Linda gave her address at the Royal Institute of British Architects, venue for the RCVS Annual General Meeting last Friday.
Linda, an equine vet and director of the Wiltshire-based George Veterinary Group, said: “A Royal College and a regulator – it’s a challenge but this combined role is also an opportunity for us.
“In the time I’ve served the RCVS, I’ve definitely learnt some of what it takes to fulfil these roles under the remit of both the Veterinary Surgeons Act and our Royal Charter; to think not just from personal perspective and experience, and also to try to look beyond the needs of the profession today and consider what tomorrow might bring.
“Vets are not just one thing.
"The roles we fill in our working lives are many and varied, and I would argue that the MRCVS is the best placed arbiter of animal health and welfare.
"As such, keeping the MRCVS at the heart of decision-making around how veterinary care and services are provided is essential both to safeguard animal health and welfare and also to retain public trust in our work.
“Cultivating trust is a big part of what many of us do, day in and day out – trust in us from within our teams, from our clients and perhaps even from our patients.
“The RCVS with its two hats does a tough job for both the professions and the public.
"In many cases, the interests of the professions and the public align and there is no conflict.
"Of course, as a regulator where the interests don’t align, the RCVS regulates in the wider public interest and this, too, is a positive for us as a profession.
“Working in a regulated environment is a strength for us.
"The landscape in which we work has changed and the regulatory environment needs to change too. Now we are the other side of the general election, work can continue on legislative reform seeking parliamentary time for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act.”
As the 13th female President of the RCVS, Linda will lead an Officer Team comprising the now Senior Vice-President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, Junior Vice-President Professor Tim Parkin FRCVS and Treasurer Dr Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS as well as VN Council Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, who attends Officer Team meetings as an observer.
The RCVS has announced that its new Royal Charter, which recognises veterinary nursing as a profession, is due to come into effect early next year once it has been signed by Her Majesty the Queen and received the Great Seal of the Realm.
The Charter, which was approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November, sets out and clarifies the objects of the RCVS and modernises its regulatory functions.
The Charter will also confirm the role of the College as the regulator of veterinary nurses and give registered veterinary nurses the formal status of associates of the College.
In addition, the Charter will also underpin other activities of the College such as the Practice Standards Scheme.
One of the key changes is that those qualified veterinary nurses who are currently on the List will automatically become registered veterinary nurses. This means that they will be required to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, will be held accountable for their actions through the RCVS disciplinary process and will be expected to keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date by undertaking at least 45 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) over a three-year period.
In addition, the Charter will give formal recognition for VN Council to set the standards for professional conduct and education for veterinary nurses.
Kathy Kissick RVN, the current chair of VN Council, said: “A Charter which recognises veterinary nursing as a fully regulated profession is something that many veterinary nurses, as well as the British Veterinary Nursing Association, have been wanting for some time so I commend this development.
“This can only be a good thing for the profession, the industry as a whole and animal welfare because it makes sure that registered veterinary nurses are fully accountable for their professional conduct and are committed to lifelong learning and developing their knowledge and skills.
“Furthermore, the new Royal Charter is a significant step towards attaining formal, statutory protection of title, which would make it an offence for anyone who is not suitably qualified and registered to call themselves a veterinary nurse.”
From next autumn those former listed veterinary nurses who have become registered veterinary nurses will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for listed veterinary nurses who will become registered veterinary nurses once the Charter is implemented can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
Although the date for signing and sealing the Charter has not yet been confirmed, once it comes into effect the College will be contacting all listed veterinary nurses by letter to outline the changes as well as putting an announcement on www.rcvs.org.uk.
The recommendations were proposed by the Legislation Working Party (LWP), which was set up in 2017 to consider the principles governing any new legislation affecting veterinary regulation and come up with recommendations for what innovations could and should be included in any future replacement for the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The LWP comprises members of RCVS Council, RCVS staff and representatives from the BVA and the BVNA.
