At the hearing, Dr Crawford made no admissions to the charges against him which involved allegations of: failing to provide adequate and appropriate care; failing to provide adequate clinical histories to another practice in respect of several animals; failing to treat fellow veterinary professionals and other members of staff from another practice with courtesy and respect; failing to maintain adequate clinical records; failing to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance or equivalent arrangements; and, failing to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS.
Dr Crawford’s representative drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that Mr Crawford was 71 years old, had no previous disciplinary findings against him and had now ceased practising, including closing his practice premises and notifying his previous clients of the closure.
His representative confirmed that Mr Crawford was fully aware that if his application was accepted, he would no longer be able to practise as a veterinary surgeon or identify as a veterinary surgeon. The Committee also noted that the RCVS had consulted with the complainants who were satisfied with the case being disposed of in this way.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having weighed the public interest in a hearing with the registrant’s interests, the Committee determined that this is not a case in which the public interest required there to be a full hearing. Protection of the welfare of animals would also not be further served by a full hearing. The Committee decided to accede to the respondent’s application.
"The Committee considered that the adjournment on undertakings served to protect the public interest, confidence in the profession and the welfare of animals.
"The Committee carefully considered the detail of the undertakings. It decided, after due consideration that it would accept the respondent’s undertakings in the terms offered and signed."
The Committee also heard that if Dr Crawford were to apply to re-join the Register at a future point, then the adjourned case would be re-opened and a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing would be held.
The full documentation for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Royal College has announced the winners of the 2009 RCVS Council and VN Council elections.
This year, a special elections section was set up here on VetSurgeon.org and on VetNurse.co.uk for members to engage directly with candidates in a members forum, or directly using the social networking features on both sites. In the interests of promoting democracy, the sites offered a case of champagne to the voter who started the forum discussion which generated the greatest number of responses. Over the course of the voting period, these sections received over 23,000 page views, 53 questions for candidates, and 650 responses.
Arlo Guthrie, Editor of VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk said: "I think it's great that the candidates agreed to try this. They could have said no, and stuck with the traditional methods of communication (which are more of a known quantity). Instead, they really got stuck in to some interesting and at times lively debate. My sincere thanks to all candidates and congratulations to the winners. And I raise my glass to Phil Elkins, who wins the case of champagne for starting the most active discussion thread, even allowing for the number of times he responded to his own post!"
Voting in the RCVS Council election increased from 17% to 18.2% this year, with 4,041 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,201 casting a vote. The results are as follows:
NUTE, Patricia Jill. 2,467 votes. Elected JINMAN, Peter. 2,346 votes. Elected GRAY, Christopher John. 2,230 votes. Elected DAVIES, Jeremy Vincent. 2,229 votes. Elected VINER, Bradley. 2,123 votes. Elected TUFNELL, Christopher Wynne. 2,088 votes. Elected SWAYNE, Nigel. 1,673 votes. McDOWELL, David Michael. 1,394 votes.LONSDALE, Thomas. 389 votes.
The new Council members are Christopher Gray and Christopher Tufnell, who will officially join Council at RCVS Day on 3 July 2009.
The VN Council elections saw a larger increase in voters, with 912 out of a possible 8,108 VNs casting a vote. This was an 11.2% turnout, up by nearly 25% up on last year. The results were as follows:
JEFFERY, Andrea Karen. 604 votes. Elected GLYSEN, Louise. 332 votes. Elected WILLIAMS, Caroline Mary. 312 votes.IVES, Cheryl Diana. 236 votes.
Louse Glysen is the new VN Council Member (again, officially joining at RCVS Day) and Andrea Jeffery will begin her eighth year, having been the Council's chairman for the past four years.
The competition is open to all UK-based undergraduate veterinary students and offers them the opportunity to work as a team to brainstorm, develop and present an innovative idea to a board of industry professionals.
Students can enter either as a single applicant or as a group (of roughly five members), with single applicants then being placed in a group with other applicants from their university. There can be more than one team representing each university.
Each student’s project can cover any aspect of veterinary health innovation. The RCVS suggests potential projects might include: innovations within veterinary education, innovations to improve sanitation and hygiene, innovations to improve veterinary-public communication and innovations to improve patient safety.
Entries must show how they have improved upon – or extended beyond – current expectations of best practice in their chosen area.
Each applicant will receive support from one of the Association of Veterinary Students’ (AVS) Vet Futures Ambassadors, as well as a mentor session with a chosen industry professional to guide them on their project.
Teams will need to submit three components for judging: a log of their progress throughout the project (which can include social media updates using the hashtag #ViVetStudentInnovation), mentor engagement and feedback, and a five-minute video ‘business pitch’.
The three finalist groups of the competition will be invited to present their pitch to a board of industry professionals at a ‘Dragon’s Den’ style event held at the RCVS ViVet 2019 Innovation Symposium on Tuesday 1 October 2019 in Manchester.
