The courses are:
MMI Manager Lisa Quigley commented: “I am really proud of this new tranche of training.
"Whereas our previous training has focused on the individual experience, for example, mental health awareness and resilience, these new courses recognise that individual instances of poor mental health and wellbeing can often be caused by systemic issues – whether that’s a poor workplace culture where bullying and incivility thrive, or discrimination on account of someone’s protected characteristics.
The full range of courses, including the dates and times and details on how to register, can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/training
Feedback about any of the courses can be sent to info@vetmindmatters.org
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS has introduced a new online recording system for graduates starting their Professional Development Phase (PDP).
The new PDP database sits as a module within the Professional Development Record (PDR), launched by the RCVS in April to help veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses plan, evaluate and record their CPD.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "Bringing the PDP into the new Professional Development Record shows clearly how this stage of a vet's development is part of the continuum of professional development that starts at university and continues for as long as they practise. We are also developing a system for students to record their practical and clinical experience whilst at university and, once this is complete next year, the PDR will become a complete record of professional lifelong learning."
Like the rest of the PDR, the new PDP module offers extra space for notes, and allows documents such as case reports and presentations to be uploaded and stored. Responding to feedback from users of the old PDP system, the new interface is designed to be more user friendly than the previous PDP database, and contains interactive help, guidance on PDP and an easier means of recording case numbers against the clinical skills lists. All new graduates from 2012 are able to sign up to use the new PDP site and, once their account is activated, they will also be able to use the CPD area to record any additional CPD they might undertake.
Graduates from previous years who are still undertaking their PDP using the old database may continue on the old system for the time being, although at some stage within the next year or so, the old site will need to be archived. Anyone who would prefer to use the new system instead should contact the PDP administrator at the RCVS to discussed transferring (pdp@rcvs.org.uk 020 7202 0736). As the skills lists have changed slightly, however, an automatic transfer of data from the old to the new isn't possible.
The PDP links the 'Day One' competences that veterinary surgeons have achieved when they graduate to the 'Year One' competences which they are expected to have achieved after about a year in practice. Each vet's progress through the PDP is supervised by a Postgraduate Dean, and its completion also requires sign-off from the veterinary surgeon's employer or mentor.
For more information, or to sign up to the PDP, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp.
There were ten candidates for the three available places.
6,087 veterinary surgeons voted, representing a 16.7% turnout.
This continued a decline seen since 2020, when there was a 26.2% turnout.
Alice McLeish scored 3,465 votes, Linda Belton 2,725 and Tim Hutchinson 1,571 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Congratulations to all our successful candidates in this year’s elections and thank you to all those who stood for election this year.
"We look forward to welcoming our successful candidates to their elected places at this year’s AGM.
“While the turnout for the VN Council election improved slightly on last year, it was a shame to see the turnout for vets fall again.
"As part of our wider Council culture project, we are looking at how to increase engagement with our election processes across the board, from candidate nominations, to how we present information about the candidates, to how we encourage greater election turnout.
"We will be consulting with the group set up to look specifically at this issue in due course to see how we can improve turnout going forward.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23.
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s elections, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
Mr John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
Ballot papers and candidates' details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a link to a secure voting site unique to each member of the electorate has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
This year the College invited all election candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. All videos have been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18) and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
Key question themes this year included recruitment and retention, the College’s concerns investigation process and veterinary education. The list of accepted questions has also been published on the RCVS website.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we had a record number and proportion of the electorate vote in an RCVS Council election and we would once again stress the importance of voting to ensure that you have a say in the future direction of travel for the College and its policies."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.
Bob was a member of RCVS Council from 1992 until 2004 and was President in 1999/2000. During his time on Council he also served as a member of all of the major committees of that time, with the exception of the Disciplinary Committee, and chaired several of the subject boards for the RCVS Diplomas.
Current RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "Bob was 100% responsible for my involvement with the RCVS, putting me forward for a working party in my first year in practice. Throughout his career he nurtured young professionals who he genuinely saw as the future and he was particularly dedicated to furthering and improving the education and development of veterinary surgeons, as demonstrated by his involvement in the RCVS Diplomas, the College’s continuing professional development (CPD) board and the former RCVS Trust.
"His dedication to our profession was exceptional and his kind and erudite observations, both public and private, were always welcome. We will miss him and our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time."