The approved recommendations were grouped into five key headings: embracing the vet-led team; enhancing the veterinary nurse role; assuring practice standards; introducing a modern ‘fitness to practise’ regime; and, modernising RCVS registration processes.
The recommendations include:
Professor Stephen May, RCVS Council member and Chair of the LWP since its inception in 2017, said: “The scale of the changes that are recommended in this report are very significant indeed and, if implemented via new primary legislation, would really change the face of veterinary regulation, bringing it up to date with that of other healthcare professions, and ironing out many of the oddities and closing many of the gaps in our current regulatory regime.
"Changes to the legislative framework for veterinary regulation have been mooted for some time. While the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 has served the profession well for over 50 years, and we have been able to make some changes to it – for example, reducing the size of Council, the separation of the Disciplinary Committee from Council and introducing the concept of delegation to veterinary nurses via Schedule 3 of the Act. However, there are limits to how much we can continue to tinker around the edges, and it has become increasingly clear that new legislation is needed if we are to make progress.
"I have been very grateful to my colleagues on the Legislation Working Party for their hard-work over the past three years. There has been a lot of robust debate on how we can move veterinary regulation forward, but ultimately we have a consensus that there are significant deficiencies, imperfections and blind-spots in the current regime and, in order to ensure that the professions are able to best fulfil their mandate to protect animal health and welfare, and that the RCVS is able to meet its mission to set, uphold and advance veterinary standards, significant changes are needed.
"I am delighted that members of RCVS Council have agreed to put our recommendations to a full consultation and I look forward to seeing how this report and its, sometimes quite radical, recommendations will spark important debate of these big ideas.”
A full public consultation process on the recommendations is expected to take place later this year. After this has taken place, and depending on its outcome, and Council’s final decision on how to proceed, a full set of proposals on legislative reform will be put to the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in the hope of seeking support for new legislation.
While RCVS Council approved, in principle, the report as a whole, there was a separate debate on some of the report’s recommendations concerning reform to the RCVS disciplinary regime which do not require changes to primary legislation, but could be made through powers granted to the College via its 2015 Royal Charter. Further details on this will be announced separately.
The full Report of the LWP is available to view in the papers for the June 2020 meeting of RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-legislation-working-party-report-to-council-2020
The RCVS has also published a blog from Professor Stephen May explaining, in more detail, the workings of the LWP and the rationale behind its recommendations. This is available to view at: www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/blog/a-step-change-in-veterinary-regulation
Professor May’s presentation from the Council meeting is also available to view on the RCVS YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
The College says that 1CPD has been designed to facilitate the new outcomes-focused CPD model which was introduced in 2020 and becomes mandatory from 2022.
An important part of this new model is reflection, so 1CPD encourages vets to reflect on the quality, relevance and impact of their CPD activities.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education said: "Although the outcomes-focused element of these changes won’t become mandatory until January 2022, we recommend that you incorporate reflection in your cycle of planning, doing and recording CPD as soon as possible, and our new 1CPD app makes this much easier to do than before.
"Research has found that reflection enhances the quality, impact and relevance of CPD as professionals consider what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice. To support this CPD model, which research has shown has a positive impact on both professionalism and patient outcomes, the 1CPD platform facilitates reflection by allowing you to record your reflective notes on your recorded CPD activities, through a variety of means including text, audio or uploading a document."
The old PDR was taken offline last Friday and all of the data saved in the PDR has been transferred to 1CPD.
The 1CPD app is now available for both Apple and Android devices, available on and off line, and through a new dedicated website, all of which is now accessible using the same credentials used to access My Account.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "1CPD provides a range of enhancements to RCVS’ previous offerings in this space and represents an important step forward in the College’s digital approach. Built on the latest best-practice technologies, it improves on every aspect of our previous approach to CPD support, delivering the first stage of a new, integrated, career-long CPD support capability for members.”
The launch of 1CPD also coincides with a change to the way that the College assesses CPD compliance, moving to an annual CPD requirement of 35 hours a year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours a year for veterinary nurses.