The winning and runner-up groups will then be selected and will be presented alongside the ‘mentor’s choice’ award. The Mentor’s Choice award will be selected by the team mentors. The prize will be awarded to an individual who shows excellence and enthusiasm within their work on the project.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership & Innovation (pictured right), said: "This competition provides a great opportunity for veterinary students to engage with their fellow classmates across different fields of study and to work on projects that could genuinely make a difference to animal health and welfare and the way veterinary services are delivered. Teams will receive one-on-one mentoring and will be guided through the innovation process, developing skills that will be useful throughout their careers. We look forward to seeing the three finalist teams presenting at the RCVS ViVet Innovation Symposium in Manchester on 1 October."
Zoe Skinner, Vet Futures Student Representatives Team Leader, said: “This competition is a great opportunity for veterinary students to receive mentoring from experienced veterinary professionals and form contacts within our profession. It gives students a way to work together as a team and allows them to learn how to produce and develop innovative, problem-solving concepts as well as skills in delivering presentations. These are all important aspects of our career ahead, which will look brilliant on our CV’s.”
ViVet is now accepting registrations for the competition for the 2018/19 academic year. To enter, applicants must submit an online registration form. For further information, email info@vivet.org.uk.
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.
Miss Panait faced the charge that on 3 April 2018, at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, she was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving for which she was sentenced to 10 months in prison, disqualified from driving for 41 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £140.
At the start of the hearing Miss Panait admitted to the charge against her which related to an accident on 15 May 2017 in which, following an attempt to overtake a number of vehicles, she lost control of her car and collided with a vehicle on the other side of the road, causing serious injuries to herself and life-changing injuries to the other driver. The Committee subsequently found this charge to be proved.
The Committee then considered whether the charge found proved made her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In doing so, it took into account the fact that Miss Panait was convicted of a serious crime which resulted in serious harm to another and for which she received a custodial sentence.
The Committee decided that the criminal conviction and the custodial sentence fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In considering her sanction, the Committee heard directly from Miss Panait who attended the hearing having been released from prison on licence.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "After the submissions the respondent spoke directly to the Committee. She was understandably emotional and was remorseful and apologetic. She acknowledged that she had made a mistake and apologised for bringing the profession into disrepute…. To the Committee her sense of personal responsibility or shame was palpable."
The Committee also took into account other aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.
The Committee recognised that it was a serious offence with significant consequences for both the victim and Miss Panait but accepted it was a single isolated incident, that Miss Panait has made efforts to avoid repetition of the incident by undertaking further driving instruction and recognised that she had displayed full insight and remorse. Furthermore, it also considered the many testimonials from colleagues and clients and that she had received significant support from her employers.
Mr Drummond added: "The Committee came to the conclusion that this was one of those exceptionally unfortunate and sad cases where it is appropriate and proportionate to take no further action. The respondent has insight and is deeply remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for what has happened.
"In the circumstances of this case the Committee determined that the public interest has been met by the finding that the respondent’s conviction renders her unfit to practise. The Committee was of the view that to impose any sanction now would be disproportionate."
From now on, accredited General Practices will need to employ at least one Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN), whilst at Veterinary Hospitals all patients should now have a nursing plan in place, and an RVN will need to be on duty at all times.
Other changes to the PSS requirements include:
The full list of changes to the Practice Standards Scheme, together with the new module and award documents, can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSreview.
David Ashcroft leads the team of PSS Assessors responsible for undertaking practice visits and assessing if they meet the required standards. He said: “The changes will come into force later in the year, at the same time as we are planning to return to in-person assessments, and so timings will be subject to government guidance on coronavirus and the easing of lockdown restrictions.
“As the PSS returns to in-person assessments, practices will have the usual three-month period between booking the assessment and the assessment taking place with which to familiarise themselves with the changes and the modules documents relevant to their accreditation.
“If anyone has any questions about the changes then please make sure to contact the Practice Standards Team on pss@rcvs.org.uk and we will be happy to help in any way we can.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a Berkshire-based veterinary surgeon, previously convicted of four offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, should be removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Dr Ohene-Gyan was convicted at Reading Magistrates Court on 13 June 2012 of offences involving causing unnecessary suffering to three dogs and a cat that he had treated whilst working at Woosehill Vets, Wokingham, between February and October 2011. These offences related to failing to provide adequate or appropriate veterinary care or treatment, or failure to investigate and address an animal's poor condition. He was sentenced to 21 weeks' imprisonment concurrently for each offence.
Dr Ohene-Gyan did not attend the one-day Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented, although College records showed that he was aware of the dates of the hearing, and had had opportunity to apply for an adjournment. In the absence of any known good reason for Dr Ohene-Gyan's non-attendance, the Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the hearing go ahead.
