At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.
There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.
The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.
Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:
Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.
The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.
Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.
"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.
"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.
"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.
"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”
“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”
In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.
The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.
Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.
"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.
"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.
"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.
“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.
"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.
The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included:
In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;
When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.
The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:
In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight.
When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;
that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.
that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;
that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.
The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.
Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct.
For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day.
The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.
Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”.
The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.”
Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.
In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards.
Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”
In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.
However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.
The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate.
Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.
"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.
"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The first is that the College will allow veterinary surgeons and nurses to carry over some of the CPD hours they have accrued in 2019 into 2020, to smoothen the transition to an annual hourly requirement.
Vets will be allowed to carry over 25 hours and VNs 10 hours of accumulated CPD from 2019 through to 2020.
This will apply once, in 2020 only, and is only applicable to vets and VNs who have been CPD-compliant from 2017 to 2019 and have a surplus number of hours to carry over.
Secondly, the College is going to allow vets and VNs to take a six-month 'CPD pause' for planned periods away from work, such as parental leave, and exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or unforeseen changes to family responsibilities, without the need to make up the hours when they return to work. This will reduce the burden on vets and VNs returning to work after a break.
RCVS Director of Education, Dr Linda Prescott-Clements said: "We hope that these changes to the CPD policy will support vets and VNs to make the transition to an annual hourly requirement.
"We received a sample of feedback from some members of the veterinary professions regarding the move to annual hourly CPD requirements and these additions have been introduced support members during this transition and to mitigate some of the concerns raised."
For more information about the CPD requirement for both vets and vet nurses, what activities might count as CPD, how to record your CPD and a series of frequently asked questions about CPD please visit our dedicated page: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.
The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.
32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.
Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists.
Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.
RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.
"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."
The guide explains:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/standards-and-advice-update-advice-published-on-amended
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/veterinary-medicines-guidance-notes-vmgns
The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions.
Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.
The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law.
However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law.
The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding."
The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."
The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.
The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has unanimously approved the introduction of a disciplinary system for registered veterinary nurses from 1 April 2011.
The RCVS established the non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses in 2007, and says that registration signals a commitment from veterinary nurses to account for their professional practice.
Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) commit to keep their skills up to date via mandatory continuing professional development and abide by the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses. The disciplinary mechanism is the final component of this regulatory framework. From 1 April 2011, an RVN can be removed or suspended from the Register if found guilty of serious professional misconduct, fraudulent registration or criminal offences affecting his or her fitness to practise.
The decision has been awaited for some time, as according to the College, there has been some dispute about whether an RVN could be removed from the statutory List of Veterinary Nurses (meaning veterinary surgeons would be barred from delegating to them tasks allowed under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, such as medical treatment or minor surgery), as well as the non-statutory Register.
Following legal advice that it would not be appropriate to remove someone from a statutory list via a non-statutory regulatory system, RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council opted for removal from the Register only, with the caveat that any such removed VNs will be clearly identified on the List. In addition, veterinary surgeons will be advised, via the Guide to Professional Conduct, against delegating Schedule 3 tasks to them.
Council also confirmed that it would seek an amendment to Schedule 3 as soon as possible, to enable it to remove the names of nurses found guilty of serious professional misconduct or other charges from the List.
VN Council Chairman Liz Branscombe said: "The Veterinary Nurses Council is committed to moving towards statutory regulation for veterinary nurses. This non-statutory commitment to a disciplinary system is our chance to show government and the public that we are ready and willing to be regulated, which should stand us in good stead for the future."
The RVN disciplinary system will mirror that for veterinary surgeons, with the same complaints-handling, investigation and decision-making processes and sanctions.
Registered Veterinary Nurses will receive more detailed information about the system over the coming months.
The RCVS is looking to recruit two veterinary surgeons as part-time Postgraduate Deans, to help oversee new veterinary graduates during their Professional Development Phase (PDP).
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "The PDP is an online recording system to guide new graduates as they work towards achieving the "year one competences" - the competences expected of a new graduate who's had about a year's experience in practice. Postgraduate Deans monitor PDP participants' progress and respond to their queries, and ultimately sign-off the graduates once their PDP is complete."
The roles have become available as two of the current post-holders, Stephen Ware and Professor David Noakes, wish to hand over to new colleagues. Both Stephen and David have served as Postgraduate Deans since 2007, when the PDP first became a requirement for all new veterinary graduates.
