vets Now 24/7 Emergency and Specialty Hospital, Glasgow, said: "This course really highlighted leadership qualities that are often taken for granted. The course demonstrates that you do not need a status position in order to demonstrate effective leadership even though status positions are often where we look for leadership. I would recommend this course to both vets and nurses in clinical practice - it's a real eye opener, and as a result of doing the course perhaps we can see less age-restricted approach to leadership within the veterinary profession?"
Given the overwhelmingly positive feedback received on the first course the RCVS has now opened the programme to all veterinary professionals.
The programme is now accepting registrations for a new cohort of learners to begin the first of three courses on 26th November. A ‘sign-up’ email will be sent out to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses ahead of the course starting.
Director of Leadership and Innovation at the RCVS, Anthony Roberts, said: "I am very pleased to be able to announce the launch of this programme. I would urge anyone with an interest in developing their leadership skills, as well as those looking to refine their longstanding leadership skills, to take part. The feedback we have received on the first course in this programme [please see Notes to Editors] has shown us that this MOOC has a far-reaching application, and is both educational and enjoyable. Whether you are a vet, veterinary nurse, practice manager or student, this programme will be relevant and useful in your professional career."
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/leadershipmooc or email: leadership@rcvs.org.uk
The CMA review generated 11,000 responses from people working in the veterinary industry, including 1/5th of the country's vets and nurses. There were a further 45,000 responses from the general public.
Issues identified by the review were that:
So far, the RCVS, the BVNA and IVC have all responded to the announcement, the RCVS welcoming the call for modernising the regulatory framework and the BVNA likewise (taking the opportunity to remind everyone that this would also be the moment to protect the 'veterinary nurse' title).
Meanwhile, IVC said that for its part, it has always tried to ensure its prices are competitive and that customers are informed of costs before treatment, adding that it believes price increases in the sector have been driven predominantly by the shortage of vets, necessary improvements to pay and conditions for veterinary professionals and inflation.
The CMA has now launched a 4-week consultation to seek views from the sector on the proposal to launch a market investigation.
The consultation closes on 11 April 2023 at which point it will consider the responses received and a decision will be made on how to proceed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-proposal-to-make-a-market-investigation-reference-into-veterinary-services-for-household-pets-in-the-uk
NOAH's third Brexit Barometer found that where in the last report, 17% of its members reported feeling 'very' or 'somewhat pessimistic', that figure has now risen to 32%.
Meanwhile, the National Audit Office has revealed in its 'Progress in Implementing EU Exit' report that Defra has been prevented from consulting with the veterinary market by DExEU.
The report states that Defra is one of the government departments most affected by EU Exit and looks in detail at four of Defra’s main workstreams, including ‘import of animals and animal products’ and ‘exports of animals and animal products’.
In an accompanying press release, the National Audit Office notes that in a no-deal scenario there will be a significant increase in certificates needing to be processed by veterinary surgeons. It says: "Without enough vets, consignments of food could be delayed at the border or prevented from leaving the UK. Defra intended to start engaging with the veterinary industry in April 2018, but has not been permitted to do so and now plans to launch an emergency recruitment campaign in October to at least meet minimum levels of vets required. It plans to meet any remaining gaps through the use of non-veterinarians to check records and processes that do not require veterinary judgement."
The BVA says it has previously outlined concerns about the potential for diluting veterinary certification, and is calling on the Government to fully engage with the veterinary profession before making any changes that could impact the UK’s ability to trade animal products safely and in line with high animal welfare standards.
The RCVS has also weighed in. Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "We are glad to see the National Audit Office report recognises that a ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario would be likely to reduce the supply of EU veterinary surgeons to the UK and cause uncertainty regarding the status of those EU veterinary surgeons who are currently living and working in the UK and that this would have a particularly serious impact on necessary veterinary work in public health and certification.
"We continue to engage with Defra and, like the BVA, we want to emphasise the essential need for Government to consult with the profession to ensure their plans meet requirements, including maintenance of the high veterinary standards for which the UK is known. We also want to highlight the importance and value of the veterinary profession in other areas of society including caring for pets, horses and farm animals as well as research, education and industry, and emphasise the impact of workforce shortages on all sectors."
In his talk, 'Digital Veterinary Practice', Adam presents an exciting and compelling vision as to how technology will transform the profession and enable veterinary surgeons to offer better care to more patients.
His talk begins with an interesting look at how technological change has gathered pace in recent years, before considering some of the emerging technologies that could be applied to veterinary practice.
In particular, he talked about the so-called 'Internet of things': the way more and more 'things' other than computers are connected to the Internet.
There are now about 9bn 'things' connected to the internet, by 2020 there are expected to be 50bn. Adam predicted that more and more of them are going to be worn by animals: to measure reproductive health in farm animals; to track performance in equines; and to monitor behaviour and activity in companion animals.
Adam discussed how there is already a smart litter box which measures an animal’s habits, an oral pill camera that can take 360 degree internal photos, 3D printed drugs and digitised microscopy. By uniting these technologies with increasingly accurate virtual reality technology, he said, long-distance examinations could become a real possibility.
In relation to the role of the RCVS, Adam explored how the profession could be proactive in engaging with these technologies, such as by: using regulation as a mechanism to attract 'disruptors' to work alongside the profession; identifying areas of retraining and creating targeted learning opportunities; fostering an entrepreneurial mindset; creating an early-adopter network of practices to foster initial collaboration; and framing industry challenges as targeted problems whose solutions can be crowd-sourced.
Earlier this year, the RCVS Council approved the roll-out of a more outcomes-based model of CPD to encourage veterinary professionals to engage in greater reflection on learning and development, and the impact that it has on their professional practice.
To support this approach, Council also approved the development of a new CPD recording platform designed to be more intuitive and to make it easy to record CPD in real time.
The College says the new platform – which has the working title of 'One CPD' – will be a ‘one stop shop’ CPD management solution for veterinary surgeons and nurses at all stages of their careers, including veterinary students and student veterinary nurses.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We’re excited to open up access to this powerful, next-generation, tool we’ve been building and welcome our members into an important phase of the development process. Testing with our members will be absolutely critical in delivering the very best experience possible for all those that use 'One CPD' in the future. Ease of use and truly valuable functionality are key deliverables for us and both these need the feedback of our members to perfect."
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), added: "The first stage of the development of the CPD recording platform is due to finish in October and so we are looking for a cohort of both veterinary surgeons and nurses who can spend a few months this autumn using the new platform to record and reflect on their CPD, in order to test out some of the new features which aim to make this process so much easier to do. We will consider their feedback carefully in order to improve the recording platform ready for launch in January 2020.
"The new ‘One CPD’ platform will ultimately replace the current Professional Development Record, and its use will become mandatory for recording CPD from January 2022.
"In addition to setting up the testing group, we are also looking to meet with key CPD providers for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over the coming months to discuss our plans for outcomes-based CPD and the development of the recording platform in greater detail."
Veterinary surgeons who'd like to take part in the testing for the CPD app, as well as CPD providers who want to discuss the College’s CPD policy plans, should contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off a Wiltshire-based veterinary surgeon for charges relating to tuberculin (TB) testing on cattle that he undertook and certified at four farms during June and July of 2010.
At the end of the ten-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Sorin Dinu Chelemen guilty of 32 charges relating to his work as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for Animal Health, while employed as a locum at Endell Veterinary Group, Salisbury. Mr Chelemen, who represented himself at the hearing, disputed all of the charges. He also said he had had poor knowledge and comprehension of written and spoken English at the time, which had since improved.
Mr Chelemen gave the Committee detailed accounts of what he said occurred in relation to the TB testing at all four farms. However, in almost all the points where the facts were denied, the Committee found a stark divergence between his evidence and that given by witnesses for the College.
The Committee was generally unimpressed by Mr Chelemen's account of events, finding many of his allegations and explanations for his actions to be incredible or unreliable. For example, he claimed that during his Animal Health training, he had not been given a copy of the 'Manual of Procedures' containing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for TB testing. Although the Committee accepted Mr Chelemen's English had been poor at the time, leading to communication problems, he had satisfactorily demonstrated that he knew how to perform TB tests in accordance with these SOPs when he started work at the practice. Overall, the Committee found Mr Chelemen's attitude was that he had not done anything wrong and nothing was his fault, and that he had little understanding of the professional responsibilities incumbent on an OV.
By contrast, the Committee considered all the witnesses called by the College to have given clear, credible and consistent evidence. Complaints had been made about three farms that were separate and unconnected, and where the tests had been conducted on different dates. These complaints, if not identical, were very similar. The evidence was overwhelming that Mr Chelemen had not followed the SOPs when carrying out testing at three of the farms.
The Committee noted that the measurements recorded by Mr Chelemen did not show the differences which would be normally expected. Mr Chelemen had not measured the animals in accordance with the SOPs when he knew he ought to have, and he had been dishonest in certifying the tests.
When considering sanctions, the Committee found an aggravating factor was that Mr Chelemen's actions undermined procedures to prevent the spread of disease. In particular, he failed to notify the owners of animals on three farms that he had found reactors or inconclusive reactors, resulting in those animals not being isolated. Nor did he submit paperwork to Animal Health about these animals, which was a fundamental breach of his duties as an OV.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that Mr Chelemen had no previous RCVS disciplinary findings against him; and, that the OV training he received was limited, having regard to English not being his first language and relative inexperience as a TB tester. It also took into account that this disciplinary case had been in progress for three years, his poor health and his financial and family circumstances.
Mrs Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is of the view that this is a most serious case, in which the integrity of TB testing was undermined, and animal health was put at risk, which may have resulted in the spread of disease. Furthermore, this case involves findings of dishonesty, which has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
She directed that Mr Chelemen be struck off the Register.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has dismissed a case against a Staffordshire veterinary surgeon, having found that his convictions under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Public Order Act 1986 did not make him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
At the one-day hearing, the Committee heard that Mr Richard Conlon of Warrendale Veterinary Care Centre, Biddulph, was convicted of one instance of common assault and one public order offence involving threatening, insulting or abusive language, both of which occurred during an altercation in a public house in Biddulph on 28 November 2009. The court ordered Mr Conlon to pay two fines of £300 each, a victim surcharge of £15, and £700 of court costs.
As the facts involved in Mr Conlon's offences had been proved by the court that convicted him, and Mr Conlon admitted to his convictions, the Committee considered only whether these offences made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee was advised that although the convictions were unrelated to Mr Conlon's professional practice, any criminal conviction may call into question a veterinary surgeon's fitness to practise if the conduct for which they are convicted raises doubts over their capability as a veterinary surgeon. Convictions that damage the wider public interest in the good reputation of the profession and public confidence can also raise questions about fitness to practise and may be considered.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Vice-Chairman Professor Sheila Crispin said: "In reaching our decision, it is important to emphasise that the Disciplinary Committee does not condone Mr Conlon's behaviour in any way. We accept the submission of the College 'that it is incumbent on any veterinary surgeon to act with decorum and not to engage in any violent, aggressive or intimidating behaviour,' and, on any view, for a veterinary surgeon to get involved in a brawl in a public house is unacceptable behaviour.
"In the Committee's judgment this was a one-off incident of brief duration with no premeditation on Mr Conlon's part; fortunately no significant injury was suffered by anybody involved. From the nature of the charges and the sentence of the court, it can be seen that this was at very much the lower end of seriousness and, as is accepted by the College, involves no concern about Mr Conlon's ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon."
The Committee ordered the charges be dismissed.
In writing the guide, Liz has drawn upon her own experience of the disciplinary process to offer practical advice to others who find themselves in the same situation.
Liz found herself on the receiving end of a complaint by a pet owner after an elderly dog she had operated on died that night at her practice. It took two years for the complaint to progress to a DC hearing. They were two years which she described as absolute hell. Not just because of the threat of losing her livelihood, but also because of the vilification on social media.
Her booklet explains the whole process, from the first notice from the College to moving on after the hearing, with practical advice as to how you can make the experience, well, if not a positive one, at least not quite as hellish as it might otherwise be.
You can download the booklet from Liz’s website, here: https://howtosurviveanrcvshearing.wordpress.com/
The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.
The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included:
In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;
When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.
The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:
In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight.
When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;
that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.
that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;
that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.
The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.
Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day.
The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.
Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”.
The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.”
Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.
In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards.
Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”
In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.
However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.
The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate.
Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.
"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.
"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.
There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.
The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.
Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:
Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.
The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.
Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.
"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.
"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.
"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.
"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”
“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”
In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.
The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.
Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.
"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.
"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.
"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.
“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.
"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”