In considering whether the Respondent's convictions made him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, the Committee depended on the findings of the District Judge and the remarks she had made when sentencing. "I found as a matter of fact that some of your actions were taken simply to run up a bill for the owners of pets," she had said. "You were in a position of special responsibility, trusted by the owners of the animals to treat them appropriately and to alleviate their suffering. You ignored advice from staff. Several animals were affected by your cruel disregard of their welfare. Some of the cruelty arose due to your incompetence. You have demonstrated that you are not fit to be trusted with the care of animals."
The Disciplinary Committee Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Respondent's actions, motivated by financial gain, caused serious actual injury to the four animals over a prolonged period of time. Clients are entitled to expect that veterinary surgeons will treat animals in their care humanely and with respect, and make animal welfare their first priority. The Committee considers that the care described in the District Judge's findings demonstrated a total disregard for the professional responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon."
The Committee concluded that the removal of Dr Ohene-Gyan's name from the Register was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case in order to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, and it directed the Registrar to do so.
Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.
Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.
The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.
It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.
“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.
"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.
"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.
“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”
He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Eleven members of staff at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are growing moustaches this month in support of the Movember Challenge, a campaign which raises funds to help combat prostate cancer.
Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager and instigator of the College's participation in Movember 2010, said: "Visitors to the College over the next few weeks shouldn't be alarmed if some members of staff begin to resemble a Village People tribute band. I suggested this to the chaps last week, and was delighted so many were willing to look daft for such a good cause."
According to the Movember website, the aim is simple: "One man dies from prostate cancer every day in the UK. Movember challenges men to change their appearance and the face of men's health by growing a moustache. All MoBros should be clean shaven on 1 Movember and then grow a moustache for the entire month. The moustache becomes the ribbon for men's health, the means by which awareness and funds are raised for cancers that affect men."
The RCVS team - 'All 'Taches Great and Small' - comprises at least one member of every department in the College, so whilst the team as a whole will be raising as much money as it can, the College says it expects interdepartmental competition to get "quite hairy".
"In spite of ourselves, reputations are at stake here," admits Simon. "We're a mixed-ability team, so it will be interesting to see who sports the best tache at the end of Movember. This is no trivial hirsute."
Lending his support to the team's efforts, and off to something of a head start in the facial forestry department, is RCVS President Peter Jinman. He said: "I'm impressed that so many of the gents on the staff have taken it upon themselves to support The Prostate Cancer Charity in this way. If it's true that eight out ten chaps really do prefer whiskers, they should raise a decent amount of money."
Anyone wishing to support the All Taches Great & Small team in their bristling endeavours should please visit their fundraising pages (via www.rcvs.org.uk/movember). Donations can be made to individual MoBros, or to the team as a whole.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Miss Oakes had signed a Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Veterinary Surgeons Residential Kennel Inspection Form which indicated that there were 55 greyhounds in the kennel, when there were in fact more; that she had stated that the kennels were in an acceptable condition, when they were in fact not; and that she knew the form was inaccurate and/or was dishonest in relation to what she had indicated on the form.
The kennels in question, Rough Cottage, were owned by Louise Eccles and her husband, Rod Eccles. Mrs Eccles was licensed by GBGB as a trainer, allowing her to train and race greyhounds and making the kennels accountable to inspections by veterinary surgeons.
At the time of the form in question, Miss Oakes had been attending Rough Cottage for about a year-and-a-half on a monthly basis, up through August 2016. At that point, on or around 1 August 2016, Mrs Eccles had left Rough Cottage for personal reasons.
Miss Oakes subsequently visited the premises on 14 August 2016 along with Amanda Gething of Northern Greyhound Rescue, when she learned that rather than there being 55 dogs, there were more than 80.
On 16 August, she and Amanda Gething returned to Rough Cottage with Lucille Cavadino, from Lancky Dogs, a greyhound rescue organisation. They became aware of the existence of kennels on the premises that were not of acceptable standard, but Miss Oakes found that the dogs housed in these kennels were fit and healthy.
Miss Oakes also spoke to Mr Eccles around this time, and although he had plans to rehouse some of the dogs she was concerned that he might change his mind. Miss Oakes took the decision to complete and sign the kennel inspection form that Mr Eccles had handed to her, knowing that the details contained therein were incorrect. She stated that the reason that she did this was to appease Mr Eccles so that he would not hinder the plans to remove and rehouse the dogs. She admitted to the area GBGB Stipendiary Steward that she had signed the form and that it contained incorrect information.
At the beginning of the hearing Miss Oakes admitted all the charges except for the final one, namely that she had been dishonest about what she had indicated on the form. When she gave evidence during the hearing, however, she admitted that she had been dishonest and so all charges were found proved.
