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 Veterinary Workforce Summit was held last November, when 80 stakeholders from independent and corporate practices, veterinary schools, charities, government, the food hygiene sector, species associations and industry bodies came together to look at how the profession could address the workforce crisis.
Prior to the Summit, preliminary research was carried out to assess the profession's views on the workforce crisis and how it was affecting them.
Based on findings from the preliminary research, six themes around the issue of workforce shortages were identified and used to structure the discussions of the day.
These were: readiness for work; work-life balance; workplace culture; client interactions; career development; and return to work.
The day was opened by Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, who focused on the issues underpinning the workforce crisis:
Later in the day, delegates were divided into groups and asked to develop ideas and pitch a solution to a problem the sector is facing.
Some of the solutions that the professions might use to address the key workforce issues which came out of the pitches included:
Kate Richards, RCVS President, said: “Although the issues affecting the UK veterinary sector aren’t new, they have been exacerbated over the past few years by factors outside of the sector’s control.
"We know that putting in place solutions to address and solve the issues that the veterinary sector is facing will take time.
"We want to reiterate that the Summit was the first, albeit an incredibly important, first step in co-creating innovative solutions to workforce shortages.
"I look forward to working collaboratively with our veterinary colleagues from across the professions to bring the workforce action plan to life and work on the solutions that come out of it.”
The RCVS says the next steps from the Summit are to consider the feasibility of the suggested solutions and integrate those that seem likely to deliver effective results into an action plan, alongside other activities that are already underway.
The College says it is open to hearing additional ideas for the professions and encourages anyone who has suggestions to get in touch with Sophie Rogers, ViVet Manager, on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk
The full Workforce Summit report can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
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 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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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/
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order and for a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.
The restoration hearing on 20th May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s seventh application for restoration. Previous applications had been heard but refused in July 1995, June 2010, February 2015, March 2016, May 2017 and April 2018. However, as the Committee makes its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its current decision.
The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr Seymour-Hamilton and were shown clear bottles with liquid, a container with tablets and petri dishes with grown cultures as detailed documentary evidence. In respect of any concerns regarding keeping his veterinary practice up-to-date, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that “you never lose that skill” and explained that he kept up-to-date through extensive reading and conversations with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
However, the Committee had significant concerns as to his fitness to practise safely as a veterinary surgeon for a number of reasons, including that nearly 25 years had passed since he was last in practice and that there was little, if any, evidence of him keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills required to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The applicant worryingly did not accept that he was in any way deskilled by the passage of time. The evidence that the applicant has provided showed limited interaction with other veterinary surgeons and there is no documented evidence of the discussions or structure of the meetings he had with veterinary surgeons in Europe.
"There is no evidence of a prolonged and intense period of re-training by way of relevant study to demonstrate that a sufficient level of competence to return to practise has been achieved. In the absence of such evidence the Committee was of the view that there would be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if the applicant was restored to the Register.
"Further, it was a grave concern to this Committee that the applicant demonstrated worrying attitudinal issues towards individuals of a different religion and his attitude to employing a minor when he knew it to be against the law. Such attitudes are incompatible with professional standards the public would expect of a veterinary surgeon."
Finally, with no evidence of public support for the applicant, the Committee concluded that the application for restoration should be refused.
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."
Dr Kalisz faced a total of nine charges (including 41 sub-charges).
The first was that in July 2020, she failed to carry out a clinical examination of the dog, failed to adequately interpret test results, failed to ask for help interpreting the results, and undertook an emergency Caesarean section without sufficient need to do so.
The other charges related to undertaking a colotomy without sufficient justification and without exercising sufficient clinical judgment throughout the procedure.
For both the Caesarean section and the colotomy, Dr Kalisz faced charges that she failed to obtain informed consent from the owners and failed to inform them that the colotomy had been carried out, or of the potential risks of the procedure, and also failed to provide enough information about aftercare.
It was also alleged that Dr Kalisz had demonstrated continual lapses in professional judgement, including failing to appropriately manage the spaniel’s worsening condition when it was presented to the practice again later, and that the clinical records in relation to the surgery were dishonest and/or misleading.
Dr Kalisz admitted serious professional misconduct, admitting to 29 of the sub-charges, while the remaining 12 sub-charges were denied.
The Committee found 30 of the sub-charges proven, with the remaining 11 not proven.
The Committee the considered aggravating factors, including the fact that Dr Kalisz's conduct led to the spaniel’s death, the colotomy was reckless and Dr Kalisz did not take steps to inform anybody or make a clinical record for the colotomy.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that it was single and isolated incident (albeit one that spanned a number of days), that no other members of the clinical team involved raised concerns during the procedure, and the effect Covid had upon the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that of those charges proven, the ones relating to performing the colotomy, failing to manage the spaniel’s subsequent care and failing to mention the colotomy amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding the sanction, the Committee took into account the mitigation submitted on behalf of Dr Kalisz and the written testimonials produced including the fact that she was young and inexperienced, had admitted her failings at an early stage, had made subsequent efforts to avoid a repetition of such behaviour and that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident.