Stephen said: "Being a Postgraduate Dean gives you the opportunity to assist new graduates in the early stages of their career. It is also a way to encourage employers to take a responsible attitude towards new vets, particularly during their first job or two."
Postgraduate Deans are expected to spend up to 20 days a year working mainly online from home, and attend occasional meetings at the RCVS in London. They need experience of general practice, and to be used to dealing with and advising students, or employing and supporting new graduates. A sympathetic understanding of the challenges faced by newly qualified veterinary graduates is also required.
Further information about the role can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/jobs, and information about the PDP, including a preview, at www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp.
Applicants should send a brief CV, and a covering letter setting out their relevant experience, to education@rcvs.org.uk by 7 March 2011.
The RCVS announced in a tweet yesterday afternoon that it will be retaining postnominals on the Register.
#RCVScouncil agrees to retain postnominals on Register. Proposals to improve clarity to come back to future meeting. — RCVS (@RCVS_UK) June 5, 2014
#RCVScouncil agrees to retain postnominals on Register. Proposals to improve clarity to come back to future meeting.
VetSurgeon understands that the proposals to improve clarity may yet involve some rationalisation of the postnominals that will be displayed, but that RCVS Certs and Diplomas will remain.
The decision represents something of a victory for Victoria Lilley’s campaign and yet another indication that under the stewardship of Nick Stace, the RCVS really is evolving to become a more open, responsive organisation.
A paper introduced by the RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson looked at the possibility of the RCVS prosecuting, for example, unqualified individuals undertaking veterinary work and courses falsely purporting to lead to a registerable qualification.
The paper also explored other options, including better educating animal owners about veterinary services and assisting people with concerns about the breaches of the VSA to raise them with the authorities.
Council heard that over the past year, the RCVS had assisted other agencies on investigations of suspected VSA breaches on a number of occasions.
It was considered that the RCVS could consider undertaking its own private investigations and criminal prosecutions when statutory prosecuting authorities did not have the resources to pursue these cases.
However, the RCVS has no statutory powers of investigation, so if it did pursue a private prosecution, it would have no powers to carry out a criminal investigation or compel evidence.
Council members voted for a further paper setting out a draft policy on private prosecutions, as well as what general information regarding breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could be provided to members of the public and the professions.
The plans developed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), an agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), involved the creation of a new role of Certification Support Officers (CSOs), non-veterinarians who would support the work of Official Veterinarians (OVs) in the signing of export health certificates for products of animal origin such as meat, dairy, processed products and animal by-products.
The proposals for the creation of CSOs by APHA has arisen due to concerns about the growth of exports in recent years and the potential for an up to 300% increase in products requiring OV certification if the UK has to certify exports of products of animal origin to the EU once the UK leaves the EU. Under APHA’s plans CSOs will work under the direction of veterinary surgeons and support their certification work (for example, verifying temperature checks), although the final certification will always need to be signed by OVs. The role will not involve certification relating to live animals or germinal products.
At the RCVS Council meeting on Thursday 1 November 2018 Council members agreed to facilitate APHA’s proposals and to make changes to the RCVS requirements so as to allow CSOs to support OVs in their certification work.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "As we have stated in our recent statement on ‘no-deal’ Brexit, it has been estimated that there would be 325% increase in veterinary certification requirements if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, and with these proposals Defra and APHA are preparing for this by increasing the support available for Official Veterinarians. Furthermore the proposal is in line with the concept of a vet-led team, with veterinary surgeons focusing on tasks only vets can do, whilst delegating some tasks to suitably trained and quality-assured members of our teams.
"We appreciate that there were some concerns over the level of education and training required by CSOs and are glad that the APHA has accommodated those views by increasing the level of education to three A-Levels (or equivalent in Scotland) and clarifying the nature of the training required by CSOs.
"By signalling its support for the proposals, RCVS Council has been assured that the integrity and value of the veterinary signature will be upheld and we are glad that we can play a key role in helping the veterinary profession prepare the UK for leaving the EU."
The RCVS position statement on the potential impact of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit scenario is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
David, who is Head of Clinical Intelligence at Vets Now, came in eighth place with 1,756 votes in this year’s RCVS Council elections.
The place was originally offered to Dr Tom Witte, who came in seventh place. However, due to a change in personal circumstances, he decided not to accept.