The Committee then turned to deciding whether these charges, having been found proven, would result in a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect against Miss Oakes. The Committee considered her motives in signing the form were to try and safeguard animal welfare, but considered that she was misguided in how she chose to achieve that aim. The Committee, therefore, found that signing a form that is known to be misleading or inaccurate is in definite breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, and concluded that her conduct constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When considering a suitable sanction, the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors, including some 62 testimonials that were submitted in favour of Miss Oakes, and the fact that she believed she was acting in the best interests of the animals’ welfare.
Chitra Karve, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "So far as mitigating factors are concerned, the Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s motivation for what she did was governed by her overwhelming wish to promote the health or welfare of the greyhounds at Rough Cottage.
"The Committee is satisfied that no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal occurred in this case. There was no financial gain to the Respondent and the Committee has been told that she charged no fee for her extensive efforts in organising or assisting with the removal and rehousing of the greyhounds from Rough Cottage.
"The Committee considers that this was a single and isolated incident and that the risks of similar behaviour being repeated in the future are low."
Chitra added: "The Committee has decided that it will be sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, for the Respondent to be given a formal warning as to her future conduct."
The College was ranked seventh in the medium-sized company or organisation category (50 to 449 employees) of the Best Workplaces for Women initiative.
This year is the first that the Great Place to Work Institute has run this initiative and, in making its rankings, it looked at a number of factors including the number and proportion of women in leadership positions, pay parity between men and women, workplace policies and how they support female employees, as well as training and development and mentoring.
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "I am delighted that the RCVS has been recognised for being an excellent and supportive place for women to work and pleased that the hard work of the team at Belgravia House in this area has been publicly rewarded in this way.
"One of the key themes of my Presidential year is diversity and I think it is very important that, as a regulator, we reflect the veterinary profession (which is currently 63% female for veterinary surgeons and 98% female for veterinary nurses) as far as possible. With two-thirds of the staff at the RCVS being women it demonstrates that the College is largely reflective of the profession it serves.
"However, it’s not just about the numbers and with 60% of the Senior Team at the RCVS being women, including the CEO and Registrar, it demonstrates that the College has developed a culture in which women can shatter the glass ceiling and pursue leadership roles.
"Also, with policies such as flexible working hours, encouragement of home working, shared parental leave and enhanced maternity and paternity pay, the College goes the extra mile to support working parents."
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.”
Dr Bradley Viner has been invested as the President of the RCVS for 2015/16 at a ceremony held at the Institution of Civil Engineers in Westminster.
Bradley has been an elected member of RCVS Council since 2005 and was Treasurer from 2010 to 2014. During his time on Council he served on a number of committees including both Education and Standards as well as chairing the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice Subcommittee and the now obsolete Planning and Resources Committee.
Having graduating from the Royal Veterinary College in 1978, Bradley established a small animal practice in outer north-west London in 1979 which has now expanded to a group of five practices. Bradley was also among one of the first veterinary surgeons in the UK to achieve a higher award in veterinary general practice upon obtaining an MSc (VetGP) with Middlesex University.
Bradley is well known for his media work, writing for publications such as The Veterinary Times and Your Cat as well as broadcasting, with regular stints as the ‘in-house’ vet for programmes such as The Big Breakfast, Blue Peter and This Morning. He is also a Trustee of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Chair of its Building Committee as well as being Vice-President of International Cat Care.
Bradley highlighted three areas that he considered crucial for his presidential year:
He said: “If I had to pick a theme for my year it would be continual improvement. It is a very easy term to bandy about, but much more difficult to actually implement it efficiently. It involves accepting that there are many different ways we can tackle the challenges we face, and that we rarely do things perfectly. It is only by recognising our imperfections that we can get better, and it takes courage to open oneself up to criticism.
“I think back to my somewhat chequered school reports, which I had to sheepishly take home to my father, and the rather frequent comments that “Bradley could do better”. I think they meant it as criticism, but I would now take it as positive encouragement. The College is doing extremely well. It can continue to improve and become even better. During my year I undertake to do everything in my ability to ensure that it does.”
Upon receiving the chain of office from the outgoing President Professor Stuart Reid, Bradley’s first official duty was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Chris Tufnell saying that he was an ideal person to take on the role and praising his “calm but authoritative manner, and his passion for educational matters from the perspective of a practising vet.”
Bradley praised the outgoing President Professor Stuart Reid as a “hard act to follow” – particularly in light of him running this year’s London Marathon. Professor Reid then took up the position of Senior Vice-President, replacing Colonel Neil Smith.
The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.
One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system.
Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live:
Other proposed changes include:
The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.
Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.
“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.
"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.
“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.
"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.
“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.
"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.
“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”
Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.
“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.
“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”
The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.
The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.
The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/
The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has clarified the legal position regarding the disbudding of goats, following recent media reports concerning undercover filming on UK goat farms.
The carrying out of any activity which amounts to veterinary surgery is restricted to veterinary surgeons unless there is a suitable exemption that allows other people to do it. The removal of the horn-bud of goats (disbudding) is considered veterinary surgery under the provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the Act).