Photo courtesy Dulwich College.
The Action Plan presents what the College is doing to tackle the issue and explains how collaboration, culture change, career development and leadership, among other things, could help with workforce shortages by improving retention of current members of the professions, encouraging more people to join, and making it easier for those who have left the professions to return.
The report lists seven main areas to be addressed:
The full list of actions, with context about what has fed into ambitions, can be found in the Action Plan which is downloadable at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, Junior Vice-President and Chair of the RCVS Advancement of the Professions Committee, said: “This is a very complex, broad and multi-faceted area of concern so the Action Plan has been a long time in the making to ensure that we adequately capture what needs doing and how, in order to enable us to work collaboratively with all veterinary organisations going forward.
"This is not a finished list, but gives all within the veterinary sector the ability to look at the key areas of work that need to be done and prioritise the ones that most suit their organisational needs."
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 work done by vetsurgeon.org and vetnurse.co.uk attempted to identify the sorts of unpleasant behaviour that veterinary surgeons and and nurses found themselves on the receiving end of, and the impact that it had on them. It was not, however, able to quantify the prevalence of these types of behaviour other than to the extent that there were 677 reports.
The new survey of over 650 vet nurses and student vet nurses found that not only did 96% agree or strongly agree that bullying and incivility is a serious problem in the profession, but 70% of respondents had personally experienced a mental health concern as a result.
Other findings from the survey were:
The full findings of the survey will be revealed at the MMI Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum, taking place on Wednesday 3rd November.
Attendees will have the opportunity to discuss the challenges highlighted in the survey and how they can be addressed. The results will also be published at a session led by Jill McDonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator at BVNA Congress, taking place Saturday 2nd – Monday 4th October.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “A number of our survey findings are extremely concerning, particularly the high levels of bullying, incivility and discrimination reported by participants. We conducted the survey with the intention of finding out more about what systemic issues across workplace practices were impacting on the profession’s mental health.
"We want to thank everyone who took part and shared their experiences with us. There were some upsetting accounts shared with us about experiences of bullying and discrimination – no one should go through this at any point in their life, let alone at their place of work.
"Decisive action needs to be taken to tackle this and we will be using the findings of the survey to help form our 2022-2027 strategy and decide what resources and training we create for the profession. Supporting the wellbeing of veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses is one of our key priorities, and will be part of all future MMI activities.”
“I would encourage as many veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses as possible to attend the upcoming Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum and our session at BVNA to have your voice heard about what steps need to be taken to improve the mental wellbeing of the profession.
"We recognise that these results may bring some difficult emotions to the fore for many people, and we would encourage anyone who has experienced bullying or discrimination to seek help from an organisation such as Vetlife or the National Bullying Helpline.
"I would urge anyone who witnesses bullying or discrimination in the workplace to speak out, wherever it is safe to do so. This takes immense courage, but it is only by calling out this behaviour that it can begin to be addressed. We will be launching Active Bystander training in early 2022, to equip people with the confidence to call out unacceptable behaviour, and the skills to proactively support colleagues who have been targeted.”
Matthew Rendle, Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, added: “As a veterinary nurse some of these results were a difficult read and I would like to thank those student vet nurses and newly qualified vet nurses who came forward with great honesty and bravery with their views and experiences, as it couldn’t have been easy.
“We take these matters very seriously and opening up the conversation is an important first step. I hope that, following these results, we can take look at things such as strengthening reporting mechanisms for bullying and discrimination and encouraging better workplace practices to mitigate against these incidents.
“While it’s easy to focus on the negatives, I do think that these survey results have given us positive steps to build on, not least that people know how to access mental health support so they’re not suffering in silence and the role that our amazing clinical coaches are playing in supporting people with their mental health, and how we can better give them the tools for this support.”
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 RCVS has announced the names of the candidates standing in the Council elections this year and is, once again, inviting veterinary surgeons to put questions to them directly in this year’s 'Quiz the candidates'.
There are eight candidates (well, seven really, if you exclude the 'Donald Trump' candidate) contesting six places in the RCVS Council, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and four new candidates. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 14 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 29 April 2016.
To submit a question to the candidates, email it (NB only one per person) to vetvote16@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote16, by midday on Monday, 29 February.
Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 17 March.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "Last year, all election candidates produced videos for the first time and, with over 3,500 views in total, it seemed a popular way for voters to find out more about the individuals who were standing.