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "The loss of such a young, talented and respected Council member as Sarah has been difficult to come to terms with and she is greatly missed by her fellow Council members and others amongst the profession.
"It is also important to recognise that the New Year will bring us fresh challenges and opportunities and we will face them best with a full complement of Council members. Therefore, I am delighted that David will be joining Council from January and is able to attend his first Council meeting, which will be held in committee, with us on Thursday 18 January.
"The circumstances under which David will be joining us have been extremely sad, but I am sure he will be an excellent addition to our team and I look forward to working with him."
More information about David Leicester, including his candidate biography and manifesto, can be found in the Council election booklet sent out earlier this year and available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. A video of David talking about what he would bring to RCVS Council can also be found on the College’s YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos
The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of six months for issuing two false horse passports, having found him to have been “consciously dishonest”.
At a hearing which concluded on 15 July, Andrew Dominic Illing, Director of the Chapelfield Veterinary Partnership, Norwich, admitted charges of backdating the passports of two different horses on 1 May 2008, to indicate that they had been vaccinated on 24 April 2008 against equine influenza and equine influenza and tetanus, when he knew that the vaccinations had not been carried out on that date.
The Committee heard that, whilst on a routine visit to a local livery yard on 30 April 2008, a junior veterinary surgeon at the practice, Ms Charlotte Alice Mayers, had been pressured to backdate the equine passports of two horses, owned by Mrs Scriven and Mrs Kippen respectively, because their booster vaccinations had been carried out beyond the 12-month window prescribed by the Horse Racing Authority. Ms Mayers had declined to do so and had brought the passports back to the practice to seek the advice of its Director, Mr Illing.
Ms Mayers explained to Mr Illing, both in a note and in discussion with him, that the boosters had been administered outwith the prescribed period and that she had told the owners that she was not willing to backdate the passports, one of which she had already signed. The DC heard that Mr Illing had told Ms Mayers “not to worry about it” and that he would deal with the situation. It did not surface until the livery yard manager later made a complaint, that Mr Illing had in fact signed the second passport and backdated both to 24 April.
In mitigation, Mr Illing said that he had been under considerable stress at the time, as he had been dealing with a protracted and difficult disciplinary meeting concerning a senior veterinary colleague. As a consequence of this, the Committee heard from Mr Illing’s practice partner that Mr Illing was required to take on more work than he was already performing, which was already 10-15% more than the other three vets in the practice. In addition, Mr Illing had been in a degree of pain at the time, following a knee injury. The Committee also heard evidence from a veterinary surgeon who testified to Mr Illing’s good character; and received many written testimonials.
In reaching its decision, the Committee held the view that: “the public must be able to trust certificates which are signed by members of this profession. If the public cannot trust the authenticity of such certificates, the Committee considers that public confidence in the profession would be undermined, and undermined in a very significant way.” It also cited the obligations of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in terms of the integrity of veterinary certification, and the ‘12 Principles of Certification’, as agreed by the RCVS, the British Veterinary Association and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The Committee considered many factors when making its final decision. It did not accept that stress overbore Mr Illing’s normal way of dealing with certification, particularly where he had had a period of overnight reflection before taking the action that he did. However, it felt that the most troubling feature in his decision to backdate the certificates was that, in advising Ms Mayers on a difficult ethical issue, Mr Illing had “set a disgraceful example and wholly failed to provide her with the support to which she was entitled”. Furthermore, in backdating a certificate that Ms Mayers had already signed, he was putting her integrity at risk.
Alison Bruce, chairing the Committee, commented: “It is only by upholding the importance of each and every certificate issued by a member of the veterinary profession that public confidence in such certificates can be maintained.” She went on to say: “Without significant mitigating circumstances, false certification will result in removal from the Register. In Mr Illing’s case, having regard to all the evidence, both the oral and written testimonials, and taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances detailed above, the Committee has decided to suspend Mr Illing’s name from the Register for a period of six months.”
The organisations made a joint submission to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) as part of its review into the Shortage Occupation List which began in autumn 2018 and will report back in spring 2019.
The BVA and the RCVS had previously made calls for the profession to be added to the list in 2017 when the MAC held a call for evidence on the impact of the UK's exit from the EU on various professions. The latest submission is a development on this previous submission, focused on the need for the post-Brexit immigration system to recognise the issues affecting the veterinary workforce, which is already under-capacity, and reiterating its importance in areas such as public health, food safety, disease surveillance and control, education, research, clinical practice and animal welfare.