Schedule 3 of the Act provides certain exemptions to the restriction on carrying out veterinary surgery, such as those allowing veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses to undertake any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) in certain circumstances. However, Schedule 3 specifically provides that these exemptions do not allow non-veterinary surgeons to undertake the disbudding of goats, except the trimming of the insensitive tip of an in-growing horn which, if left untreated, could cause pain or distress.
There are no other Exemption Orders covering the disbudding of goats and therefore this procedure may only be undertaken by veterinary surgeons.
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2007 and the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 all include disbudding of goats as a procedure which can be carried out for non-therapeutic reasons. However, this secondary legislation is subject to the restrictions in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and therefore disbudding of goats is restricted to veterinary surgeons.The Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures By Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 currently include disbudding of goats as a procedure which may be carried out by non-veterinary surgeons. However, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 applies to Northern Ireland and the Regulations are scheduled to be amended later in 2012. This will make it clear that only veterinary surgeons may disbud goats in the UK.
The secondary legislation in the UK does not explicitly require anaesthetic to be administered when disbudding goats. However, disbudding should be carried out by veterinary surgeons in accordance with good practice and in such a way as to minimise pain and suffering caused to the animal, which should include use of an anaesthetic.
In summary, only a veterinary surgeon may undertake the disbudding of goats and due to the nature of the procedure, veterinary surgeons disbudding goats should administer anaesthetic.
The RCVS Operational Board has announced that it will ask Council to review its decision to remove postgraduate postnominals from the Register, following the largely negative response from the profession to the idea, including a petition from Derbyshire surgeon, Victoria Lilley.
The original decision was made by Council in June 2012 as part of a package of measures aimed at developing clarity around postgraduate skills and knowledge.
The College says that the removal of postgraduate postnominals from the Register was intended to help dispel confusion amongst the public and some members of the profession about the level of various qualifications, by introducing the Advanced Practitioner status alongside the existing Specialist list.
Chairman of the Operational Board, CEO Nick Stace, said: "Over the last few days we have listened to the disquiet amongst the profession - which has included direct contact with staff and Operational Board members, a petition and discussion on fora and social media - and feel that we should address some misunderstandings but also give Council the opportunity to review the decision at its 5 June meeting.
"Many good points have been made by members of the profession and I am pleased that the Operational Board has agreed to reflect on them and consider whether there is a better way to achieve the clarity we were seeking for the public and the profession.
"The introduction of Advanced Practitioner status is a positive move for both the profession and the public, and underlines the College's commitment to lifelong learning.
"It is important to have the profession's support for the direction we are taking in advancing standards across the sector."
The College has also provided some Q&A's concerning the original decision made by Council in 2012, as follows.
Written in association with Dr Elinor O’Connor, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Psychology at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, the guide is designed for anyone with an interest in the wellbeing of the veterinary team. It provides practical advice to veterinary workplaces on managing stress and promoting wellbeing, alongside examples from the three winning practices of the 2016 MMI/SPVS Wellbeing Awards.
Elinor said: "Addressing stress in veterinary work not only has benefits for the health and wellbeing of each person in the veterinary team, but the business case for reducing work-related stress is clear; stress is associated with poorer performance, increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover. The wellbeing guide provides information about proven techniques for reducing stress at work combined with suggestions for how they might be applied in veterinary workplaces."
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO and Mind Matters Director, said: "Stress at work is an important issue right across the veterinary team. It is sometimes considered just an acceptable part of working in an environment that can be difficult to control, but things can change.
"By making wellbeing a priority practices can support individuals and help their team work better together, and thus provide the best treatment for the animals under their care. This leaflet unpacks some of the root causes of work-related stress and may be of particular interest to practice managers, line managers or health and safety officers."
Good to see that the guide includes a recommendation that practices have measures in place to identify and resolve conflict at work and a clear policy on harassment or bullying, something which research by VetSurgeon.org, VetNurse.co.uk and ex-BSAVA Head of Scientific Policy, Sally Everitt MRCVS found correlated with reduced reports of sustained unpleasant behaviour in practice, a significant source of stress.
The guide can be downloaded here: https://www.vetmindmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MMI-12pp-web.pdf.
The RCVS has announced the steps it will be taking in response to the Standards Committee's review of 24/7 emergency care.
Whilst the College has stopped short of making home visits entirely discretionary, it has confirmed that with regards to 24/7 emergency care overall:
This follows RCVS Council's agreement in principle on recommendations that flowed from the Standards Committee's comprehensive review of 24/7 emergency care. The review was triggered by a number of issues, including the profession's response to the Chikosi Disciplinary Hearing of June 2013.