More information on the CPD changes, along with accompanying resources, can be found on the RCVS website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
So that practices can make sure everyone in their team is aware of the changes, the RCVS has also produced a poster which can be downloaded at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/cpd-poster/.
For more information, contact the Education team on 0203 795 5595. For technical advice about 1CPD, email the RCVS at onecpd@rcvs.org.uk.
The College says that design thinking is a problem-solving process that anyone can use in all areas of veterinary practice. It is a method by which teams can create solutions to problems or challenges using empathy, creative thinking and experimentation.
The 75-minute session will give an overview of the principles behind design thinking, its various practical stages, and how it can be used to tackle challenges and problems within everyday practice.
Sophie Rogers, RCVS ViVet Manager, said: “While design thinking may sound quite theoretical and conceptual, it is actually a very practical problem-solving process that suits busy veterinary professionals and their teams. For example, the webinar will also be applying design thinking to the current backdrop of the challenges posed by Covid-19 and will be using examples that are relevant to the veterinary world to explore how it can help overcome some of these key challenges.
“The webinar will also be interactive, with delegates being sorted into small groups to carry out tasks that bring ideas to life and demonstrate how it supports innovation and working collaboratively.”
The webinar will be hosted by Gill Stevens, the Founding Director of Level Seven, a consultancy that specialises in merging coaching with design thinking methodology as a way to support innovation and team productivity, and Rick Harris, Founder of Customer Faithful, a research-led consultancy, specialising in customer research, proposition design and employee engagement.
You can sign up to the webinar, which will count towards the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, via the ViVet website at: www.vivet.org.uk/design-thinking-webinar-a-practical-approach-to-problem-solving-in-veterinary-practice.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
Noelle Lowry, a marathon-running vet from Lichfield has raised almost £2,500 for the RCVS Trust in the London Marathon.
Noelle beat her fundraising target of £1,500, to raise money for the Trust to use in its work to support veterinary education and research, and in providing library and information services.
She finished 4,594 out of the 11,037 women runners in the London Marathon, taking 4 hours and 36 minutes to run the 26.2 mile long course - and beating her time last year in the New York marathon.
Noelle said: "A lot of people chipped in at the last minute - my mum has been organising people back home in Ballymena and my friends and colleagues have all put their hands in their pockets - so a huge thank you to all of them.
"I'm a great fan of the RCVS Trust. It's not one of the big charity brands but the grant funding for veterinary research can really make a difference to animals - and we can all use the library and online resources - so I wanted to give it some help."
Click here for more about the work of the RCVS Trust
Those veterinary surgeons being audited are being asked to share their records for 2013 to 2015 by either allowing the College to access their online Professional Development Record or by sending the RCVS a copy of their CPD record cards. The deadline for sharing records is Friday 14 October 2016.
The audit is focused on six groups:
If any of the veterinary surgeons who have been audited are found to be non-compliant (ie. less than 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period), they will be asked to explain why and send a plan stating how they will make up the hours in order to become compliant.
The College says it is also keen to remind veterinary surgeons that CPD encompasses a wide range of recorded activities, which can be clinical or non-clinical, including private reading/study, webinars, mentoring, clinical audit and discussion groups as well as attending seminars and workshops.
More information about what counts as CPD can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Those with any questions about the auditing process or what constitutes CPD can contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, Education Officer at the College, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
Ed's note: Don't forget to claim your VetSurgeon.org CPD certificate detailing time you've recorded reading content and taking part in qualifying discussions on the site. Click 'My Account' and then the 'CPD' tab to view your records and create your certificate.
Expanding on the training available in autumn 2022, which was launched based on the results of an extensive training pilot, MMI is offering a total of 14 sessions taking place both online and in person over the next few months. Sessions will be running from January to April 2023. The courses will cover areas that have been identified as priority topics from previous MMI surveys, feedback from the professions, and evaluation of the training pilots.