The Committee also considered that Dr Kalisz had shown an exemplary level of insight, showing remorse for her actions, undertaking substantial continuing professional development, and finding appropriate ongoing professional mentorship.
The Committee was impressed by the character testimonials from veterinary co-workers, both current and at the time of these events, as well as from clients.
It was, the Committee said, apparent from those testimonials that Dr Kalisz had been open and honest with them about the charges and was considered to be an excellent, committed veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved serious lapses of clinical judgement.
"It was therefore concluded that, despite Dr Kalisz’s actions being reckless, the extensive mitigation and the high level of insight, coupled with steps taken to avoid repetition, meant that there was negligible future risk to animal welfare.
“The Committee did not consider it necessary to issue a warning to Dr Kalisz about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is little risk of repetition, so considered that a reprimand would be an appropriate sanction in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
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.
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.
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.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Samuel had been removed from the Register in 2018 for causing unnecessary harm to numerous animals.
After being tried and convicted of several animal welfare offences alongside his former partner at Leeds Magistrates Court, Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12-months on the condition that he did 150 hours of unpaid work.
He was also ordered to pay a £100 fine and subjected to a disqualification order under the Animal Welfare Act for three years.
Mr Samuel’s application for restoration was based on the facts that he accepted the seriousness of his actions and that he did not challenge the DC’s 2018 decision.
The Committee also heard evidence that since his removal from the Register, Mr Samuel - who had run a first opinion veterinary practice for nine years prior to being struck off - has undertaken 340 hours of work experience with other veterinary surgeons and 20 hours of CPD.
Dr Samuel was represented by Counsel who outlined in his submissions to the Committee how Dr Samuel’s former partner had sole responsibility for the animals and that she was involved in rehoming dogs and cats and that their relationship was ‘stressful’, that this made Dr Samuel neglect his professional obligations, and that Dr Samuel was now in a different relationship and his life had been ‘transformed’ since his conviction.
The College opposed Dr Samuel being restored to the Register.
Ms Curtis, Counsel on behalf of the College, submitted to the Committee that Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to the welfare of animals and that to allow him to be restored to the Register would undermine public confidence in the profession.
She explained that even though his sentence and Animal Welfare Act Disqualification Order had come to an end, and he was now legally able to own animals, this should not be equated with him now being fit to return to the Register.
Dr Austin Kirwan MRCVS, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Where a veterinary surgeon has shown himself to be capable of such indifference to the welfare of multiple animals, there remained, in the Committee’s view, a real risk of that indifference manifesting itself again.
"A registered veterinary surgeon is entrusted with the care of animals, often when they are at their most vulnerable, and sometimes for prolonged periods of time.
"Given the nature of the animal welfare offences committed by Dr Samuel, the Committee considered there would be a real and significant risk to animals if the high level of responsibility and trust that comes with registration were returned to him.
“For a veterinary surgeon, conduct involving neglect of animals is at the highest end of the spectrum of serious professional misconduct.
"For the reasons outlined above, the Committee considered Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to animal welfare and thus allowing him to be restored to the Register would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession.
"For all these reasons the application to restore Dr Samuel to the Register is refused.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
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 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.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion hospice care, and whether it it will become mainstream in veterinary medicine.
This month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Kath Dyson, a former veterinary surgeon who qualified from Glasgow in 1989, writes that veterinary palliative care, while a relatively recent phenomenon, has been growing in stature, particularly in the United States, with symposia and conferences on the subject as well as webinars and chapters in text books.
She notes the increasing number of UK vets offering hospice care, highlighting the differences between palliative services offered in human and veterinary medicine as well as debates within the profession over the advantages and disadvantages of palliative care versus euthanasia.
She said: "In animal hospice it is the pet's owner who takes on all the financial, practical and emotional costs involved, whereas human patients have a lot more support available. Euthanasia is always an option in veterinary medicine, and indeed euthanasia of an animal can legally be carried out by anyone, so long as it is done humanely."
On the euthanasia debate she adds: "Some regard euthanasia as more of a last resort, with hospice assisted natural death being seen as more preferable and only a minority of patients requiring euthanasia. Others feel that euthanasia is more often likely to be the preferable outcome of a period of hospice care in the animal patient, even though they do not rule out a natural death."
Overall she argues that additional expertise from veterinary surgeons in end of life care will help the profession be "even better able to provide truly lifelong care to all their animal patients".
To accompany Kath Dyson's article, this month's poll asks if hospice care will become a standard part of practice.
Last month's poll asked if vets are given adequate information, guidance and support on ethnic and cultural diversity in relation to a blog written by a British Asian vet about prejudice he encountered from a client. The vast majority (90%) of the 118 people who responded to the poll thought that the profession was lacking in support when it came to diversity. Diversity in the profession and how to increase it has been a key topic identified by the project and it will be one of the issues addressed in the final Vet Futures Report published later this year.
To take part in this month's poll and to read and comment on Kathy Dyson's blog visit www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss
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