"Providing a way for all vets and vet nurses to put their own questions to the candidates is now an integral part of the elections, and one which we hope will continue to encourage people to get involved and have their say."
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 PIC decision marked the conclusion of its investigation into a concern that was raised formally last November involving allegations of bullying at Professor Argyle’s workplace, the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Argyle, who had previously decided to step aside from his JVP and Council duties until the concern was investigated and concluded, said: “Despite this outcome from the PIC discussions, I have now made the challenging decision to stand down from my position at the RCVS. This is to ensure there is no further distraction to the College’s important work and activities and that whoever becomes the next JVP has the full support of Council and RCVS members.
"It is also to reduce the toll this situation has taken on my family, colleagues and students, and on me personally. I am proud and privileged to have served on RCVS Council for nearly ten years and wish it well as it navigates the next chapter in its history."
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “I appreciate that this has been an exceptionally difficult situation and very upsetting for all involved.
"I understand why David has taken the difficult decision to stand down from RCVS Council and would like to thank him for his many years of service to the RCVS since joining Council in 2012.
"I would also like to reassure colleagues once again that, throughout, the College has remained firmly committed to following due, proper and fair process in all its regulatory activities."
Following Professor Argyle’s decision to step down, the process for electing a new JVP for the current presidential year will commence.
As Professor Argyle was a Veterinary Schools Council appointee on RCVS Council, it will be for that body to elect a replacement Council member.
Further details will be announced in due course.
Part of the VN Futures project, the lunchtime webinars will be delivered between February and June 2020 via the Webinar Vet, and the College is encouraging all veterinary surgeons, nurses, practice managers and owners to attend, as it says the webinars will benefit the whole practice team.
All three webinars take place at 12.30pm and last one hour. They are as follows:
Tuesday 4 February 2020 – ‘Maximising the potential of the veterinary nurse’ presented by Louise Northway RVN, BVNA Council member and recipient of the RCVS Inspiration Award. The webinar will give an overview of the role of veterinary nurses under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, how VNs can develop their role in practice and take on extra responsibilities and how VNs can approach these conversations in practice through the creation of learning and development plans. This webinar will illustrate how fully utilising the nursing team not only hugely boosts the morale of the work force, but also enhances patient care and increases the efficiency of the business.
Tuesday 10 March 2020 – ‘Veterinary nurses’ time is valuable: How and why to charge for it’ presented by Stephanie Writer-Davies MRCVS, Career Progression Working Group member, and Jane Davidson RVN, VN Council member and regular blogger on veterinary nursing issues. This webinar will provide examples and case studies of how veterinary nurses contribute to practice finances, how practice pricing structures can be developed so that the financial value of veterinary nurses’ time and effort can be better highlighted, and how veterinary nurses can demonstrate their value to clients.
Tuesday 23 June 2020 – ‘Lead or Head RVN: What’s in a name?’ presented by Gillian Page RVN, President of the Veterinary Management Group. This webinar will look at the role of the traditional Head RVN and how development of ‘Lead RVNs’ in different areas of practice can help to allow for growth of other talented team members and provide increased and shared responsibility and progression. This webinar will explore how this enhances practice efficiency alongside development of team members, thus increasing job satisfaction and, ultimately, retention.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and the VN Futures Board, said: "We hope that veterinary nurses will engage with these webinars in order to gain some inspiration about how they can truly show their value to their team, their clients and the wider public.
"The VN Futures research clearly demonstrated that there was a desire from the veterinary nursing profession to find ways in which VNs could gain greater recognition for the work they do and progress in their careers. These webinars, and our talented presenters, will provide many practical examples and case studies on how this can be done, help build confidence and highlight opportunities for further learning and development."
To sign up to the free webinars, visit: https://www.thewebinarvet.com/sponsors/VN%20Futures.
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.
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
From the start of 2016, the RCVS will no longer allow veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses to enter undocumented continuing professional development (CPD) on their records.
Under the RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are required to record a minimum of 105 hours of CPD over a three-year period, while veterinary nurses are expected to carry out 45 hours of CPD over the same period.
Historically, vets and nurses have been able to record 10 and 5 hours as undocumented private study per annum respectively. The RCVS Education Committee decided to discontinue the allowance for vets in May and the Veterinary Nursing Committee followed suit in June.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: “As with the veterinary surgeons, this decision was made because it was felt that all CPD, including private study, should be properly documented on the CPD records of veterinary nurses.
“This change, however, is not intended to discourage private study which we recognise extends across a range of different types of learning, including reading, and can be very valuable for personal development, but merely that it should be properly documented.”
The College says it hopes the changes will also clear up uncertainty around the respective allowances for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as some were under the impression that private study, even if it was documented, could only be classed within that category.
The Education Department is also in the process of reviewing the information available to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses regarding what counts as CPD, in order to clear up uncertainty and provide more specific examples for each learning category.
Information about CPD for veterinary surgeons can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd, while for veterinary nurses the information is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncpd
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.
Nick Stace, CEO of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), has issued a swift and robust response to the call by Unite for a shake up for the profession's regulatory system.
"Unite's suggestion that veterinary regulation should be under the scrutiny of the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) is misguided, because the PSA is there to oversee regulation in the human healthcare sector and the RCVS already has Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Privy Council oversight.
"Its further thoughts around the RCVS disciplinary process are out of date and missing the point. We would be very happy to help put them right and to hear any legitimate concerns they may have.
"Unite is calling for the College to no longer 'set the rules and hand down judgments', when in fact last year we successfully achieved a Legislative Reform Order, backed by the profession, to ensure that our Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees will become independent from Council.
"Unite also talks about the profession's disquiet about last year's Disciplinary Hearing into Mr Chikosi, something we are well aware of and are currently responding to by looking at the biggest area of concern, the provision of 24/7 emergency cover. Our fact-finding mission is seeking views from the profession and the public.
"More broadly, though, feedback from our First Rate Regulator initiative has shown that the profession does have confidence in our disciplinary procedures and that they are certainly not subject to 'long-standing discontent'.
"The First Rate Regulator initiative is also leading to significant improvements in the way that complaints are handled, including speed to resolution.
"Unite is seeking to recruit members of the veterinary team as members of its union and it may be more successful in that pursuit if it was to start to understand the profession better, perhaps beginning with getting its facts right.
"We would be delighted to meet with Unite to put them right where they are factually wrong, and hear what they have to say."
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 plenary speaker was Professor Rory O’Connor, Chair of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Health & Wellbeing whose talk: "When it is darkest: understanding suicide risk" opened the day with an outline of his 25 years of work looking into suicide prevention.
Rory discussed his recent investigation into the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and how to reduce the risk of suicidal ideation turning into suicidal action.
He said: “In the last 10 to 15 years there has been an increased focus in particular on psychological and psycho-social interventions for helping people who are suicidal.
"Although suicide is complex, interventions, even brief interventions, can be effective.”
Rory was followed by presentations from a number of teams, including those who'd been awarded the MMI’s Sarah Brown Mental Health Research Grant in 2019 and 2020:
The full report of the day’s talks can be found here https://www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2021
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 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."
The Working Group, which was formed in January, is chaired by Nigel Gibbens (pictured right) and composed of representatives from BVA specialist divisions and affiliate groups, and others with relevant expertise and knowledge.
As the Association says, the RCVS review will potentially have a far-reaching impact on the future of the veterinary profession, animal health and welfare, and the relationships vets have with their clients.
Of particular concern are the impact of remote prescribing on animal welfare and how limited-service providers (ie those offering online consultations only) will affect the commercial viability of full-service providers.
It is therefore hugely important that the BVA's response represents the opinions and evidence of as many people in the profession as possible.
Information about the BVA Working Group, including the minutes of meetings held so far and the 'themes' document which reflects the group's current thoughts, can be found here: https://www.bva.co.uk/about-us/our-structure/working-groups/
Nigel said: "I encourage you to look at this information carefully, and feed in any evidence that you wish the group to consider along with your thoughts on the content of the BVA response to the RCVS. You can do this via BVA’s Head of Policy & Governance Amelia Findon (ameliaf@bva.co.uk) who will ensure that comments are collated and considered by our group.
"The breadth of opinion across the profession means that the BVA response cannot please everyone, nor should it attempt to. However, it will be based on available evidence and a good understanding of the full scope of views. BVA policy will thus reflect the majority view whilst embracing the positive potential of technological innovations that will inevitably change the way we interact with clients. I urge you to take the time to consider the implications and let us have your thoughts."