The College says the recommendations were developed out of a detailed process of evidence gathering, which included 656 pages of views submitted to the College, 2,801 signatures to a petition on home visits, a three-day select-committee-style hearing where representatives from 15 organisations and a further 10 individuals gave their views, a snapshot of responses from 1,062 vets taking part in the RCVS Survey of the Professions, and an online survey of 1,250 animal owners.
Council praised the work, which had been carried out under the guidance of Standards Committee Chair Clare Tapsfield-Wright, and agreed that draft changes to the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct should be refined and agreed by the Standards Committee and published over the next couple of months.
Clare said: "This process was not carried out as a typical consultation, with proposals being issued for consideration: we really wanted to be open to the views of the profession and the public from the start.
"We found that the profession did not wish to remove the 24/7 requirement, but there was a lot of frustration and concern, particularly around safety, home visits, who should be seen, outsourcing and contingency planning.
"The Standards Committee looked in detail at all of these issues and I am delighted to have Council's support for the general direction of our proposals. We will now review some changes to the wording of the new guidance, to improve clarity, and publish it as soon as possible."
President Neil Smith said: "I am delighted with the way this process has been carried out. No doubt the outcome will not please everyone, but these changes are based on robust evidence.
"The approach taken by the Standards Committee forms a useful model that could be adapted to address other such issues that we may face in the future."
The presentation given to Council on 5 June can be downloaded from the RCVS website at https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/council-agrees-new-emphasis-for-24-7-guidance/ .
Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.
Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).
Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."
Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.
Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.
Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.
Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns.
The College highlights the following key changes:
The RCVS says the new corporate look is designed to be fresh, uncluttered and professional, and the new RCVS logo and strapline - "setting veterinary standards" - should leave visitors in no doubt as to the key purpose of the RCVS as a regulatory body. And whilst the new identity is modern in feel, the use of a shield device aims to maintain the link with the College's long history.
According to the College, the new brand was described by the veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who helped to develop it as "simple, clear and clean, with a strong message" and "modern and approachable".
President Peter Jinman said: "The College has been accused of being 'confused and confusing' in the past. With the new identity we have endeavoured to clarify that the College is a forward-thinking regulator - despite being established when Queen Victoria was only recently on the throne, and working to 45-year-old legislation.
"Changing the logo, font and colours we use is only a small part of the process though. Our branding review included several layers of research and we now have a better understanding of how we have been perceived, how we would like to be perceived, and what we need to do to get there. This includes changing how we behave and communicate as an organisation, as well as how we position ourselves to the outside world."
The new look, which includes new logos for RCVS Awards, the RCVS Charitable Trust and the Practice Standards Scheme, will be rolled out across other communications elements as the year unfolds, to avoid the unnecessary wastage of materials branded with the old identity.
Meanwhile, the website is a living medium, and the College says it is keen to hear feedback from users about what they like, and what could be improved, to help inform further developments.
The Practice Standards Group, which comprises representatives from all of the key veterinary and veterinary nursing organisations, has updated the standards of the Practice Standards Scheme and a draft of the new Manual is now available for comment.
The Scheme is a voluntary accreditation programme that aims to promote and maintain high standards of facilities and care within UK veterinary practices. When it was launched in 2005, a commitment was made that the standards would not change for five years, unless new legislation (such as the Veterinary Medicines Regulations) required it. Following a detailed review of the standards, to ensure they continue to be relevant to current veterinary practice, proposals have been made by the Group for new standards to be implemented during 2010.
Jill Nute, Chairman of the Practice Standards Group said: "It is unlikely that any already-accredited practices will be required to invest in additional facilities or equipment to meet the new standards.
"Instead, greater emphasis has been placed on clinical outcomes and training. For example, performance review has been introduced for all clinical staff, including the Professional Development Phase for new graduates. We are keen to hear feedback on the proposed new standards."
One recommendation is that the 'tiers' should be dropped. The categories will retain their descriptive names, for example, Small Animal General Practice or Equine Veterinary Hospital. Feedback suggests that clients, and the profession, found the tiers to be misleading.
The layout of the Manual has been revamped, to include guidance that was previously available online. Guidance for each relevant standard can now be seen at a glance. There is also an icon to indicate if documentary evidence will be required by the inspector. In addition, the new format clarifies the derivation of each standard, so that legislative requirements are distinguished from those required under the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and those indicated by better practice.
Membership of the Scheme continues to grow, with 126 applications to join the Scheme in the first six months of this year, representing 264 premises, compared with 61 applications in the whole of last year. There are currently 2,351 practice premises under the ambit of the Scheme - approximately 50%.
The draft new Manual is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations.
Hard copies are available from Eleanor Ferguson, Practice Standards Scheme Manager: e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0720.
The deadline for comments is 31 August 2009. Responses will be considered by the Practice Standards Group at its September meeting and thereafter by Council in November.
Mr Chalkley faced three charges against him. The first was that he failed to identify some or all of the animals tested with Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests at the farm.
The second charge was that Mr Chalkley had certified that he had carried out ICT tests on 279 animals at the farm and recorded the results on the accompanying paperwork but had, in fact, not adequately identified some or all of the 279 animals and had fabricated the skin thickness measurements recorded for some of them.
In addition, the charge alleged that Mr Chalkley’s conduct was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
The third charge was that between June 2011 and September 2018, Mr Chalkley received payment of approximately £20,000 for ICT tests when, as a result of his conduct in relation to ICT tests at the farm, he was not entitled to such payment.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Chalkley admitted the first charge, that he had not adequately identified some of the animals.
On the third day of the hearing, during his evidence to the Committee, he admitted that his certification of the ICT testing was therefore misleading.
He denied the rest of the charges including that his conduct had been dishonest and that it had risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health.
In considering the charges against Mr Chalkley, the Committee heard that discrepancies regarding the tests that were carried out on the farm in March 2018 were originally raised by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), on whose behalf Mr Chalkley carried out ICT testing in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian.
When Mr Chalkley gave evidence during the hearing, he explained that he had taken over TB testing for the farm in 2008 and that working conditions on the farm had been difficult throughout the whole period 2008 to 2018. He stated that due to the harsh weather conditions of early 2018, TB testing was difficult, and that the farmer needed to complete the test by March 2018 to avoid a financial penalty.
Mr Chalkley explained that one of the reasons for there being limited time available for him to carry out the test within the time required by the farmer was that he was due to provide veterinary cover at the Cheltenham races the following week and he was unable to find anyone else to cover the tests. Mr Chalkley also explained that during the tests on 5 and 8 March there had been limited farmhands available to assist in processing the cattle through the tests.
In the course of being asked questions by counsel for the RCVS, Mr Chalkley accepted that he had failed to identify some 45% of the animals he had injected on 5 March 2018 and had, in respect of each of the skin thickness measurements for those animals, randomly chosen a figure that he believed would be appropriate based on the breed, age and sex of the animal.
The APHA guidelines state that specific measurements should be made and recorded for each individual animal using callipers. Mr Chalkley said that he could not remember seeing the “pop-up” declaration which appeared when submitting the results to the APHA online and had never read it. He stated that he was not aware that he was making a declaration. However, he accepted that as an Official Veterinarian he was confirming that he had carried out the test properly. While he agreed that he knew that the test contained inaccuracies, he did not accept that he was being dishonest when he submitted the results.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by the RCVS and Mr Chalkley in his own defence, the Committee found that Mr Chalkley had acted dishonestly in deliberately choosing not to take the measurements on 5 March and had instead submitted fabricated alternatives, and so risked undermining public health by failing to carry out his duties as an OV.
The Committee also concluded that Mr Chalkley had been acting dishonestly, as he knew that he was submitting the test results as if they were the authentic outcome of a properly conducted test when in reality, they were no such thing.
The Committee did not accept Mr Chalkley’s evidence that he was unaware of the declaration which accompanied the submission of the test outcome. The Committee therefore found both the first and second charges proved.
In respect of the third charge the Committee found that this was not proven noting that the RCVS had not disproved Mr Chalkley’s explanation regarding his reasons for returning the £20,000 in fees he had received for carrying out TB testing at the farm from the APHA since 2011.
The Committee then considered whether the first two charges, both of which had been found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was prepared to accept that the respondent considered the risk arising from his actions as negligible. Nonetheless, in the Committee’s assessment a real risk existed due to the respondent’s actions and it was precisely the risk which the authorised testing procedure was designed to negate. The simple fact is the respondent could not be sure that each animal he assessed on 8 March 2018 had also been seen by him on 5 March 2018.
“However, the wider point with which the Committee was concerned related to the importance of any member of the profession or public being able to rely absolutely on the integrity of veterinary certification. Those parts of the Code and supporting guidance [concerning certification]… were unequivocal. It was very difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it could ever be justifiable to certify the outcome of a test which had not, in fact, been conducted in a way which was demonstrably valid and reliable. Such conduct was bound to be regarded as disgraceful by members of the profession and the general public.
“Honesty is the bedrock of appropriate certification and the Code and Guidance for the Disciplinary Committee is also unequivocal. Dishonesty in professional practice is always an extremely serious matter and the respondent’s responsibilities in the discharge of his functions as an Official Veterinarian were clear. On this occasion those responsibilities had been compromised.
“For these reasons, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the respondent’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Chalkley.
The Committee heard oral evidence in mitigation, including from a former colleague who had worked with him in practice since 2006, as well as receiving a large number of written testimonials from various sources that attested to his honesty, integrity, willingness to help others, and charitable work in support of animal welfare.
Mr Chalkley’s counsel, in mitigation, highlighted his long and previously unblemished career, and characterised the conduct as an inexcusable but explicable error of judgement that was entirely isolated and out-of-character. Mr Chalkley’s counsel added that he had not done anything that he thought was seriously wrong, and there was no evidence that any harm had been done and that any risk to public health was not serious.
The Committee accepted that the conduct was isolated and out-of-character and that, furthermore, Mr Chalkley had made early and frank admissions to the APHA and that he had displayed a degree of insight, although the Committee was less confident that he truly understood the seriousness of the potential consequences of his dishonest conduct.
The Committee took into account the aggravating factors, including Mr Chalkley’s breach of trust of his position as an OV, the undermining of the integrity of veterinary certification, dishonesty and the potential public health impacts of his conduct.
Ian Arundale added: “The Committee considered that, having regard to the mitigating features which it had identified, a suspension order would be sufficient to send to the profession and the public a clear signal about the importance to be attached to accurate certification. The Committee considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, a period of three months suspension would be sufficient to achieve this objective.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Kellie Price, a Kent-based Registered Veterinary Nurse has been suspended from the Register for nine months by the RCVS RVN Disciplinary Committee after she admitted dishonestly creating four prescriptions, one of which was then fraudulently presented to a pharmacy.
The Committee heard that in January 2013, Miss Price, who did not attend the hearing and had no representation, had dishonestly created a prescription for two inhalers while working at a veterinary practice in Kent.
This prescription had been written and signed in the name of a locum veterinary surgeon, Cristiana Tudini MRCVS, without her knowledge or consent. The false prescription was subsequently presented to a pharmacy for dispensing.
In addition, in March 2013, Miss Price dishonestly created a further three prescriptions - one of which was written in the name of her colleague Cormac Higgins MRCVS, and two written in the name of Cristiana Tudini MRCVS without either's knowledge or consent. All four false prescriptions had been made out for Miss Price's Jack Russell terrier.
Upon discovering the false prescriptions, Mr Higgins asked Miss Price for an explanation and subsequently suspended her from her position pending further investigation. However, after being interviewed by Mr Higgins, she resigned before any in-house disciplinary hearing could take place. The allegations were then reported to both the RCVS and the police, the latter giving Miss Price a formal caution in respect of the false prescription made in January 2013.
In considering Miss Price's sanction, the RVN Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors. In mitigation, it accepted Miss Price's explanation that, in the early hours of 6 January, she had suffered an asthma attack and that she had created the false prescription at work in a panic after realising her inhaler was empty and fearing a further asthma attack. The Committee also took into account a witness statement from Cormac Higgins MRCVS which described her as a "great nurse" and "good with patients and clients".
However, the Committee also considered aggravating factors including Miss Price's dishonesty and the fact that she then made further false prescriptions in March, although these were not then presented to a pharmacy.
Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired the RVN Disciplinary Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee is... satisfied that the admitted dishonesty amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect [and] is satisfied that the respondent's conduct fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a registered veterinary nurse."
On deciding the sanction she added: "Taking into account all of the circumstances, the Committee has concluded that the suspension of the Respondent's name from the Register for a period of nine months is the proportionate sanction in this case."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Kent veterinary surgeon from the Register for eight months after he was found guilty of dishonest certification.
At the outset of the hearing held on 14/15 December, Takeshi Okano, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Deal, Kent, admitted charges that, whilst acting as Official Veterinarian, he had signed a number of certificates when he knew that did not have all the information needed to do so.
On 23 June 2009, Mr Okano had been asked to act as Official Veterinarian to examine four horses and sign the certificates necessary for their export to the USA. The certificates required Mr Okano to certify he had received a written declaration from the owners that the animals had been in the UK for 60 days previously. Mr Okano also signed certificates indicating that the horses had only been in France, Ireland, or the UK for the same 60-day period. Despite having received no such declarations, and having no information whatsoever of where the horses had been, Mr Okano signed the certificates. At the hearing, no explanation for Mr Okano's actions was offered.
Mrs Beverley Cottrell, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The validity of any certificate is an integral part of the system relating to the export or import of animals. At Section G of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, emphasis is given to the importance of certification, the importance of the signature and the guidance issued by DEFRA. These provisions are well known to the profession."
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Okano's actions in signing the certificates without the owners' declarations amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. In reaching a decision on sanction, it considered that, whilst a reprimand or warning would not be appropriate, neither would removing Mr Okano's name from the Register be proportionate, or necessary either in the public interest or to protect animals.
"Mr Okano is a young veterinary surgeon at the start of his career, who from the outset admitted his actions," said Mrs Cottrell noting that the testimonials from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and clients, and his record of Continuing Professional Development demonstrated his commitment to high standards within the profession. "In reaching this decision, we have paid particular regard to the fact the false certification was neither persistent nor concealed, nor was he a senior veterinary surgeon."
The Committee directed Mr Okano's name be suspended from the Register for eight months.
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings