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.
Following the outcry from the profession over the disciplinary hearing into Mr M Chikosi, the RCVS' new Operational Board has clarified the the College's position on the use of blankets to move animals.
The hearing found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.
As a result, the Disciplinary Committee directed that Mr Chikosi's name be removed from the Register for serious professional misconduct. The College says that since the appeal window has closed without an appeal being made, Mr Chikosi has now been struck off.
However, the Committee also said: "... his [Mr Chikosi's] advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back."
This was widely criticised as being out of touch with the practicalities of real life and unsupported by any evidence.
Speaking on behalf of the Board, President Neil Smith said: "We fully support the decision taken by the independent Disciplinary Committee with regard to the Chikosi hearing, with one comment requiring clarification: the issue of whether a blanket can be used to move an injured dog. We consider that it is acceptable, in most cases, to transport an injured dog with the aid of a blanket.
"The profession should be reassured that our Standards Committee [the new name for Advisory Committee] will consider the general issues raised by the Chikosi hearing at its next meeting. This will not be a review of the decision, but form part of the routine consideration of DC hearings made by the Committee to see if they raise issues that require additional guidance and advice."
Mr Ng faced seven charges:
Mr Ng admitted some aspects of the charges against him, including that he had deleted two patient records and that this was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee then determined the facts of the rest of the charges after hearing evidence from witnesses and Mr Ng himself, as well as expert witnesses.
Having considered all the evidence, it determined which elements of the charges were proved, and which were not.
The Committee then considered whether the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it considered that the charges against Mr Ng fell into three broad categories – deficiencies in clinical care, deficiencies in record keeping, and dishonesty.
In respect of all three, it found the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct had directly caused harm to animals and also created risk of further harm, and noted that there were three instances of dishonesty.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that there were three instances of dishonest behaviour in relation to clinical records.
"The amendment of the clinical record in the labradoodle’s case was particularly serious.
"This alteration was made at a time when the respondent knew that the owner was dissatisfied with the treatment the dog had received and was complaining about the lack of therapeutic intervention.
"The alteration presented a false account of the owner’s attitude towards immediate therapeutic intervention.
"Conduct of this kind was liable to damage trust in the profession.”
In mitigation, the Committee took into account the sense of pressure Mr Ng felt following a financial dispute with his relative in respect of the veterinary practice, his long career as a veterinary surgeon and the high regard with which he was held by those who provided testimonials on his behalf.
The Committee acknowledged Mr Ng’s assertions that he now understood his failings and his expressions of remorse for the harm he had caused and that these indicated the beginnings of insight.
However, in respect of the clinical deficiencies, the Committee found that various aspects of Mr Ng’s approach to treating conditions such as diabetes and cherry eye were inadequate and out-of-date, and that there was little in his continuing professional development (CPD) record or his statements to suggest he had attempted to improve these deficiencies.
Ultimately, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct was so serious that removal from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee has concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"In view of the nature and gravity of the Committee’s findings in this case, removal from the Register is necessary to ensure the protection of animals and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
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.
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).
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
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
The project, which is funded by the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative, is designed to find out about current attitudes, beliefs, and alcohol use behaviours of those working in clinical settings within the UK veterinary sector.
Researchers Dr Jennifer Seddon, Olivia Cormier MRCVS, and Dr Emma Davies, from Oxford Brookes University are inviting people aged 18 and over who are working in the UK veterinary sector, including vets, veterinary nurses, practice managers, veterinary care assistants, receptionists, and those undertaking other in-practice roles, who currently drink or have drunk alcohol in the past three months to take part in an online survey which takes no more than 15 minutes.
Olivia said: “Evidence from research conducted in 2009 showed that veterinary professionals may be more likely to drink at risky levels compared to people in the general population.
"There is a vital need for new research in this area, not only so we can better understand what the current situation looks like, but so that we can learn how best to provide tailored support to this group.”
The survey is anonymous and confidential, and no personal data will be gathered or shared with MMI or the RCVS.
After completing the survey, participants can choose to enter a prize draw to win one of three £100 Amazon vouchers.
https://brookeshls.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0pHn8qy4ZIVTTgy
Photo: www.depositphotos.com
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.
The RCVS's new Royal Charter has come into effect today, meaning that the whole of the veterinary nursing profession in the UK is now regulated.
The new Charter received the Great Seal of the Realm and was collected from the House of Lords by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and Policy Consultant Jeff Gill (pictured right). It had previously been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November 2014.
Under the changes instituted in the new Charter, there are no longer listed veterinary nurses and all those formerly on the List have effectively been moved to the Register and become RVNs.
As a result they will now be expected to undertake the minimum requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period, will need to follow the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses,and will be subject to the College’s disciplinary system in cases of serious professional misconduct. Any veterinary nurse removed or suspended from the Register will not be entitled to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery.
Gordon said: “This is a proud day for us and an important day for the profession as a whole. We worked very hard to get to this point and I would like to thank all those who helped us along the way including RCVS and VN Council members, College staff and the members of the profession and representative organisations, in particular the BVA and BVNA, that responded to our consultation on the proposed Charter last year.
“This Charter clarifies the role of the College and its aims and objectives while also modernising many of our regulatory functions. This represents another significant step towards the College becoming a first rate regulator.
“Critically, this Charter fulfils one of our long-term ambitions to create a coherent regulatory system for veterinary nurses and to recognise them as true professionals, dedicated to their vocation, their development and proper conduct.”
During this year’s renewal period for veterinary nurses (in the autumn), those formerly on the List will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration. The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses remains unchanged.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for former listed veterinary nurses can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
A shift towards a more outcomes-based model of CPD for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses has been under discussion for a number of years and one of its main proponents has been the current RCVS Senior Vice-President Professor Stephen May (pictured right), who chaired the CPD Policy Working Party.
Stephen said: "There has been increasing recognition over a range of different professions that CPD records based on ‘inputs’ alone, for example, measuring the number of hours attending a lecture, do not necessarily prove that any significant learning has taken place or that this learning will be used to improve professional practice.
"By contrast, research has demonstrated that CPD activities focused on outcomes encourage professionals to reflect on what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice, which has a positive impact on professionalism and patient health outcomes. Numerous other professions, including human medicine and dentistry, have moved to this model and the veterinary world has been somewhat ‘behind the curve’ as a result.
"However, as with any significant shift in policy, there has been a recognition that we needed to take the profession with us and not force through change. This is why, in March 2017, we launched a pilot scheme for the outcomes-based model with veterinary and veterinary nurse volunteers, including people who, during the initial consultation stage, had voiced some skepticism towards the concept.
"The overall feedback from volunteers was very positive and supportive towards the changes and I look forward, over the coming years, to talking to the professions at large about the benefits of the approach and how to best engage with the model."
In all, around 120 volunteers took part in the pilot, of whom 70% were veterinary surgeons and 30% veterinary nurses. When the pilot finished in October 2018, volunteers provided feedback as part of the evaluation process. Of the 57% of volunteers (n=70) who responded to the survey:
77% said they would be willing to use an outcomes-based CPD model in the future;
41% found it ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to implement outcomes-based CPD while only 11% thought it was either ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’;
61% thought that the outcomes-based model made CPD more meaningful for them and 25% said it encouraged them to undertake a wider range of CPD activities than previously;
Other feedback included the need for a better CPD recording system and more information and guidance ahead of any future changes.
Following the feedback, particularly around the need for a new approach to CPD recording, it was also recommended to Council that a new online CPD recording system should be introduced. This system will integrate the current disparate systems, such as the Student Experience Log (for vet students), Nursing Progress Log (for student VNs) and the Professional Development Phase (for recent vet graduates), making it a ‘one-stop shop’ professional development recording platform.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We will be building a new platform, consolidating all professional development-related capability for all members, into a single, integrated solution, seamlessly accessible via our ‘My Account’ online portal, and forthcoming mobile app. We have assembled a new, dedicated, software development team to drive this work and more details about this system will be published in coming months."
Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, added:"Following the approval of the CPD proposals by RCVS Council, a phased roll-out of the new model and the accompanying IT system will take place. This includes recruiting a group of volunteers from the profession later this year to get some initial feedback around the guidance resources and online CPD platform, with members of the profession being voluntarily able to sign up to the new model and IT system from January 2020 onwards.
"Implementation of the new CPD requirement for all members is expected to start in January 2022 but, prior to that, we will be working hard to talk to the profession about why an outcomes-based model is a more effective and meaningful way of undertaking CPD and this will include workshops, webinars and roadshows. Look out for more news on our plans over the coming months."
For more information about the College’s current CPD policy requirement and policy, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
For veterinary nurses, Schedule 3 is arguably one of the most important aspects of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, partly defining what it means to be a nurse, and defining what tasks veterinary surgeons can reasonably delegate.
Thus far, however, Schedule 3 has only been loosely defined, allowing for veterinary nurses to (under the direction of their veterinary surgeon employer) 'give medical treatment or carry out acts of minor surgery, not involving entry into a body cavity'.
There is evidence from the RCVS/BVNA VN Futures project that uncertainty about what this definition actually means in practice has stopped veterinary surgeons from delegating tasks which could both improve practice efficiency and make the role of the veterinary nurse more interesting, varied and rewarding.
The consultation - and the broader review of Schedule 3 of which it forms a part - aims to create a 'clarified and bolstered VN role via a reformed Schedule 3'.
Liz Cox, Chair of both the Schedule 3 Working Party and VN Council, said: "The future of veterinary nursing is both challenging and exciting, with the convergence of such factors as Brexit, the development of new technologies, and the increasing specialisation of veterinary surgeons, and we would very much like to know how you think the role of veterinary nurse will evolve.
"In light of this we very much encourage all veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to complete this consultation. Evidence gathered during the initial stage of the VN Futures project suggested that there is some uncertainty around the interpretation of Schedule 3 in clinical practice. For example, many veterinary nurses do not undertake Schedule 3 work or are uncertain as to whether they do, while some veterinary surgeons are reluctant to delegate Schedule 3 tasks to veterinary nurses.
"With this survey we hope to get a better steer on how Schedule 3 is used and interpreted in practice on a day-to-day basis and gather views on where both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses feel the current legislation could be clarified. Furthermore, we also want to know if there are areas of practice that are currently prohibited to nurses under current Schedule 3 arrangements that the professions believe could be opened up to veterinary nurses as a means of bolstering the profession."
Liz Cox and David Catlow MRCVS, Chair of the Standards Committee, will also be presenting a webinar on Thursday 11 May from 1pm to 2pm titled ‘The Art of Delegation – Schedule 3 Consultation’. It will focus on Schedule 3 and the role of the veterinary nurse, and explore possible areas to consider when responding to the consultation. To subscribe to the webinar, please visit The Webinar Vet’s website: www.thewebinarvet.com/webinar/art-delegation-schedule-3-consultation/
All eligible veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons have been emailed with a link to survey.
Further information about the VN Futures project can be found at www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures
The new Order will come into force on the 18th February 2020, from when students who graduate with the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree will automatically be able to join the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and to practise veterinary medicine in the UK.
The university’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) degree will enter the College’s cyclical accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring for quality assurance.
Accreditation of the degree was a five-year process during which the RCVS worked with the University of Surrey to ensure that its curriculum and programme met the College’s quality standards, including two interim accreditation visitations in 2017 and 2018 and a final accreditation visit in 2019.
Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President, said: “We are very glad that the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree has now cleared the last hurdle and that, as of next month, it will join the roster as the UK’s eighth recognised veterinary degree. I commend the hard work that the faculty, students and the university’s clinical partners have put in to develop the course over the past five years and we look forward to continue to work with them to ensure that the high standards are maintained."
Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, said: "I am delighted that the University of Surrey’s School of Veterinary Medicine has become the UK’s eighth provider of veterinary education. The support and enthusiasm of our partner practice network has been essential in delivering our vision of competent, confident and compassionate veterinary graduates."
The full RCVS accreditation standards for veterinary degrees can be found here: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/accrediting-primary-qualifications/accrediting-veterinary-degrees/accreditation-standards/
Photo: (from l-r) Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, and Niall Connell, RCVS President.
A bogus vet who pleaded guilty to a number animal cruelty and fraud offences is being sought by Humberside Police after he failed to appear at court for sentencing.
Jayson Paul Wells (pictured right), 30, of Driffield in the East Riding of Yorkshire, is wanted by detectives in Grimsby after he failed to appear at Grimsby Crown Court.
The RCVS assisted Humberside Police with its original investigation and is publicising its appeal to help locate Mr Wells. Police believe that he may be trading as a herdsman in Nottingham or Cornwall and are keen to establish whether he is currently in either location.
Mr Wells was arrested on 2 October 2013 and charged with the following offences:
Mr Wells pleaded guilty to all offences.
Anyone who is aware of his whereabouts is asked to call Humberside Police on 101 or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
The new series comprises six online discussions taking place over the course of the spring, covering everything from diversity to creativity to identity.
The upcoming programme of events is as follows:
Tuesday 1st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: Celebrating diversityChaired by Gurpreet Gill, RCVS Leadership & Inclusion Manager. Panel members Lacey Pitcher RVN, Dr Olivia Anderson-Nathan MRCVS and Samantha Payne RVN will be talking about what celebrating diversity means to people, exploring how this links to mental health, and sharing their thoughts on why – and how – the professions should be working towards greater inclusivity, both in and out of the workplace.
Monday 21st March 2022 7pm to 8pm: The joy of creativityThis discussion will look at why creativity is so important for people’s lives and how it can be used to support mental health and wellbeing with a panel comprising Dr Silvia Janksa MRCVS and Olivia Oginska MRCVS.
Tuesday 5th April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Overcoming self-doubt and stressing outThis discussion will consider the main causes of stress in the veterinary workforce and how this may have shifted throughout the pandemic. The discussion will encompass coping strategies, the ways in which stress can be channelled in a more constructive way, and overcoming feelings of self-doubt.
Thursday 21st April 2022 7pm to 8pm: Identity – who am I away from work?This discussion will consider to what extent veterinary professionals should let their careers define them, the importance of understanding oneself in and out of a work setting, and how people can learn to value, accept, and appreciate their whole selves.
Tuesday 3rd May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Saying goodbye…letting go and learning to growThis discussion will consider how best to cope with the various types of loss that may be encountered in an individual’s professional and personal life, and how to learn, adapt and grow from these losses.
Thursday 12th May 2022 7pm to 8pm: Tackling loneliness in a hyperconnected worldThis Campfire Chat will discuss why meaningful connection and having a sense of belonging matters, and how individuals and communities can tackle loneliness in a hyperconnected world.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: “We all lead busy professional and personal lives and sometimes it means that self-care, which includes talking to others about how we’re feeling and about issues that we find important to us, can fall by the wayside.
“Our Campfire Chats offer a perfect opportunity – and excuse – to take a bit of time out of your schedule to engage in a structured but informal discussion about all manner of subjects, expertly led by a chair and panel with experience, lived and otherwise, on the topic being talked about.
“These events are for the whole veterinary team, we keep the sessions very informal, and there is also the opportunity to share or ask questions of the panel.”
To sign up for the first session, visit https://bit.ly/3GnQK0G.
For further information about the events contact Abi Hanson, Mind Matters Initiative Officer, on a.hanson@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct.
The new Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
According to the College, the purpose of the review, which last took place over a decade ago, is to ensure guidance to the profession and the public is clear. For example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.
The RCVS says the new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance. It also includes:
Clare Tapsfield-Wright, Chairman of the Guides Review Working Party said: "Over the decade or so since it was last reviewed, not only has the Guide become unwieldy in places, but the way that regulators in general publish professional conduct rules has changed. Our draft new Code aims to clarify matters and bring us into line with best practice elsewhere.
"Animal owners are increasingly keen to understand the basis of what the veterinary profession considers to be good professional conduct. The new simplified Code should assist with this understanding."
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at http://www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate document is under development for veterinary nurses, which will share broadly similar underlying principles and will be the subject of its own consultation.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who formerly practised in Norwich should be removed from the Register, having found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery following his Crown Court conviction for fraud.
During the one-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard how Francisco da Cruz had abused his position whilst practising as a veterinary surgeon at Hellesdon Vets, his then workplace in Norwich, by defrauding a insurance companies of around £10,000 with fictitious claims for veterinary treatment on non-existent pets.
Following an investigation by the City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), Mr da Cruz was convicted on five counts of fraud by false representation on 21 February 2013 at the Old Bailey in London, and later sentenced to eight months' imprisonment (suspended for two years) and 200 hours of unpaid community work; he was also ordered to pay just over £10,000 in compensation and costs.
Although Mr da Cruz had left the UK for Brazil shortly after his sentencing and was therefore not present at the hearing, the Committee was satisfied that he was deliberately evading the disciplinary proceedings, rather than being genuinely unable to participate in them, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
First accepting the copy certificate of conviction against Mr da Cruz as true, the Committee then had no hesitation in concluding that these convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a member of the veterinary profession. It found that the five counts of fraud were deliberate crimes of dishonesty, committed over a significant period of time and for significant financial gain. He had abused his position as a veterinary surgeon and abused the trust which the insurers placed in him as a professional.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has no real confidence that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour from the Respondent. His conduct subsequent to the criminal proceedings gives it no confidence that he has reformed himself to the extent that he will in the foreseeable future be fit to return to practice. So far from satisfactorily completing his criminal sentence, it appears that the Respondent has deliberately gone abroad to avoid doing so."
Bearing in mind that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish Mr da Cruz, but to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct within it, the Committee concluded that the convictions were too serious to allow any sanction other than removal from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's decisions are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The committee heard five charges against Dr Davies at a resumed hearing of an inquiry which was originally adjourned in January and then July 2018. The decision was made, at both the 2018 hearings, to postpone the final decision on the sanction.
The first two charges against Dr Davies related to convictions for drink driving in March 2014 and October 2015 for which she received driving bans of 17 and 45 months.
The third charge related to her breaching a number of undertakings she had entered into as part of the College’s Health Protocol, including her consuming alcohol on four occasions between May 2015 and January 2016 and missing a pre-arranged appointment with a consultant psychiatrist appointed.
The fourth and fifth charges related to being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016 which was also in breach of her undertakings under the Health Protocol.
At Dr Davies' first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, she admitted all five charges against her and also accepted that her conduct was 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 the conclusion of its hearing on 23 January 2018 the Committee decided to postpone its decision regarding sanction for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into undertakings, including not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement and to undergo blood and hair tests for alcohol consumption every two months.
At the resumed hearing on 30 July 2018, Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that she wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed evidence that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with her undertakings.
However, the Committee retained concerns about Dr Davies' return to practise and therefore required her to identify a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor, noting that the mentor would have to be acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity.
The Committee also required the continuation of the requirements for abstinence from alcohol and the programme of blood and hair testing.
A further requirement of the Committee was that Dr Davies should make a disclosure to any new employer of her appearances before the Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions it made.
The final requirement of the Committee was 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 then directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.
The Disciplinary Committee resumed its inquiry on 7th August 2019, when Dr Davies submitted documentary proof and medical records to demonstrate she had complied with all her undertakings given at the last hearing. The Committee also heard from Dr Davies’ appointed veterinary mentor who provided a statement that concluded that she no longer needed monitoring or supervision.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Davies.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The view of the Committee is that the respondent has to date overcome her addiction to alcohol and, given that her competence as a practising veterinary surgeon is not disputed, that she should therefore be permitted to return to her chosen profession. However, in the judgment of this Committee the seriousness of the offences to which the Respondent has pleaded guilty means that a sanction of “No Further Action” cannot be justified."
The Committee therefore decided that the most proportionate sanction was for Dr Davies to be reprimanded as to the conduct she admitted at previous hearings and that she be warned as to her future conduct.
Ian added: "The respondent must understand that she has been given an opportunity to prove that, for the remainder of her time in practice, she can meet the high standards expected of all registered veterinary surgeons from both other practitioners and from members of the public who entrust the care and treatment of their animals to members of this profession."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".
At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration. Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.
In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.
The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."
The relevant section of the Government advice states: "This [key worker status] includes those involved in food production, processing, distribution, sale and delivery, as well as those essential to the provision of other key goods (for example hygienic and veterinary medicines)."
The RCVS/BVA statement, which is intended to help veterinary surgeons decide whether or not they can claim ‘key worker’ status and ask for their children to continue to be taken into schools, reminds veterinary surgeons to consider the wider societal picture and ensure that they only claim ‘key worker’ status if absolutely necessary.
The statement also stresses that the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct responsibility of the veterinary surgeon to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation continues, and veterinary practices will need to continue to carry out this work. It is important that animal owners are able to focus on their own health, and not need to worry about their pets. Both the RCVS and BVA believe that veterinary surgeons who are providing this essential work can be considered key workers.
The statement in full is as follows:
Veterinary surgeons as key workers in relation to school closures
RCVS and BVA appreciate that veterinary surgeons will feel a great deal of uncertainty at the present time, and that many will be facing considerable difficulties due to the closure of schools for most pupils.
The official government advice can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-maintaining-educational-provision/guidance-for-schools-colleges-and-local-authorities-on-maintaining-educational-provision.
The guidance emphasises that if children can be at home then they should be, in order to help to prevent the virus from spreading.
The government has granted key worker status by sector rather than profession. Some veterinary work will definitely fall into the ‘key worker’ category. RCVS and BVA are therefore providing some additional advice below, following consultation with the UK Chief Veterinary Officer:
SummaryAt this time the provision of public health and the maintenance of food production need to take priority, and veterinary surgeons working in these areas should be considered key workers.
Veterinary surgeons working in emergency care can also be considered key workers. This will not apply to every veterinary surgeon in clinical practice, and practices may need to consider rationalising their services to achieve this.
The guidance has been welcomed by both the BSAVA and BEVA. David Mountford, Chief Executive of BEVA said: "As veterinary professionals we are duty-bound to provide essential care, relieve suffering and protect the health of the public. Recognition as key workers in such circumstances is welcomed but we would encourage vets to only add to the burden faced by schools where animal welfare is at risk and all other avenues have been explored."
All Schedule 2 controlled drugs (with the exception of quinalbarbitone) and certain Schedule 3 controlled drugs are legally required to be stored in a locked container which is compliant with the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973; however, the College considers it advisable for all Schedule 3 controlled drugs to be stored in the controlled drug cabinet.
Controlled drug cabinets must only be accessed by a veterinary surgeon, or another nominated responsible person at the practice. In the case of a nominated person who is not a veterinary surgeon removing controlled drugs from the cabinet, the legal and professional responsibility remains with the veterinary surgeon whose direction they are under.
The College’s full guidance, including advice on use, location, and design and construction of cabinets, can be found in the Controlled Drugs Guidance and the Practice Standards Scheme Manual. Many police forces in the UK also have Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers who offer advice on various matters, including safe storage.
To download the Controlled Drugs Guidance, which includes further guidance on areas such as storage and destruction of controlled drugs, please visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/publications/controlled-drugs-guidance/
To access the PSS Manual, visit the College’s website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/practice-standards-scheme/
Contact details for Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers by area can be obtained from the Association of Police Controlled Drugs Liaison Officers: http://www.apcdlo.org.uk/contact.html.
There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.
The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.
At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.
The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.
In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.
This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so.
With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.
The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.
The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.
The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.
The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.
In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.
The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).
Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.
It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings.
Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: "Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders."
"The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession."
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: "We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
"It takes real courage to reach out for help when you're struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call."
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible viawww.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Kate’s election means that, come July and subject to ratification by RCVS Council, the offices of RCVS President, Senior-Vice President and Junior Vice-President will all be held by women for the first time in the College’s 177-year history.
A graduate of Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Kate was a farm vet for 15 years, a partner in a 15 vet practice in Aberdeen. She then moved to the pharmaceutical industry as a veterinary advisor before joining the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). From there, she moved into non-veterinary Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles in several Whitehall departments including the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. As a senior civil servant she was Principal Private Secretary to three Secretaries of State for Scotland, handling a diverse policy portfolio and working across Whitehall, including No.10 Downing Street and the Devolved Administrations.
First elected to RCVS Council in 2015 for a four year term and again in 2020, Kate has previously served as Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee and RCVS representative on the UK co-ordination group for the Federation of Vets of Europe (FVE). Currently Vice Chair of the Education Committee, member of the Registration Committee and the Environment & Sustainability Working Party, Kate is an appointed veterinary member of Veterinary Nurses’ Council.
Kate is a qualified Official Veterinarian (OV), a Non-Executive Director on the Moredun Foundation and Scottish Agriculture College (SAC) Commercial Boards, a veterinary advisor on a Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) mental health project and on the Council of the Association of Government Veterinarians. She’s a member of the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Veterinary Public Health Association. A Council member of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (2004-10), Kate served as a Trustee of the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation (2014-17).
Current RCVS President Dr Mandisa Greene will become Senior Vice-President, and joining Kate and Mandisa on the Officer team will be Dr Melissa Donald, who last month was elected Junior Vice-President for 2021-22. Current Senior Vice-President Dr Niall Connell was recently elected RCVS Treasurer.
The vacancy in the RCVS Officer team arose following Professor David Argyle’s decision to resign from Council in March, meaning that Council needed to hold two votes in quick succession: one at its scheduled meeting in March for the 2021-22 JVP position; and one today for the current JVP vacancy.
Kate said: “I am delighted to be elected JVP. It’s been an exceptionally challenging year for those in all walks of veterinary life, including students aspiring to join our profession. It will be an honour to lead the RCVS as its tenth female president, working with veterinary colleagues as well as reaching out to allied professionals acknowledging that there will be challenges to navigate as well as triumphs to celebrate.”
What is 'quality improvement', you ask? Good question. Sure, it's an improvement in, er, quality. But of what?
'Quality improvement' is a term adopted from the human healthcare sector, variously defined as anything which makes: "healthcare safer, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable (NHS)", or "the combined and unceasing efforts of everyone—healthcare professionals, patients and their families, researchers, payers, planners and educators—to make the changes that will lead to better patient outcomes (health), better system performance (care) and better professional development (BMJ)."
The RCVS research project, which is being conducted by RAND EUROPE, will assess current perceptions and adoption of quality improvement in the veterinary profession.
Specifically, it'll look at the drivers, barriers and expectations associated with QI, with the ultimate goal of strengthening the support provided to the profession.
Chris Gush, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge, said: "We are delighted to be launching this research project with RAND Europe.
"We know that many of our colleagues across the profession have embedded quality improvement into their practice to great benefit, while we are also aware that it can be a challenge to do so all of the time.
"This research will provide an unprecedented body of evidence on the experiences and perceptions of QI, which will be critical to how we work to support the sector in this area going forward."
Integral to the research is a survey which all members of the profession are invited to take part in, here: bit.ly/QIvetsurvey.
The survey will be live for six weeks, closing early April. It takes around ten minutes to complete, with a prize of one £150 Amazon voucher on offer. Responses will be anonymised.
You can read more about Quality Improvement on the RCVS Knowledge website, here: https://knowledge.rcvs.org.uk/quality-improvement/