Mind Matters Initiative Manager, Lisa Quigley, said: “Mental health and wellbeing are impacted by a whole host of structural and societal factors and maintaining a healthy workforce goes far beyond supporting people on an individual level.
"Whilst it is undoubtedly important to provide people with the skills they need to look after themselves, we are aiming to expand on this by providing individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to recognise and address wider collective issues. For example, the importance of creating and maintaining a positive workplace culture.
Session dates and specific topics are as follows:
Mental Health First Aid (£30 in-person)
9am – 5pm
Psychological Safety and Civility (£20 in-person, £15 online)
In-person – 9am – 4pm
Online – 9am – 1pm
Sustaining Your Emotional Health (£15 in-person)
2pm – 5pm
For more information on the training courses, visit: https://vetmindmatters.org/training/
Although developed by the RCVS and VSC BAME Student Support Working Group ostensibly for use by Universities, EMS placement host practices and other educational establishments, it is recommended that all veterinary practices review the guidance.
The Guidance on Religious Clothing and Beliefs covers issues such as: balancing accommodations for religious dress with clinical considerations, and making accommodations for religious observance in academic timetabling and exams.
Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager said: “This document is about recognising that personal religious beliefs should be respected and accommodated as far as possible, while also not compromising professional responsibilities such as infection control, effective communication and the health and safety of individuals and their colleagues.
"Most importantly, it is about creating a welcoming and inclusive environment and ensuring that all students are able to express their religious identity whilst participating in educational and workplace settings.
“Although the guidance is not exhaustive, we would highly recommend that, where relevant, educators, practices and other veterinary workplaces review, adopt and adapt this guidance for their own settings to ensure that all members of the professions are welcomed and included.”
The Guidance on Religious Clothing is available to download from: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/guidance-on-religious-clothing-and-beliefs/
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon, having found him not guilty of charges relating to the measurement of horses and ponies.
At the ten-day hearing, Marc Auerbach of Oak Equine Veterinary Surgery, Ongar, answered charges relating to measuring the height of 29 horses/ponies presented for measurement by two agents in early 2009. Dr Auerbach had undertaken these measurements as an Official Measurer (OM) for the Joint Measuring Board (JMB), which provides a system for independently measuring and certifying the size of competition horses/ponies. An animal's financial value relates to its size, with larger animals being more likely to win in their competitive class.
The case centred on the expected accuracy of such measurements, whether Dr Auerbach was dishonest in colluding with the agents, or whether there had been signs of malpractice which a reasonably competent vet acting as an OM ought to detect.
From evidence submitted, the Committee determined a margin for measurement accuracy, and consequently dismissed from its consideration ten animals where the difference between the initial measurement and the re-measurement was 3 cm or less. However, the College submitted that the average difference was so great that, either, Dr Auerbach had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the correct measurements were recorded, or else he had been dishonest. Dr Auerbach's Counsel accepted the inference that presenting agents were dishonest, but denied that Dr Auerbach was dishonest or had failed to pick up signs of malpractice on the part of the agents.
The Committee was of the view that there may be unscrupulous presenters capable of materially interfering with the height of horses. While it was unable to determine with certainty the extent to which it could be done, the Committee formed the view that unscrupulous interference (together with intrinsic variables) could have caused the differences between measurement and re-measurement in the 19 horses.
The Committee noted there was no evidence of improper payments being received by anyone. It also accepted evidence that Dr Auerbach was not a dishonest man, taking into account his record of 23 years of honesty and excellence in the profession, unchallenged character references and the lack of any credible motive for him to act dishonestly.
Next, the Committee considered whether there had been signs of preparation malpractice which ought to have been picked up by any reasonably competent veterinary surgeon acting as an OM. The College submitted that Dr Auerbach had failed to take several steps including the amount of time and attention given to the animals he measured, and whether they might be drugged or sedated.
The Committee concluded from the evidence, including scientific papers, that mildly sedated animals may not be distinguishable from properly prepared animals; well-behaved horses were not an indication that something was amiss. The Committee accepted that Dr Auerbach took around 15-20 minutes to measure each of the horses presented on 9 January; and, in the absence of guidance from the JMB, it could not conclude this was rushed or unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee was unable to be satisfied, so that it was sure, that the allegation of failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the recording of correct measurements was proved.
"Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is that the facts set out in the Charge in relation to all the horses and ponies listed have not been proved to the necessary standard of proof," said Prof Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee as he directed the charges be dismissed.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by James Main, who was struck off in 2011, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.
At a Disciplinary Committee hearing held on 22 February 2011, Mr Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and his name was removed from the Register. The then-Committee established that, contrary to the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) rules of racing, Mr Main had injected tranexamic acid into the racehorse 'Moonlit Path' on 19 February 2009, knowing that the horse was to race later that day. He was also found guilty of dishonestly concealing this injection in his practice records as a "pre-race check".
At yesterday's hearing, the Committee noted that the decision to remove Mr Main from the Register had sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of strict compliance with the BHA's Rules of Racing; it was the inevitable consequence of his breaches of those rules and his dishonesty in concealing the administration of the injection. In oral evidence, Mr Main said he accepted the findings and decision of the previous Committee, and he apologised.
The Committee also noted a number of changes since implemented at Mr Main's practice, including a pharmacy review to improve traceability of drugs; withdrawal of the use of tranexamic acid in the management of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage; and a cautious approach to drug withdrawal times. Mr Main's practice had also reviewed its processes to ensure its veterinary surgeons complied with all relevant rules, regulations and guidance, and that any requests by clients to breach these rules would be refused.
The Committee accepted evidence that Mr Main had worked in a management capacity in his practice since 26 March 2011, performing no clinical role, and had undertaken appropriate continuing professional development since being removed from the Register. It also noted the large volume of testimonials and public support presented at the hearing from both veterinary surgeons and clients in the horse world.
Furthermore, it noted that removal had been financially and emotionally detrimental to Mr Main, his family and practice and, if his name were not restored to the Register, there would be a continuing detrimental effect on his family finances and the practice.
Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee accepts that Mr Main has found the removal of his name from the Register a humbling and salutary experience and accepts his apologies. It is satisfied that he is very unlikely to breach the rules of racing in the future and does not consider that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals by restoring his name to the Register.
"The Committee does not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession."
The Committee directed that Mr Main's name be restored to the Register.
The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.
The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.
The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.
As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.
Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.
"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."
The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.
The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.
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.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.
The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:
The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.
At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.
Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.
In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.
Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.
In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.
During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.
In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.
In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.
The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.
The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.
The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.
In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.
Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."
The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.
Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."
Those who pay their fees after 30 April 2017 will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May 2017 will be removed from the Register.
You will also need to confirm your registration details, confirm you've met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year rolling period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
The annual renewal can be completed by logging into the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login). For those members who do not have a valid email address, or have requested a hard copy of the renewal form, a form has been sent by post.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the ‘My Account’ area by 7 March should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk as soon as possible.
Those with queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team on 020 7202 0723 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
If they become law, the changes proposed by the working party will have a profound effect on all practising veterinary surgeons and nurses, so it could not be more important that you express your opinion, whether that is in support of the changes or against them.
The proposals fall under five main headings below, each of which is linked to a discussion thread on the subject. Of particular note is the 'fitness to practise' section which includes proposals for radical changes to the disciplinary process:
Do come and join in the discussions. Which of these things do you think will improve the veterinary care of animals? Could any of them have consequences that haven't been thought of? Do you think some of them show the College overreaching itself? Or do they not go far enough?
Come and tell us what you think. Hopefully the discussions will help you form your response to the RCVS survey.
The RCVS survey closes at 5pm on 23rd April 2021.
The Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) is co-chaired by the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer Nigel Gibbens, RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Chris Tufnell, and BVA Senior Vice-President Gudrun Ravetz. The project board also comprises the CVOs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Sheila Voas, Christianne Glossop and Robert Huey, as well as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
The project’s objective is to work with the veterinary sector to better understand the UK’s workforce needs and ensure that both the Government and veterinary businesses can continue to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard the food chain and maintain levels of public health and public services, and enable trade in animals and animal products.
The project will include a joint BVA-RCVS submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on workforce issues post-Brexit. Three working groups have been set up within the project to look specifically at issues of veterinary resources, recruitment and retention.
The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Nigel Gibbens, said: "Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity to develop gold standard policies on animal welfare. The UK Government is determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain and Ministers have been absolutely clear we will maintain our world-leading animal welfare standards.
"The VCCP is a great example of collaborative working between government, professional bodies and regulators to prepare for our exit from the European Union.
"I am pleased the Prime Minister has set out the government’s aim to secure the status of the veterinary workforce as a top priority as we leave the EU. The UK’s vets - both Official Veterinarians and those in the private sector - play a key role in protecting our country from endemic and exotic diseases, tackling outbreaks when they occur, safeguarding our animals and tackling global challenges like antibiotic resistance."
Chris Tufnell said: "Since the vote to leave the European Union last year the RCVS has been working in partnership with BVA to highlight to Government and others the potential workforce shortages that could arise from a loss of non-UK EU-qualified vets, particularly in public health work where they tend to predominate. Our position was highlighted in our Brexit Principles published earlier this year and at an event organised by us and the BVA at the Palace of Westminster for MPs and Peers.
"We are very glad that Defra is working proactively with us and BVA to understand the scale of the issues and map out the risks and opportunities and to help us plan for a number of different scenarios in advance so that we do not find ourselves in a position whereby animal health and welfare or public health might be compromised by workforce shortages."
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Vets provide the foundation for the UK’s high animal health and welfare, and make an essential contribution to the UK economy and wider society. Veterinary teams up and down the country support the UK’s 11 million pet-owning households; not a penny of the UK’s £12.7 billion livestock industry could be realised without vets; and vets are vital to facilitating UK trade, through health certification and controls, so that consumers have confidence in the food safety and welfare of the products they buy.
"Non-UK EU vets make up around 50% of our new workforce each year yet, since the EU referendum; we are facing increasing problems in recruiting and retaining EU colleagues to the UK. The impact of the loss of even a small percentage of the veterinary workforce could have serious repercussions on the practices, communities and industries that vets serve. This profession-wide project is pivotal to ensuring we have a veterinary workforce that can serve the UK’s needs post-Brexit."
The BVA’s Brexit and the veterinary profession report can be found at www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/policy/future-of-the-profession/brexit/
To read the College’s Brexit Principles in full visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The Prime Minister has set out the government’s offer for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU on their rights and status after the UK leaves the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu
The government’s response to House of Lord’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry into Brexit: Farm Animal Welfare also addresses veterinary capability post-Brexit:https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-energy-environment-subcommittee/Brexit-farm-animal-welfare/Gov-Brexit-farm-anim.pdf
Dr Vlad Butnaru faced two charges, the first of which was that in May 2021, he had signed a passport and/or passport application for a horse and electronically signed a declaration stating that he “had read the above microchip, which had previously been implanted for the animal” when, in fact, the microchip had not been inserted into any horse and he had not read it.
The second charge was that, in relation to the matters set out in the first charge, Dr Butnaru’s signed declaration was false, and that he had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, he risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare, and failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
Dr Butnaru admitted the first charge on all counts, and that the declaration he had signed was false.
He also admitted that his conduct was misleading and that he had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
However, he denied that his conduct had been dishonest and that he had risked undermining a procedure designed to promote animal welfare.
In its decision, the committee noted that Dr Butnaru kept introducing new versions of what happened for the first time at the hearing and changed his account as he went along, as well as being evasive when answering questions.
The Committee therefore felt that Dr Butnaru could not be considered to be a reliable witness, and whilst it did not know the true reason why he was prepared to sign a false declaration on a passport application, it was satisfied that he'd made a false declaration dishonestly.
The Committee also found that Dr Butnaru had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate as, if the passport had been issued on a false premise because of misleading information provided by Dr Butnaru, then it could not function as it was meant to which, in the Committee’s view, clearly risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare.
The Committee found that Dr Butnaru had breached the parts 6.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct, as well as Principle 1 of the 10 Principles of Certification, namely that ‘a veterinarian should certify only those matters which: a) are within his or her own knowledge; b) can be ascertained by him or her personally; c) are the subject of supporting evidence from an authorised veterinarian who has personal knowledge of the matters in question; or d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP).’
The Committee found there were no mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors, on the other hand, were that Dr Butnaru had participated in premeditated misconduct, made financial gain from his actions as he was paid to make the false declaration, abused his professional position, and showed blatant or wilful disregard of the Horse Passport System and of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that all proven charges amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect.
On considering the sanction, the Committee once again considered the aggravating factors, as well as additional mitigating factors in that Dr Butnaru had no previous disciplinary history, showed limited insight by admitting to some of the charges, showed expressions of remorse, and was provided with a positive testimonial.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was cognisant of the importance of a veterinary surgeon’s signature on any document.
"This should have been obvious to any veterinary surgeon, but particularly someone of Dr Butnaru’s 11 years’ experience (at the time of signing).
"The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Butnaru of any decision to remove him from the Register, but had to weigh his interests with those of the public.
“In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, Dr Butnaru’s previous unblemished record and the need to act proportionately.
"However, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons and protecting the welfare of animals, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient.
"His actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register and thus the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The nomination period closes at 5pm on Wednesday 31 January 2018 with the election period set to start in mid-March and close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Candidates need to submit a nomination form, contact details, a short biography and candidate statement and supply a high-resolution digital photograph to use in print and online materials.
In order for a candidacy to be accepted they will also need two nominators who should be veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register but who are not current members of RCVS Council.
Registered addresses and original (hard copy) signatures of both the nominee and the proposers are required on the form in order for it to be valid.
The RCVS is also reminding candidates that the College is currently preparing for a change in its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, as outlined in a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that was agreed by Council members in March 2016.
As it stands, members of the profession are still electing six candidates to RCVS Council in the 2018 elections. However, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places as members of RCVS Council.
There will be no elections to VN Council this year as a decision was made to reduce the number of elected members.
More information on how to stand as a candidate for RCVS Council, as well as nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18
The RCVS Charitable Trust has teamed up with the Foundation for Social Improvement (FSI) for the launch of the Great Big Small Charity Car Draw 2011.
The draw enables small charities, such as the RCVS Charitable Trust, to sell tickets to supporters which offer a chance of winning a brand new Fiat 500 1.2 Pop. Each ticket costs only £2, and the Trust will receive £1.90 for every ticket it sells.
Tickets can be bought securely online at http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/support-us/get-involved/win-a-fiat-500/ or directly from the Trust office on 020 7202 0721 or by emailing fundraising@rcvstrust.org.uk. Books of tickets are also available to sell to colleagues, friends and family. The deadline for buying tickets is September 16th 2011 with the draw taking place on 25th October 2011.
Here are a few examples of what reviewers have been saying about the Fiat 500:
"The Fiat 500 is both stylish and fun. The modest running costs complement the engaging handling. So, this nimble little city car can be enthusiastically thrown into corners and it should emerge grinning like a Cheshire Cat." Motoring.co.uk
"I love my Fiat 500 1.2 Pop from the moment I drove off in it. Great fun to drive on the motorway and in town for parking into slots others cannot!" What Car?
"It's absolutely fantastic. It drives like a dream. Everybody admires it." Fiat Forum
For further information on the car draw, please contact Fiona O'Regan on 020 7202 0743 or Rebecca Fellows on 020 7202 0721. Alternatively email fundraising@rcvstrust.org.uk.
