The ‘Introduction to the UK veterinary professions’ is a two-part online course run in partnership with VDS Training, designed to equip vets and nurses with the insight needed to work in the UK veterinary profession.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the course has been moved online. It includes a series of free online pre-recorded talks from representatives at a number of different veterinary organisations, including the RCVS, VDS Training, the British Veterinary Association, Vetlife, and VetAbroad.
The talks cover a variety of topics such as the Code of Professional Conduct, how to find the right job for you, how to look after mental health and wellbeing, and recognising and understanding cultural differences.
There will then be a number of live Question and Answer sessions across different dates over the coming months [see below], which are also free to attend, so those who have watched the videos can ask further questions from some of the speakers themselves.
Part 2 of the course is an optional practical and participatory paid-for online live communications skills training session run by VDS Training, looking at how to navigate some of the most common pitfalls encountered during client consultations, helping to equip you with the skills and confidence to communicate effectively in practice.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “While we enjoyed running this course in person and meeting veterinary professionals from all over the world, the coronavirus pandemic has also given us the opportunity to look at how we can make this course even more accessible for a greater number of people.
“While there is still a significant live element, albeit online for the time being, the pre-recorded talks enable those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to do much of the learning in their own time, without having to take time off work or travel to London for the day, meaning that more people can engage with this crucial information on working in the UK.”
Elly Russell MRCVS, a consultant at VDS Training, added: “Communicating with clients can be one of the most rewarding, but also challenging parts of our jobs as veterinary professionals. Communication problems lead to complaints, increase your stress at work and can impact the care our patients receive. Join VDS training for a highly interactive, online 4-hour workshop. Work in small groups with our experienced facilitators and role players using realistic scenarios to practise and develop your communication skills. Let us help you feel more confident managing common communication challenges in UK practice: improved communication will help you, your clients, and your patients.”
The dates for the free live 2021 Q&A sessions are:
The dates and times for the paid-for live online communications skills workshops from VDS Training are:
The cost for attending the communication skills session (Part 2) is £150 +VAT per person. It is not mandatory to complete both parts of the course, but those who are interested may choose the part of the course most suitable for them.
For further information: www.rcvs.org.uk/overseas-cpd
Chris has been an elected member of Council since 2009 and, during this time, has served on the Education Committee, the Examinations Appeal Committee and the Operational Board as Chair of the Education Committee and Junior Vice-President.
He graduated with a veterinary degree from the University of Glasgow at the relatively advanced age of 30 having first attained a degree in Agricultural and Environmental Science from the University of Newcastle. Following graduation he worked in a mixed practice in Herefordshire before buying an equine and companion animal practice in West Berkshire, which currently employs five veterinary surgeons and five support staff.
In his maiden speech, Chris called on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be proud of themselves as people who are committed to the welfare of animals in their care and to not be so hard on themselves.
He also outlined several areas that he would like to prioritise during his presidential year. These included delivering the priorities set out in the Vet Futures Action Plan, exploring bringing veterinary paraprofessionals into the College’s regulatory remit, driving forward the College’s international profile and dealing with blame and fear culture in the profession.
He said: "I’ve seen first-hand in Africa and India what the delivery of veterinary care can do for the welfare of animals in these regions and the wellbeing of people that frequently depend upon them. As one of the richest nations in the world we will further investigate what we can do, through knowledge transfer and support, to help raise the standards of veterinary care in developing countries.
"Sadly we often hear that there are vets and nurses who live in fear of the RCVS. This is something of which I am personally ashamed. Being particularly mindful of the role that fear and anxiety play in mental health, I will do everything I can to replace this fear... I will encourage all hardworking vets and nurses, whichever field they are in, to wear their [MRCVS] ‘badge’ with pride. Feel good about what you do, feel great about what you do."
Chris’ first official duty upon receiving the presidential chain of office from outgoing President Dr Bradley Viner, was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May. He also praised Bradley for his calm authority, humour and wisdom throughout his year as RCVS President.
The aim of the survey is to provide a better understanding of the views, experiences and challenges faced by disabled and chronically ill people within the veterinary profession and provide an insight into how the profession and educational institutions can be more inclusive.
You do not have to be disabled or chronically ill to complete the survey, which will take you around 20 minutes to complete.
Claire Hodgson, director and co-founder of BVCIS, said: “Working in the veterinary professions with a chronic illness or disability can be hugely challenging, but there is currently a knowledge gap in terms of understanding exactly where the problems lie.
“A 2019 RCVS survey of the professions found that around 6.7% of vets and 7.4% of RVNs have a disability or medical condition that limits work that they can do, but the true figures are likely to be much higher.
"No reliable data for veterinary students currently exists.
“The purpose of this survey is to close that knowledge gap and help us understand how we can better support disabled and chronically ill people in the workplace and education to create a more inclusive working culture.\
“Those living with disability and chronic illness are often hugely resourceful and fantastic problem solvers because of the day-to-day challenges they have had to learn to overcome.
"They have a great deal to contribute to the sector, and it is important that they feel valued and respected and have access to the tools they need to thrive.
“Diversity makes the workforce stronger, so we are calling on as many different people as possible from across the veterinary community to complete our survey so that, together, we can help create a more inclusive workplace for all.”
The survey will be circulated by email to all RCVS registered veterinary surgeons in the near future.
Details will be circulated to students via their educational institutions.
The RCVS says all survey responses will be completely confidential, and results will only be analysed and reported at a level that does not allow identification of individuals in any way.
Completed surveys will not be seen by anyone at the RCVS or BVCIS – the IES will send through a report with key research findings to both the RCVS and BVCIS after the survey has closed.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who is acting as witness.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.
“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.
“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.
“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”
David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.
“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.
“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”
The RCVS played a proactive role in Mr Keniry’s arrest and trial after its Chief Investigator, Michael Hepper, was alerted to the fact that he was working at a veterinary practice in Taunton, Somerset.
Within 24 hours Mr Hepper reported this to Avon & Somerset Police and attended the practice with officers to assist in Mr Keniry’s identification and arrest. Mr Hepper continued to assist with police investigations and gave a witness statement.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are grateful to the veterinary professional who voiced her suspicions to us, to our Chief Investigator who reacted quickly to confirm his identity and report the matter to the police and to Avon & Somerset Police for taking matters forward so quickly.
"Mr Keniry was known to the RCVS as we have assisted in previous police investigations into him for similar offences. As with recent cases Mr Keniry impersonated a legitimate member of the veterinary profession using fraudulent documentation and this is why we have previously published photographs of him to raise awareness with veterinary practices and to try and stop him being employed in the future.
"We believe that Mr Keniry is a threat to animal health and welfare. He is a repeat offender and so we are glad that he has been handed a significant custodial sentence.
"While sophisticated and convincing fraudsters like Mr Keniry can be very difficult to prevent, we would urge veterinary practices to be vigilant. For example, we recommend that potential employers contact our Registration Department to make checks, always interview a potential employee face-to-face, ask to see supporting identity documents, prepare questions which confirm where and when they studied, obtain references and, if they are employed, mentor the new member of staff to oversee their performance.
"For members of the public we recommend that, if they have concerns about the legitimacy of their veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurses, they talk to someone else in the practice about their concerns or contact us so that we can make further enquiries. Members of the public can also check on the status of veterinary professionals using our Find a Vet search tool: www.findavet.org.uk.
"We would like to emphasise that cases such as that of Peter Keniry are, in our experience, extremely rare. There are around 23,000 veterinary surgeons registered to practise in the UK who are fully trained professionals dedicated to upholding and improving the health and welfare of animals under their care. We don’t believe that the unprecedented actions of this one fraudulent individual should in any way undermine the confidence and trust that animal owners place in their veterinary team."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.
At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.
He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.
Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.
The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.
The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.
However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.
Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.
This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed.
The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".
The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.
In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.
It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.
In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking. In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.
It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act.
"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.
It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short."
After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."
Developed in partnership with the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), the course uses practical examples based on real-life experiences.
The course shows how to assess complaints from a client’s perspective and how building client relationships can help defuse complaints.
Jennie Jones, Head of VCMS, said: "Leveraging insights from the VCMS and involving our entire team with its production has enabled us to develop highly effective materials that ensure veterinary professionals are well-equipped to manage complaints."
The course takes one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2019, with the 346 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2019, compared to 308 last year.
Those who were removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
The RCVS says it sent reminders to all MsRCVS, including emails and text messages, reminding them that the fee was due. Letters were sent to those members that the College does not have an email address or mobile telephone number for.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published. Practices are encouraged to check the list to ensure that no employees are named.
The College also wants to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
The aim of the Working Party is to compare options, such as limited licensure, for increasing inclusion, source evidence both from the UK and other countries, and to identify any potential unintended consequences of change.
The College says that it is inviting representatives from the Association of Veterinary Students (AVS), British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BVCIS), the British Veterinary Nurses Association (BVNA) and Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) to join the Working Party.
Sue Paterson will be Chairing the Working Party.
She said: “The formation of this new Working Party is a significant and very welcome step in helping to make the veterinary professions more accessible for people with a disability.
"Fellow members of the Working Party include a broad range of colleagues, students and veterinary bodies, to ensure we take into account as many perspectives as possible when we propose recommendations.
"We recognise that many organisations have already begun to explore what we could do to make the veterinary professions more accessible, and we are keen to work collaboratively with them to ensure we keep up the momentum on this vital work.
"The Working Party will endeavour to find a way that those wishing to undertake a veterinary degree or a veterinary nursing qualification in the UK are not faced with barriers due to disability."
For more information, contact Rosie Greaves, Policy and Public Affairs Officer: r.greaves@rcvs.org.uk
In mid-September, the Association wrote to the RCVS expressing concern about the August extension to the temporary guidance.
In the latest update from the RCVS, the temporary measure has now been extended to 31 October but the flowchart and guidance have been updated to add some additional steps before a POM-V product can be prescribed remotely.
The BVA says that while it supported the original decision in March as a pragmatic solution and direct response to government restrictions surrounding Covid-19, it is now questioning the ongoing need for such a relaxation in the rules.
In the letter to the RCVS, the BVA also asked for a timeframe for the publication of the results of the RCVS survey of practices’ experiences of remote consulting and prescribing. The Association's own under care working group, chaired by Nigel Gibbens, has been developing a position to respond to the RCVS review.
BVA President James Russell (pictured right) said: "We understand that allowing remote prescription of POM-Vs was a necessary measure at the height of the lockdown, as practices struggled to assess patients in person.
"However, the veterinary professions have done a fantastic job in adapting to the restrictions and are now able to work safely and see patients.
"Whilst we recognise the RCVS has provided additional guidance for the remote prescribing of POM-V, we cannot currently see any reason why a new client would be unable to access in-person veterinary care in the first instance and we are asking RCVS Council to reconsider this measure when it meets in Oct.
"It makes sense to continue allowing vets to remotely prescribe for existing patients, for example if an owner is shielding, but we feel it is no longer appropriate to be remotely prescribing to animals that have never been physically examined by the vet.
“The question of whether we should be able to remotely prescribe POM-V products without first seeing an animal is an important and live debate, and we welcome the resumption of the College’s review. But the longer that temporary measures are in place, the greater the expectation from animal owners that they will always be in place, and the harder it will be to have the discussion about the best way forward.
“As a profession, we are rightly concerned about antimicrobial resistance and we pride ourselves on the responsible use of medicines. Continually extending the temporary measures without a full analysis would risk undermining our position.”
The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.
For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.
The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.
At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”
In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.
Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”
She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.
“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The advice in the new help section has been designed to highlight the shared responsibilities of animal owners and their vet teams, and to support practices by giving this advice for pet owners in a clear and easy-to-read way.
It explains what pet owners can expect from their vet team - and what is expected of them - throughout the different stages of pet ownership.
The information is split into ten sections:
The content in the new resource was informed by the views of the RCVS’s Public Advisory Group (PAG), whose members comprise owners/keepers of companion animals, equine and production animals, as well as other users of veterinary services.
Veterinary surgeon and Chair of the RCVS PAG, Louise Allum MRCVS (pictured), said: "The PAG has performed an essential role in helping to inform the content creation for our animal owner help and advice resource, highlighting the need for greater transparency and support, particularly around veterinary fees, treatment options, and what to expect from vet practices.
"Veterinary professionals work tirelessly to provide the most appropriate care for their patients, and we want to support this by ensuring pet owners have access to clear, accessible information about their rights, responsibilities, and the role of veterinary teams to ensure that expectations are managed.
“We are calling upon veterinary professionals to share this resource with clients far and wide, to help owners understand more about veterinary practice and how they can build a successful partnership with their vet team, ultimately leading to better outcomes for pets, their owners and veterinary professionals alike."
The RCVS will be expanding its help and advice section to include further information for equine and livestock owners in due course.
www.rcvs.org.uk/owner-advice.
For the study, the RVC interviewed 13 small animal general practitioners, exploring their experience of providing pre-purchase consultations for brachycephalic dogs.
The study revealed a number of barriers to delivering effective pre-purchase consultations and advice about these breeds.
They included limited time and resources, competition for appointment availability, a perception that vets are only there to fix things, public distrust of veterinary surgeons (often over money), fear of damaging vet-client relationships, and the conflicting influence of breeders and the Kennel Club on clients.
Many veterinary surgeons that took part in the research felt that they had little or no power to overcome these barriers which are highly intractable at an individual veterinarian level.
A resulting moral conflict in veterinary surgeons between their perceived ethical and moral responsibilities to animal welfare versus the needs and wants of their clients and businesses was expressed by many vets in the study, and was felt to compromise their professional integrity and autonomy.
The study set out a series of recommendations:
Dr Rowena Packer, Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science at the RVC and lead author of the study, said: “This is the first time that the impact of brachycephaly on the practising veterinary surgeon has been explored.
"Our concerning results highlight the importance of recognising that the brachycephalic crisis is not only negatively impacting animals, but it is affecting human wellbeing too.
“Our study highlights the conflict that vets are experiencing - bound both by their duty of care to their brachycephalic patients, but also to animal welfare at a population level.
"Trying to balance both of these responsibilities in the current working environment is proving very challenging for some, leading to moral distress.
"It is, therefore, essential that we protect the mental wellbeing of vets on this issue as well as from an animal welfare perspective.
“As the brachycephalic crisis continues to prevail, the support of leading veterinary organisations is vital in providing a united voice regarding the known harms of brachycephaly and support in facilitating PPCs to ensure vets are protected, and potential owners are fully informed when it comes to acquiring decisions.”
Dr Dan O’Neill, Assoc Prof of Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and co-author of the study, said:
“Over the past decade, the RVC has generated a vast evidence base revealing the true extent of the serious health issues of dogs with brachycephaly.
"This new study now focuses RVC research towards protecting the wellbeing of practising veterinary surgeons who are also shown as victims of the brachycephalic crisis.
"The clear message here is that we all need to ‘stop and think before buying a flat-faced dog’.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by Gordon Lonsdale, who had been struck off in March 2004 for illegally delegating acts of veterinary surgery to insufficiently qualified members of his practice staff.
At the initial Inquiry, Mr Lonsdale, who formerly worked as a sole practitioner in Shropshire, had admitted three separate charges of serious professional misconduct. These included allegations that he had instructed nurses and support staff to undertake dental extractions, dog and cat castrations, the removal of tumours or masses, the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, lancing abscesses and suturing wounds.
At yesterday's hearing, the onus was on Mr Lonsdale to satisfy the Committee that he was fit to be restored to the Register, not least in view of his former health problems and the eight-year period for which he had been off the Register.
He provided the Committee with evidence of undertaking continuing professional development, including 130 hours of online courses and seven weeks of seeing practice, letters of endorsement from former clients and testimonials from friends and former colleagues.
The Committee accepted Mr Lonsdale's evidence that he had successfully addressed his alcoholism, which it recognised as being a contributory factor to his poor decision making in an isolated working environment. He assured the Committee of his intention that, should his application be successful, he intended to work only in a multi-handed, rather than single-handed, practice in future.
The Committee found him to be an honest and frank witness who had made a credible attempt to refresh his small animal practice knowledge; it was satisfied that he accepted the findings of the original hearing and that he had put the welfare of animals at risk, and it noted his expression of remorse.
In considering Mr Lonsdale's application, the Committee made a number of recommendations, including that he should register for the RCVS Professional Development Phase, undertake certain parts of the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice, restrict himself to his recognised areas of competence, investigate communication courses run by the Veterinary Defence Society and continue with the mentoring programme provided by the Veterinary Surgeons Health Support Programme. Mr Lonsdale stated that he was willing to follow all of these recommendations.
Professor Peter Lees, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, concluded: "In these circumstances, we do not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession. Therefore, we direct the Registrar to restore Mr Lonsdale's name to the Register."
Generally, veterinary practices may remain open, but there are national variations in what services should be offered and how, including the conditions under which remote prescribing can be used to help support a case.
Wales currently has the tightest ‘firebreak’ restrictions, meaning practices can only provide essential and urgent work until midnight on 8 November 2020, thereafter, returning to usual operations in line with Wales’ standard measures around workplace safety.
England and Northern Ireland are under national restrictions (4 Nov – 2 Dec, and 16 Oct – 12 Nov, respectively), meaning practices can provide treatment essential for maintaining animal health and welfare, along with non-urgent work providing that social distancing measures and safe working can be maintained.
Veterinary surgeons practising in these three countries may also choose to support a case remotely at an earlier stage, for example, through the remote prescribing of POM-Vs without first having conducted a physical examination.
Scotland remains the only country under regional tiered restrictions, meaning practices can continue to provide treatment whilst maintaining social distancing; however, before remote prescribing is offered, veterinary surgeons should first consider whether the animal can be brought under their care.
The full guidance and corresponding flowcharts should be consulted together and are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq2and www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a London-based veterinary surgeon, having found charges related to fraudulent registration not proved.
Miss Maria Becerra Parga was charged with fraudulently entering her name on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, by submitting a registration application in 2005 that contained a forged certificate of good standing from the Distinguished Official Veterinary Association of Lugo, Spain.
The Committee said that, in order to conclude Miss Becerra Parga had acted dishonestly, it needed to be sure that when she submitted the certificate to the RCVS she knew it was not genuine.
Miss Becerra Parga admitted that she did not make any application for the certificate directly to the Lugo Association. She accepted that the certificate she supplied to the College (the number of which was genuine and corresponded to a male veterinary surgeon registered in Spain) was a forgery, and that it contained a reference to her degree, a statement of good conduct, and was dated before she had a need for it; however, she said, this had been given to her by a friend and veterinary colleague and she had understood that she had been given a temporary membership of the Lugo Association for the purpose of registering with the RCVS. She also said that she had left these arrangements to her colleague and assumed that the document she had been given was genuine.
Her colleague, called as a witness by the College, said that Miss Becerra Parga had admitted the fraud to her and she denied that she had given the certificate to Miss Becerra Parga. Her friend said that she gave no more than general guidance because she knew that Miss Becerra Parga would be guided by a UK company that would arrange for her registration with the RCVS and through which she would be employed. She thought it possible that she had told Ms Becerra Parga that she needed a letter of recommendation, but she was not sure.
After careful consideration, the Committee preferred the evidence of Miss Becerra Parga and found her account to be "consistent with her naivety, inexperience and trusting nature" and "was sure that she did not forge the document herself". It found that to the extent that Miss Becerra Parga read the certificate at all when given it, she obviously did not notice its date or significance. The Committee was not able to say who was responsible for forging the certificate.
The Committee also dismissed an argument RCVS Counsel put forward, that Miss Becerra Parga had neither offered nor made payment for the certificate, and that she had forged the certificate to avoid a payment. The Committee said it did not find it credible that a veterinary surgeon, in work with a supportive family, who obviously was easily able to obtain proof of her good character directly from the university if necessary, would have jeopardised her entire career by forging the document, let alone for a small financial advantage.
The Committee directed that the charges be dismissed.
Kit, who has served on Council as an elected member since 2013, is currently the Chair of the RCVS Finances & Resources Committee and has been RCVS Treasurer for the past three years.
He is also a member of a range of committees and project groups across the RCVS including: the Audit and Risk Committee; the PIC/ DC Liaison Committee; the Certification Subcommittee; the Estate Strategy Project Board; the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees; and the Advanced Practitioners Panel.
Since 2003 Kit has been working as an internist (he is an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Small Animal Medicine) in private referral practice. In 2006 he became a founding partner in a multidisciplinary referral centre that he saw grow from five to 65 members of staff within five years.
His interests include workforce issues, communicating the diverse clinical and non-clinical skills of veterinary surgeons to the general public and government, and facilitating life-long learning through achievable further professional qualifications and effective CPD.
Kit said: "It was a great honour to be elected as the next Junior Vice President by my fellow council members. I feel that I can make a positive contribution to the work that the RCVS is already undertaking in ensuring the veterinary team remains healthy and respected. In particular I am keen to look at how the RCVS can help find solutions to our workforce issues - improving retention as well as encouraging and facilitating vets and nurses back into the profession."
In addition to Kit being elected as JVP, the current holder of that office, Dr Mandisa Greene, was confirmed as President for 2020-21 and current President, Dr Niall Connell, was confirmed as Senior Vice-President for this period.
Professor Susan Dawson was voted in as RCVS Treasurer, and she will be formally invested in this role at Royal College Day on Friday, 10 July.
Professor David Argyle has been elected as Chair of Advancement of the Professions Committee for a second year, Dr Susan Paterson has been elected as Chair of Education Committee for her second year, and Dr Melissa Donald has been elected Chair of Standards Committee for her second year.
Kit and Melissa's positions are subject to their successful re-election in the 2020 RCVS Council Elections
More information on the RCVS Council and its members can be found on the RCVS website: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council.
The RCVS has announced that it will start to accept the first applications for the new Advanced Practitioner status from the start of September.
The new accreditation status represents a 'middle tier' between veterinary surgeons holding an initial veterinary degree and RCVS Specialists and will demonstrate that the veterinary surgeon has advanced knowledge and experience in a designated field of veterinary practice.
Practising veterinary surgeons with at least five years' experience and a relevant postgraduate qualification are eligible to apply to be recognised as RCVS Advanced Practitioners. Accepted qualifications include the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) with a designation; the RCVS Certificate awarded up to 2012; postgraduate clinical qualifications awarded by universities or recognised awarding bodies; and other relevant clinical postgraduate master's degrees. Full details of eligible qualifications can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced
Advanced Practitioners will be expected to undertake at least 250 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) over each five-year period of accreditation, of which 125 hours should be in their designated field.
Dr Kit Sturgess is Chair of the Advanced Practitioner Assessors Panel and was involved in the development of the scheme. He said: "I am very proud that we will soon be accepting applications for the Advanced Practitioner status, just two years after the need for such an accreditation was highlighted by Professor Sir Kenneth Calman's Specialisation Working Party, set up to look at the whole specialisation framework.
"Being an Advanced Practitioner is more than just a status - it will demonstrate to members of the public and colleagues alike that a veterinary surgeon is working at an advanced level in their field and has made an ongoing commitment to career development and lifelong learning through engaging with CPD over and above the RCVS minimum requirement."
Applications from holders of the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) with a designation can apply from 1 September 2014 while those holding any other relevant qualifications can apply from 13 October 2014. The deadline for all applications during this first round is 30 November 2014.
Applications can be made online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced where further information about eligible qualifications, CPD requirements and other details can be found. The application fee for this year is £50 - from next year it will be £80. Thereafter there will be an annual fee to remain on the list (£80 by direct debit; £90 otherwise, at current rates).
All eligible applications will be assessed by the Advanced Practitioner Assessors Panel. The first list of Advanced Practitioners is due to be published, alongside the updated Specialist list, in spring 2015 subject to approval by the RCVS Education Committee in February 2015.
If accepted on to the list, practitioners will be able to use 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner in [designated field]' after their names. The accreditation and its designation will also be a primary search field on the RCVS Find a Vet practice database as well as appearing after an individual's name on the Check the Register search tool.
Once the first list has been published, the status of Advanced Practitioner will be promoted to the public.
A free webinar about Advanced Practitioner status, hosted by the Webinar Vet, will take place on Tuesday 30 September at 8.30pm. To register for the webinar visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs-advanced-practitioner-status
For further advice or details about making an application for Advanced Practitioner accreditation, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced or contact the Education Department on 020 7202 0791 or ap@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons on 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, providing greater definition of the professional and legal responsibilities of veterinary surgeons in the provision of emergency care, as well as owners' responsibilities for their animals.
Two sections of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct have been updated - Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' and Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' - placing a greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for their animals while obligating veterinary surgeons to provide full details of their 24-hour emergency cover provision to clients.
Although veterinary surgeons are professionally obliged to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, the new supporting guidance clarifies situations where delaying or declining attendance to an animal may be appropriate. It is hoped this will assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from practice where they feel it is unnecessary or unsafe.
The changes are the culmination of an evidence-gathering process with both members of the profession and animal owners about each group's expectations around the provision of 24-hour emergency care.
This process began with a call for evidence at the end of 2013, which garnered some 656 pages of written evidence, as well as a petition on home visits with over 2,800 signatures. Following this, in March 2014 there was a three-day hearing in which 15 organisations and 10 individuals were invited to attend to give evidence to the RCVS Standards Committee. Also taken into account were more than 1,000 responses from veterinary surgeons taking part in the Survey of the Professions and an online survey with 1,250 animal owners.
After a thorough review of the evidence the Standards Committee developed the new supporting guidance, which was agreed in principle by RCVS Council in its June meeting.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "Following the considerable disquiet within the profession following the Disciplinary Committee's decision on the Chikosi hearing in June 2013, we decided that only a thorough evidence-gathering process with all parties could resolve the apparent gap between the expectation of the public regarding 24-hour emergency care and the profession's ability to meet this.
"We are very happy with the way that this process was carried out and would like to thank the many individual veterinary surgeons and animal owners, as well as representative organisations, who have contributed to this outcome.
"By making the legal and professional obligations of veterinary surgeons and the welfare obligations of animal owners clearer we hope that this new guidance should allay some of the frustrations and concerns of the profession."
The new supporting guidance for Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/247care, while the additional guidance for Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcare
A webinar in which Gordon Hockey and Clare Tapsfield-Wright, former Chairman of Standards Committee, explain the guidance in greater detail takes place at 8.30pm tonight.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs to register.
Vet History is part of a five year project to improve access to and awareness of the wealth of material held by the College, which began with the appointment of a qualified archivist in October 2015 and the creation of the online database which includes descriptions of material catalogued to international archive standards. The catalogue will be fully searchable with biographical profiles for major persons featured in the collections.
The papers of the prolific veterinary author and army veterinarian Major General Sir Frederick Smith (1857-1929) are amongst the first collections to be fully catalogued and described online. The material covers the length of Smith’s career from case notes recording treatment of army horses in India in the 1880s to correspondence from the last 20 years of his life, in which he wrote a four volume history of veterinary literature. Smith was involved in the Army Veterinary Service during the Second Anglo-Boer War and the First World War, and his honest and candid accounts of the loss of horses by the Army illustrate fascinating aspects of veterinary, social and military history.
Chris Gush, Executive Director, RCVS Knowledge said: "The launch of the Archives catalogue covers a critical and fascinating time in the nation’s history, both for the advances in veterinary science and its role in marinating a functioning British military presence in the 19th century. Through this unparalleled collection, RCVS Knowledge can be an invaluable source of information for academic research and the general public."
The RCVS Vet History project is ongoing, and further collections will be catalogued periodically over the next four years. Visitors are encouraged to check the catalogue regularly, and follow RCVS Knowledge’s Twitter feed for news and updates.
To see behind the scenes of the Project, and find out more about highlighted items, follow the Historical Collections blog here.
The RCVS Vet History Project is supported by The ALBORADA Trust.
Nockolds Solicitors was approved as the new administrator of the ADR trial by RCVS Council at its June 2016 meeting at Cardiff City Hall. The company was identified and approved by the RCVS Operational Board as meeting its requirements, a decision which the RCVS says has been welcomed by the Veterinary Defence Society and the British Veterinary Association, as well as receiving lay and consumer support.
The current trial, which was launched in November 2014 and is administered by Ombudsman Services, will come to a close by 1 October, when the new trial with Nockolds will start.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive and Secretary, said: "In order to be able to make an informed choice about how we wish to design and implement a permanent ADR scheme we wanted to ensure that we have as many different options and as much data as possible. It is very important that we get the permanent scheme right and this is why Operational Board made the decision to have a second trial. It was also clear that satisfaction levels from consumers for the previous trial were lower than we would have liked and that we therefore need to explore other options.
"It is important to note that this will not just be a re-run of the first trial with a different administrator – there will be some significant differences between this and our first trial with Ombudsman Services.
"First, this will be a truly alternative process as consumers will be able to access the trial directly rather than having to go through the College’s concerns process first.
"Second, this will be a process of mediation meaning that expert advisors from Nockolds will facilitate communication between the complainant and the veterinary surgeon to try and find a satisfactory solution to the concern."
The trial will be promoted to both the public and the profession as an alternative to the College’s formal concerns investigation process and participation in the trial will be voluntary. There will also still be a panel of veterinary advisors overseeing the trial and helping staff at Nockolds with any clinical queries they may have.
Jennie Jones is a Partner at Nockolds and will head up the trial. She said: "We are committed to providing a service that mediates complaints to find a fair, efficient and proportionate resolution. We are looking forward to working with everyone involved in veterinary profession to develop an effective mediation service that can be accessed by both the public and members of the profession.
"The service will focus on finding effective and practical resolutions. Understanding the root cause of the complaint and re-establishing effective communication are the crucial first steps in mediation and helping the parties to find a solution they can both accept. Over the coming months, we will be working with the RCVS, representative bodies for the profession and consumers to launch the service.
"In addition to mediating complaints, we will share insight in mediation and complaint resolution to inform practitioners and stakeholders and to enhance standards at veterinary practices. This enables complaint analysis to be used to help improve client care, avoid complaints and maintain trust and confidence in the profession."
A bespoke website for the trial will be set up in time for the launch on 1 October 2016.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog.
At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince.
The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.
Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care.
Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.
When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.
The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession.
Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."
The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards. "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.
Five graduates from St George's University School of Veterinary Medicine (SGUSVM), in the Caribbean island of Grenada, have passed the Statutory Membership Examination of the UK's Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
According to the University, SGUSVM graduates have traditionally demonstrated impressive pass rates on this rigorous exam, but this year's 100% pass rate by SGU students - compared with an overall 44% pass rate for candidates overall - is an exceptional result for SGU students, and only the second time it has been achieved in the school's history.
In order to practice veterinary surgery in the UK, all graduates with foreign or Commonwealth qualifications must pass the RCVS examination. The exam consists of two days of written papers, followed by clinical, oral and practical exams at a UK veterinary medical school. Thirty-five St George's graduates have passed into the RCVS since the School's inception in 1999.
The RCVS sets no quota for this Statutory Membership Examination, meaning those who meet the standards will pass, regardless of the number of candidates sitting the exam.
Austin Kirwan, St George's Associate Dean of UK and Ireland Clinical Affairs stated: "St George's School of Veterinary Medicine once again produces an excellent set of results with a 100 percent pass rate for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Membership Examination for those SGU students who sat the examination. This is a credit to the school in the quality of education it provides, but also an indication of the calibre of person SGU attracts in its student cohort - outstanding success abounds by thinking beyond."
Presenting the graduates with a membership certificate at the Ceremony of Admissions at Belgravia House in London, RCVS President Dr Jerry Davies said: "I was delighted to welcome so many of this year's successful candidates to the College. Whether newly graduated or long qualified elsewhere, all of those registering today have succeeded in meeting the educational and professional requirements that enable them to call themselves veterinary surgeons and to practise in the UK."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.
Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."
Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."
The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.