The submission details how the demand for veterinary services does not currently match supply and that the UK is therefore reliant on overseas registrants, particularly from the rest of the EU, who currently make up around 50% of new registrants in a given year.
The RCVS and BVA add that, in the post-Brexit immigration system, this reliance on overseas vets needs to be recognised by adding veterinary surgeons to the Shortage Occupation List, thus reducing the immigration requirements needed for overseas veterinary surgeons to live and work in the UK and streamlining the application process for employers.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "We wanted to use this submission as an opportunity to reiterate the circumstances currently facing the profession, particularly in light of the uncertainties around the UK’s exit from the EU and the impact this could have on the supply of veterinary workforce from the rest of the EU, which is crucially important in a number of areas. We need, therefore, for veterinary surgeons to be immediately added back to the list so that we can ensure that this flow of workforce continues and that animal health and welfare is protected.
"In the meantime we are continuing to work with BVA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to look at how we can develop ‘home-grown’ veterinary capacity in the UK through expanding the UK veterinary education sector, increasing retention rates within the profession, and looking at how the veterinary team could be reformed to allow allied professionals, such as veterinary nurses, to take on extra tasks and free up veterinary time. However, these are all long-term projects and not quick fixes to the issues facing the profession."
As well as calling for a future immigration system to prioritise the veterinary profession, RCVS and BVA also recommend that veterinary employers be exempt from the Immigration Skills Charge to avoid additional barriers or burdens to the employment of overseas vets and recommend that there is no minimum earning cap for veterinary surgeons applying for work visas, on the basis that veterinary surgeons are "skilled professionals who may choose to work in the UK for reasons other than remuneration".
Simon Doherty, BVA President, said: "It is in MAC’s gift to reinstate vets on the Shortage Occupation List and this evidence makes a strong case for it to happen as quickly as possible.
"Vets deliver multiple benefits to animal health and welfare, public health and food safety, and they have a crucial role to play in future trade deals and keeping standards and confidence in UK exports high. The profession is also indebted to a high proportion of skilled EU vets who have chosen to make the UK their home and place of work.
"With this in mind, the future immigration system must be geared around preserving veterinary capacity rather than introducing new layers of bureaucracy or restrictions on flexible movement between roles. We have raised concerns that extending the Immigration Skills Charge to EU workers would hit some areas of the workforce disproportionately hard, particularly the abattoir industry where 95 per cent of Official Veterinarians hail from overseas.
"With uncertain times ahead and demand for some veterinary services predicted to spiral after Brexit, it has never been more pressing to take decisive action to safeguard against shortfalls in capacity and give a vital vote of confidence in the veterinary workforce."
To read the full submission, visit https://www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/joint-rcvs-and-bva-submission-to-migration-advisory-committee/
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, considered two charges against Mr Shah.
The first charge alleged that in June 2018 Mr Shah allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised for a castration without having first undertaken a clinical examination.
Then, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, it was alleged that Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.
The charge then alleged that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.
The second charge alleged that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping and communication with clients.
In particular, this related to a reprimand issued in September 2016 by the Disciplinary Committee following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter of 21 March 2018 by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee with regards to circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Shah denied all of the charges.
Nevertheless, the Committee found the following charge one sub-charges proved: that Mr Shah allowed the kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the kitten and/or ensuring that they had undergone a clinical examination by another veterinary surgeon; that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed post-operatively of the details of the said surgery; and that he failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the findings of his examination under anaesthesia, his surgical approach, post-operative communication with the owners and his plan for completion of the castration.
The Committee also found all of charge two proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether or not, in relation to the proved charges, Mr Shah’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of injury to an animal, the contravention of previous advice given by the College, lack of insight, and the previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Mr Shah. The Committee first considered lesser sanctions, including postponement with undertakings and a reprimand and warning. Neither would be sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest and uphold proper standards because Mr Shah had already been given a reprimand and warning in 2016, which appeared, to the Committee, to have had no effect.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Dr Whiting said: "It is clear to the Committee that in this case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of his misconduct.
"In this case, the Committee considers that there is evidence of a harmful deep-seated personal attitude problem so far as the respondent is concerned. His pervasive denial of wrongdoing and lack of insight, in spite of the findings of this Committee, is of grave concern.
"The respondent’s persistent abdication of personal responsibility and accountability for anything that went wrong, coupled with his sustained blaming of the nursing staff with whom he worked, displays an attitude which is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee cannot be confident that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour in the event that suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction and that the respondent is fit to practise after any period of suspension.
"This is particularly due to the fact that Mr Shah has failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS, coupled with multiple previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The Committee has reached this conclusion having regard to the seriousness of its findings in this hearing, and the previous advice and warning given to the respondent, none of which appears to have been recognised or heeded."
The Committee therefore concluded that the only sanction which reflects the seriousness of this case, in the light of the previous findings and advice given to the Mr Shah by the College, is to remove him from the Register.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Committee had found Dr Elefterescu guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to a number of charges which covered issues such as dishonesty, poor record-keeping, and failure to carry out adequate clinical examinations.
The full charges and findings of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held the appeal hearing in October last year with three Justices of the Supreme Court - Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath and Lord Kitchin – comprising the Board.
The basis of the appeal to the Privy Council was that the Committee’s findings on the facts of the case were flawed, with his counsel saying that Dr Elefterescu 'strenuously disputes the findings by the Committee of his dishonesty and lack of professional competence and submits that there is no adequate basis for them in the evidence’.
His counsel also told the Board that the Disciplinary Committee’s sanction failed to take into account mitigating factors and that the decision to remove Dr Elefterescu from the Register was disproportionate.
In relation to the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s findings on the facts, the Board was not persuaded by any of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Elefterescu. These arguments included that the RCVS had failed to call relevant witnesses and had failed to make Dr Elefterescu aware of the significance of some evidential matters, disclosed to him.
In respect of the sanction, the Board was also unpersuaded by the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, namely that it was too harsh in its assessment of aggravating factors, did not give adequate weight to mitigating factors, and that it failed to distinguish lack of competence from misconduct.
In its judgment on the arguments put forward by Dr Elefterescu’s counsel, the Board said: "It is the opinion of the Board that these criticisms are not well founded. The Committee considered with care Dr Elefterescu’s proven and admitted conduct in relation to each of the charges and whether it fell below or far below the standard to be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that a number of the charges which were either admitted or upheld were not the subject of any challenge on this appeal.
"Overall, the Committee found that Dr Elefterescu’s clinical failures were very serious, involved failures in the basics of animal care, resulted in animal suffering and involved widespread breaches of the respondent’s [RCVS] code of professional conduct. It also expressed particular concern about its findings of dishonesty, and rightly so. That conduct was, in its view, ‘at the top end’ of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. What is more, Dr Elefterescu had a lack of insight into his failings and a wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities which constituted an ongoing risk to animal welfare."
"These were findings which the Committee was clearly entitled to make and, in the light of them, the Board is firmly of the view that the decision of the Committee to direct the removal of Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register cannot be impeached. The Board rejects the criticisms made of the Committee’s reasoning and the conclusions to which it came. The direction that Dr Elefterescu’s name must be removed from the Register was appropriate and proportionate."
The Judicial Committee’s full findings can be found at www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2018-0060-judgment.pdf.
Dr Radev faced three charges concerning his treatment of an American Bulldog in 2021.
The first charge, which contained a number of sub-charges, was that he failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the animal.
The second was that he failed to keep adequate records.
The final charge was that his failure to keep records was misleading and dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Radev admitted that, having recognised free fluid in the dog’s abdomen, he failed to take adequate and appropriate action and failed to aspirate the dog’s abdomen with regards to the possibility of it having septic peritonitis.
He also admitted writing the clinical notes approximately two months after the event.
After considering and rejecting an application by the RCVS to amend and withdraw elements of the first charge, the Committee then considered each of the remaining sub-charges in turn.
Sub-charge 1(a) was that Dr Radev repeatedly administered meloxicam to the dog when it had recently undergone intestinal surgery and had a recent history of vomiting.
The Committee found that this was not proven.
Dr Radev said it had been administered just once and the Committee was not satisfied so as to be sure that it was repeatedly administered.
Sub-charge 1(b) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise free fluid in the dog’s abdomen as shown on an ultrasound scan.
The Committee found this not proven.
Sub-charge 1(c) (i) was that Dr Radev failed to recognise the possibility of septic peritonitis in the dog.
Sub-charge 1(e) was that Dr Radev failed to provide a full medical history when referring the dog to a different practice.
The Committee found the charge not proven.
Regarding charge 2 (ii), that Dr Radev had failed to include in clinical records a reference to the colonotomy surgery, the Committee found this charge not proven as it had been provided with clinical records disproving this charge.
Finally, regarding both aspects of charge 3, namely that Dr Radev had acted misleadingly and dishonesty, the Committee found this not proven.
The Committee then considered whether the charges that Dr Radev had admitted amounted to gross misconduct in a professional respect.
In all cases it found that, while Dr Radev’s conduct had fallen below what was expected of veterinary professionals, it did not fall so far below as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
Dr Corsi consulted with Kika's owners about the management of her pregnancy at the end of November 2017, finding at least 4 puppies on an x-ray taken at the time.
The first of five charges against Dr Corsi was that on the 14th December, after being advised by Kika's owners that the dog had produced two live puppies and one dead puppy the previous night, she failed to advise them that Kika needed an immediate veterinary examination.
The second charge was that, having been telephoned for a second time by the owner, she still failed to advise the owners that Kika required an immediate veterinary examination.
The third charge was that, following an examination of Kika that afternoon, and having ascertained that Kika required a caesarean section to remove one undelivered puppy, Dr Corsi failed to perform the caesarean section that day and advised the owner that Kika could undergo the caesarean section (at the practice, performed by her) the next day (or words to the effect).
The charge also stated that she failed to advise the owner that Kika’s health and welfare required the caesarean section to be performed that day; and that she failed to advise them that, if she or another veterinary surgeon at the practice could not perform the surgery that day, Kika needed to be referred to the out-of-hours clinic so that the caesarean section could take place on the 14th December.
The fourth charge was that Dr Corsi failed to recognise that Kika’s health and welfare required a caesarean section to be performed on 14th December.
The fifth charge was that, on 16th December 2017, having been telephoned by the owner at about 5pm and having been informed that Kika was weak and had not been eating post-operatively, Dr Corsi failed to advise the owner that Kika should be presented urgently for a veterinary examination.
The Disciplinary Committee considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the owners of Kika and Dr Corsi, and from Mr Maltman MRCVS who was called as an expert witness on behalf of the College and Mr Chitty, who was called as an expert witness on behalf of Dr Corsi.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee found all aspects of the first and second charges proven in their entirety.
The Committee found the majority of the third charge not proved, with the exception of the fact that it found that Dr Corsi did advise the owner that she could undertake the Caesarean section on 15 December 2017.
In light of the Committee’s findings in respect of the aspects of charge three that were not proved, charge four was also found not proved.
Finally, the Committee considered that charge five was found not proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct either individually and/or cumulatively.
Committee Chair Cerys Jones said: "In light of the evidence of both parties’ experts, the Committee was of the view that there was a risk of harm or injury resulting from Dr Corsi’s failure - the Committee decided that this was an aggravating factor.
"However, the Committee took into account that, at the time of both calls, Dr Corsi had a rationale for her decision, that she asked appropriate questions and received answers which led her to make what she considered to be a reasoned assessment.
"She had also made arrangements in both calls to be kept updated either at a pre-arranged time or sooner if Kika’s condition changed. On this basis, the Committee was satisfied that, while this was an error of judgement, it did not fall so far short of what was expected as to amount to disgraceful conduct."
Therefore, the Committee decided that while Dr Corsi’s conduct in Charges 1 and 2 demonstrated a departure from professional standards, the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The full decision can be read here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS first appeared before the Committee in January 2018 to face a number of charges related to two drink-driving offences, breaching the terms of her undertakings to the College as part of its Health Protocol, and being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016.
Dr Davies admitted all five charges against her and admitted that this meant she was unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
At its first hearing the Committee having considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances decided to postpone the hearing for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into a new set of undertakings, including one not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement.
At the second hearing, in July 2018, the Disciplinary Committee resumed its sanction inquiry decision. Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that Dr Davies wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed her witness statements, documentary proof and medical records that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with the her undertakings given at the last hearing.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Having had the opportunity to see and hear from the respondent when she gave evidence and when she answered the questions put to her, the view formed of her current state of health was favourable. All members of the Committee considered that the account she gave of herself in the witness box was confident and they were reassured by her evidence as to how she now sets about managing her levels of stress and how she reacted to stressful incidents.
"Such concerns as the Committee had about her return to practice concerned her ability to receive support from a third party who would act as a mentor…the Committee therefore requires the Respondent to identify, within a period of one month of today’s date, a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor. That mentor would have to be a veterinary surgeon acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity and that mentor would have to be approved before the Respondent could resume practice.
"A further requirement of the Committee would be that the Respondent should make a disclosure to any new employer of the fact of her appearances before this Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions of the Committee in relation to both such hearings. The final requirement of the Committee in this respect is that the respondent should not accept a 'sole charge position' at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction."
The Committee directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.
Richard was elected to RCVS Council in 2020, having previously served as an elected member from 2008 to 2016.
Over the years, he has also been a significant and valued contributor to VetSurgeon.org, and his insight will be missed.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “We thank Richard for his service to the RCVS over the past year and in his previous terms. We particularly thank him for his contribution to a number of committees he has served on during both his periods on Council including the Disciplinary, Finance & Resources and Preliminary Investigation Committees. We wish him all the best for the future.”
Professor Stephen May has now taken up the remainder of Richard’s term on Council, to July 2024, as he received the next largest amount of votes in the 2020 RCVS Council election.
The first cohort of students started the course in September 2014 and graduated in July 2019 this year. During that time, the College worked with the University to make sure its programme was developed to meet RCVS standards. That included interim visitations by a team of accreditation reviewers and a final accreditation visitation by representatives of the RCVS, the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) and the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC).
After the final visitation, a report was submitted to the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), which then recommended to the Education Committee that the RCVS recognises the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree (subject to satisfactory external examiner reports, which were subsequently received). In turn, the RCVS Council then approved the degree last week.
Dr Sue Paterson, the Chair of the Education Committee, said: "We are very glad to have reached the stage where we can formally welcome the University of Surrey on board as the eighth UK veterinary school to offer an approved degree, and that we will, from now on and pending Privy Council’s approval, be able to welcome its graduates onto the Register as proud members of the RCVS.
"We appreciate the immense hard work of both the faculty and the student body over the past five years in working to meet the College’s stringent accreditation standards and the effort that they have made to address our feedback and advice in a constructive and engaged way.
"When I observed at the final accreditation visit earlier this year I, along with the other visitors, was particularly impressed with the enthusiasm and commitment of the staff, the network of partner veterinary practices and the student body to the school’s ethos and success. We also recognised that, with its unique ‘distributive model’ meaning that students can get direct clinical experience across 49 veterinary practice partners, the students have access to a large and diverse medical and surgical caseload.
"The final report contained a number of further recommendations and we look forward to continuing to work with the school over the next two years to help them meet our recommendations and suggestions."
Professor Chris Proudman, Head of School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, added: "I am delighted that our new degree programme in veterinary medicine and science has been approved by RCVS Council for recognition by the Privy Council.
"This decision recognises the huge investment in veterinary education made by the university and the quality of the education that we offer. It is also validation of our innovative model of delivering clinical teaching through working in partnership with clinical practices and other organisations involved in animal health, which has proven very popular with our students."
“The commitment and enthusiasm of our partners has been truly inspiring and energising. I look forward to Surrey veterinary graduates making valuable contributions to the profession in a variety of ways over the coming years.”
A Recognition Order to recognise the University of Surrey’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) will now be put before the Privy Council and, if it approves the Order, this will then be laid before Parliament. If the Order is approved by both the Privy Council and Parliament, the University of Surrey will then enter the cyclical RCVS accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring.
The executive summary of the final visitation report can be found in the papers for the October 2019 meeting of RCVS Council: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/3-october-2019/. The full report will be published in due course.
Picture shows:(from left to right) Dr Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee; Professor Chris Proudman, Head of School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey; and Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is warning veterinary surgeons to be on their guard after it came to light that a fraudster is charging a £150 'non-refundable application fee' for an RCVS 'internship' which does not exist. Apart from anything else, the RCVS does not offer internships.
Information about the fake internship has been sent to individuals registered with German website http://www.vetcontact.com/. It includes details about the Royal Veterinary College and the RCVS, but is basically fiction. It refers to a made up 'RCVS Hospital' in the 'Flint Hills of London'.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "So far, only a handful of veterinary surgeons - all based overseas - have contacted us regarding the internship and queried the request for a non-refundable 'application' fee, although we are concerned that others may have been caught out.
"We would advise any veterinary surgeon to think twice before paying for a third party to facilitate an application for any placement or internship, and reiterate that the RCVS does not offer any such programmes."
The College is following up the situation with http://www.vetcontact.com/ and, if appropriate, will notify the police. In the meantime, anyone who is concerned that they may have fallen victim to the hoax should contact the RCVS Professional Conduct department on 020 7202 0728.
In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.
Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years.
At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.
The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.
The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."
The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.
She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.
However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.
In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.
In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.
Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.
"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession".
The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.
They include the successful completion of its governance review, the launch of the Graduate Outcomes consultation (the biggest in 20 years) and the Edward Jenner Leadership Programme (a massive open online course to develop leadership skills at all levels of the profession).
The College also highlights the continuation of its Mind Matters Initiative and how the initiative's aim - to encourage a compassionate and empathetic profession - is becoming a central part of the College's core strategy.
The report also covers the work done by the College to explore an outcomes-based approach to continuing professional development (CPD), review Schedule 3 and the Veterinary Surgeons Act, plan for the UK’s exit from the European Union and promote (jointly with the BVA) the benefit of registering with a vet to the public via a social media campaign.
The report includes the College’s independently-audited finances with details of income and expenditure. Whilst the College is not a charity, the accounts have been prepared in accordance with the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice – a framework for charity accounting and reporting, which allows easier comparison with the finances of similar bodies.
The report will be presented for adoption by members of the College at this year’s RCVS Day on Friday 12 July 2019 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The report can be downloaded from the RCVS publications webpage, or contact publications@rcvs.org.uk to request a hard copy.
Specifically, Ms Hodgkinson was alleged to have placed five orders between 1 September 2013 and 1 April 2015:
The medications for charges (i) to (iii) above, were intended for her own personal use, as she had previously at various times been prescribed Codeine, Naproxen and Amitriptyline after being involved in a serious car accident in November 2012, as a result of which she suffered from chronic back pain and other problems.
Charges (iv) and (v) above, were intended for her dog, ‘Minnie’, but the dosages ordered were incorrect. The medications were never removed from the practice or given to Minnie, but were instead returned to the wholesaler.
From the outset Ms Hodgkinson admitted the charges against her, although she believed that other staff at the practice had placed similar personal orders and that she had been given permission to do so as well. Ms Hodgkinson also accepted that the facts amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee accepted Ms Hodgkinson’s admission of the charges and, accordingly, found the charges proved. The question of whether the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct was, however, a matter for the Committee’s judgement, notwithstanding Ms Hodgkinson’s admission.
In reaching its decision, the Committee took into account Ms Hodgkinson’s assertion that she believed she had been given permission to order medication through the practice. She did admit however that she must have been mistaken in that belief. The Committee also took note of the College’s submission that a number of aggravating features were present which amounted to serious professional misconduct, namely: the potential risk posed to animal welfare; Ms Hodgkinson’s ignorance of fundamental legislative provisions; a breach of trust placed in her by virtue of her RVN status; the fact that the misconduct was repeated over a period of time; and a lack of awareness of professional responsibilities at the time of the conduct. The Committee therefore had no hesitation that the conduct did amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then turned to the question of sanction. A number of mitigating factors were put forward in Ms Hodgkinson’s defence including the fact that a period of lengthy suspension or removal from the register would result in her losing an offer of employment, the fact that up to the relevant conduct she had had an unblemished career and the fact that she had made early admissions of guilt and shown insight into her misconduct.
The Committee decided that a period of 10 months’ suspension would be appropriate and proportionate in this case.
Chitra Karve, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The length of the period of suspension…is intended to reflect this Committee’s view, assisted as it has been by the experience and knowledge of a practising RVN and a veterinary surgeon, of the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct in its totality and of the need for the message to go out to all veterinary professionals that the ordering of POMs without the authority of a valid prescription is a most serious instance of misconduct. In such circumstances the personal mitigations that a practitioner might place before a Disciplinary Committee, whilst not immaterial, is inevitably of limited persuasion. And that is what this Committee has concluded in this particular case, having reflected carefully on the mitigation factors placed before it.
"Having weighed the matters of personal mitigation against the fact that a rudimentary knowledge of the governing legislation was effectively all that was required of the Respondent to ensure that the misconduct complained of did not occur, it is the clear view of the Committee that it would be failing in its public duty were it to do anything less than to impose a period of suspension from practice and the least period of suspension that is appropriate in this case is one of ten months. The Committee therefore instructs the Registrar to act accordingly."