The RCVS has announced the appointment of Gordon Hockey as its Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar, has latterly been Acting Registrar, following the departure of Jane Hern in November 2011 and the arrival of Nick Stace as Chief Executive on 3 September.
A qualified barrister and pharmacist, Gordon has been at the RCVS for the last 14 years.
His is a new role created when the old post of Registrar and Secretary was effectively split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary, and Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that Gordon's is my first appointment as Chief Executive, and I am grateful that he held the fort so well for the last nine months. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the RCVS is in the best shape possible to meet the needs of the public and the veterinary team."
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "We have a very strong team to take the RCVS forward. Nick has joined us with leadership experience, consumer expertise and new ideas and impetus; Gordon consolidates this with his legal expertise and experience of the veterinary profession and the RCVS. I look forward to working with them both."
The appointment is subject to formal ratification at the November meeting of Council.
It was alleged that in September 2015, she had acted inappropriately by striking a Shih Tzu/Toy Poodle cross puppy called Arnie on his head.
The hearing commenced on Tuesday 3 January 2017 with evidence being given by the owner of the animal ("TC"). However, the corroborating witness, who was also the complainant in the case, failed to attend the hearing to give evidence.
Efforts were made by the College to contact the complainant and remind her that she had been summoned to appear before the Committee – however, she still chose not to attend the hearing to give evidence. In response to her non-appearance the Committee decided that her written evidence was inadmissible as there would be no opportunity to cross-examine her about the discrepancies between her account and that of TC.
Miss Faulkner’s counsel then made an application to the Committee that the College had failed to sufficiently prove its case to the requisite standard such that it would not be necessary for her to adduce any evidence in her defence. The Committee granted this on the grounds that there were clear inconsistencies in the evidence given by TC at different stages of the investigation and during the hearing itself.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was unable to conclude that TC was a reliable witness. Given TC’s centrality to the case the Committee is unable to be satisfied so that it is sure that her account of events as outlined in her oral evidence is accurate. Accordingly, the Committee is not satisfied that the College has proved to the requisite standard that the respondent did in fact strike Arnie to the head as alleged.
"Accordingly, the Committee accepts the submission made by the respondent that the College has not adduced sufficient evidence upon which it can find the facts alleged in the charge to be proved. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Committee to consider this matter any further. There is no case for the respondent to answer."
Under the previous system, complaints made about a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse would, at Stage One, be considered by a Case Examiner Group (CEG) which would determine if there was an arguable case of serious professional misconduct.
If the CEG found there was an arguable case, it would then refer it to Stage Two of the process for consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
The CEG stage of the process has now been replaced by Stage One Preliminary Investigation Committees which, rather than using the ‘arguable case’ threshold, will consider from the outset whether there is a realistic prospect that the alleged conduct constitutes serious professional misconduct and that there is sufficient evidence.
The new Stage One Preliminary Investigation Committees will comprise members of the professions and lay people, and will be assisted in their investigations by an RCVS Case Manager who will also be the first point of contact for those raising concerns, witnesses and respondents in the case.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “By keeping to one consistent threshold for serious professional misconduct throughout the concerns investigation process, we hope that these changes will help to simplify our investigations while still ensuring that the process remains robust and thorough.
"We also hope that, in time and when the changes are fully bedded in, we may also see a swifter resolution to some cases, as concerns that may previously been referred on to Stage Two of the process can now be closed at Stage One.”
If a Stage One Preliminary Investigation Committee cannot close a case it will refer it on to a Stage Two Preliminary Investigation Committee.
This will gather additional information and evidence and then determine if there is a realistic prospect of finding serious professional misconduct and if it is in the public interest for the case to go to Stage Three - a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
Eleanor added: “The introduction of these new stages is the first step in the programme of reform of our concerns investigation and disciplinary processes.
"Next year we will be looking to introduce our Charter Case Protocol which will be a way of resolving some less serious cases of alleged misconduct where it would not necessarily be in the public interest to hold a full Disciplinary Committee hearing.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns