The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.
Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.
Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.
Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.
In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.
However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.
The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”
However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.
In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”
In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”
In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”
It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.
Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”
There are 10 candidates standing in this year’s elections, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and six candidates not currently on Council. They are:
Mr David Catlow MRCVS
Mr John C Davies MRCVS
Dr Mandisa Greene MRCVS
Miss Karlien Heyrman MRCVS
Professor John Innes FRCVS
Dr Thomas Lonsdale MRCVS
Dr Susan Paterson FRCVS
Mr Matthew Plumtree MRCVS
Mr Iain Richards MRCVS
Colonel Neil Smith FRCVS
Ballot papers and candidates' details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote and an email containing a link to a secure voting site unique to each member of the electorate has also been sent by Electoral Reform Services which runs the election on behalf of the College.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
This year the College invited all election candidates to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted directly to the RCVS from members of the electorate. All videos have been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18) and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos).
Key question themes this year included recruitment and retention, the College’s concerns investigation process and veterinary education. The list of accepted questions has also been published on the RCVS website.
The biographies and statements for each candidate in the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote18.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "Last year we had a record number and proportion of the electorate vote in an RCVS Council election and we would once again stress the importance of voting to ensure that you have a say in the future direction of travel for the College and its policies."
Those who are eligible to vote but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Senior Communications Officer, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS has released the results of a survey which has found that increasing numbers of graduates over the last five years have had little impact on veterinary job prospects.
The survey was carried out for the RCVS by the Institute for Employment Studies, which asked the last five years' UK graduates who have registered with the College how long it took them to find work, how long they stayed in their first jobs, and why they moved on.
The online survey, which achieved a 43% response rate (1,354 responders), found that an average of 94% of graduates seeking a role in clinical practice obtained work within six months of starting to look.
The actual figure ranged from a high of 96% in 2008 to a low of 92% in 2010, and did not change significantly over the five years under consideration, despite UK graduate numbers increasing by around a quarter during the same period (from 650 in 2007, to 819 in 2012). Meanwhile, the College has registered an average of 618 overseas graduates annually during this time.
The survey did show that it was taking graduates slightly longer to secure their posts, with a shift from 85% securing work under three months in 2008, to 71% in 2012.
The results seem to suggest some small differences in the time taken for men and women to find their first jobs, with men finding jobs slightly quicker, although the vast majority of both genders found veterinary work.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "After the announcement from the University of Surrey that it will be opening a new vet school in the near future, there was a great deal of discussion amongst the profession about how easily new graduates could find employment. I undertook to get some real facts and am pleased to find that the picture is not as gloomy as predicted.
However, Jacqui said she was concerned that there has been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents who left their first position after a relatively short period of time. Amongst 2012 graduates, over 40% of those who had left their first position did so within three months of starting work. However it must be stressed that only 18% of those answering the survey who graduated in 2012 had already left their first position. Jacqui said: "Although the turn-over in first jobs seems to be, in part, due to an increase in temporary posts, I am saddened to see that the most commonly-cited reason for graduates leaving their first job was lack of support from their employers or professional colleagues.
"This is an area that we, as a profession, must address. As I have told all the students I have admitted to the College, their first jobs will influence their whole careers, and getting adequate support is probably the single most important factor. Meanwhile, it is heartening to see that nearly all of those moving on have obtained further employment."
Although the survey was sent to all those UK graduates who had registered with the RCVS within the last five years, the contact details for those who had subsequently de-registered may not have been up to date, which may mean that those who had de-registered because they could not find work were not well represented. However, the College says it thinks it is more likely that these individuals would have switched to the 'non-practising' category.
A summary of the headline survey results will be available at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. The full findings, which also looked at the time taken to complete the Professional Development Phase and the type and location of work sought, will be available in due course.
Mr Beveridge had been removed from the Register following a disciplinary hearing in May 2013 in which he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the Committee finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the College and that animals in his care were placed at risk. He subsequently appealed to the Privy Council but this was later withdrawn, resulting in him being formally removed from the Register in March 2014.
He first applied to be restored to the Register in 2015 but his application was refused by the Disciplinary Committee at a hearing in November 2015. At the time the Committee found him unfit for restoration to the Register because, following his removal, his veterinary medicines account had been used on an unauthorised basis to order prescription-only veterinary medicines, which reflected a "cavalier attitude to practice". Furthermore, the Committee found that he had not fully accepted the Committee’s original findings, had made inadequate effort in regards to engaging in continuing professional development (CPD) and also considered the seriousness of the original findings.
At the opening of his second hearing Mr Beveridge, who represented himself, sought to address the concerns that the Disciplinary Committee had outlined upon refusing his first application for restoration. Regarding his acceptance of the original findings, the Committee heard that he now apologised "unreservedly for his failings that led to erasure of his name from the Register" and the Committee considered that he had demonstrated a significant change in attitude from the previous restoration hearing where he had not fully accepted the reasons for being removed.
In considering issues of public protection the Committee also accepted that Mr Beveridge, until his original Disciplinary Committee hearing, had an unblemished professional record and had run a successful small animal practice for over 30 years. It considered numerous client testimonials as well as a petition signed by 600 clients from 2013.
The Committee also considered that there was no risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of Mr Beveridge being restored to the Register, noting the testimonials and references to satisfactory care and treatment given by Mr Beveridge to his patients.
Regarding CPD, Mr Beveridge produced evidence before the Committee that he had attended courses run by the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC) and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). The Committee accepted that he had made "considerable progress" in terms of CPD.
In concluding the hearing Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It is the judgement of the Committee that the conduct which resulted in the applicant’s name being removed from the Register is unlikely to be repeated. The applicant has satisfied the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register."
The 1CPD homepage now displays two progress bars: one to track the number of CPD hours currently achieved and recorded, and another to show how many hours have been reflected on.
Once the number of required CPD hours has been recorded and reflected on, a message appears to tell the user that they're CPD compliant.
This change will not affect existing CPD records, and all previously inputted activities and reflections will remain in the system.
Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Lead for Postgraduate Education, said: “We hope that the changes to the 1CPD platform will allow people to track their CPD more easily.
"A key element in outcomes-focused CPD includes reflecting on what you have learned as this is known to have a positive impact on both personal professionalism and patient-health outcomes.
“It should be noted that any CPD you have already undertaken for this year but have not yet reflected on will still remain in the system.
"However, in order to be compliant for 2023, you must reflect on every CPD activity completed.
"If you have completed your hours but have not reflected, this will show as non-compliant.
"In order to make those hours count, you simply need to go back and add your reflections.
"This doesn’t have to be a long and onerous task – uploading audio notes, adding an attachment, or writing a few notes stating what you learnt and how you will use this newly acquired knowledge moving forward will all suffice.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
The RCVS has introduced a new online recording system for graduates starting their Professional Development Phase (PDP).
The new PDP database sits as a module within the Professional Development Record (PDR), launched by the RCVS in April to help veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses plan, evaluate and record their CPD.
Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education said: "Bringing the PDP into the new Professional Development Record shows clearly how this stage of a vet's development is part of the continuum of professional development that starts at university and continues for as long as they practise. We are also developing a system for students to record their practical and clinical experience whilst at university and, once this is complete next year, the PDR will become a complete record of professional lifelong learning."
Like the rest of the PDR, the new PDP module offers extra space for notes, and allows documents such as case reports and presentations to be uploaded and stored. Responding to feedback from users of the old PDP system, the new interface is designed to be more user friendly than the previous PDP database, and contains interactive help, guidance on PDP and an easier means of recording case numbers against the clinical skills lists. All new graduates from 2012 are able to sign up to use the new PDP site and, once their account is activated, they will also be able to use the CPD area to record any additional CPD they might undertake.
Graduates from previous years who are still undertaking their PDP using the old database may continue on the old system for the time being, although at some stage within the next year or so, the old site will need to be archived. Anyone who would prefer to use the new system instead should contact the PDP administrator at the RCVS to discussed transferring (pdp@rcvs.org.uk 020 7202 0736). As the skills lists have changed slightly, however, an automatic transfer of data from the old to the new isn't possible.
The PDP links the 'Day One' competences that veterinary surgeons have achieved when they graduate to the 'Year One' competences which they are expected to have achieved after about a year in practice. Each vet's progress through the PDP is supervised by a Postgraduate Dean, and its completion also requires sign-off from the veterinary surgeon's employer or mentor.
For more information, or to sign up to the PDP, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/pdp.
The PIC decision marked the conclusion of its investigation into a concern that was raised formally last November involving allegations of bullying at Professor Argyle’s workplace, the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Argyle, who had previously decided to step aside from his JVP and Council duties until the concern was investigated and concluded, said: “Despite this outcome from the PIC discussions, I have now made the challenging decision to stand down from my position at the RCVS. This is to ensure there is no further distraction to the College’s important work and activities and that whoever becomes the next JVP has the full support of Council and RCVS members.
"It is also to reduce the toll this situation has taken on my family, colleagues and students, and on me personally. I am proud and privileged to have served on RCVS Council for nearly ten years and wish it well as it navigates the next chapter in its history."
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “I appreciate that this has been an exceptionally difficult situation and very upsetting for all involved.
"I understand why David has taken the difficult decision to stand down from RCVS Council and would like to thank him for his many years of service to the RCVS since joining Council in 2012.
"I would also like to reassure colleagues once again that, throughout, the College has remained firmly committed to following due, proper and fair process in all its regulatory activities."
Following Professor Argyle’s decision to step down, the process for electing a new JVP for the current presidential year will commence.
As Professor Argyle was a Veterinary Schools Council appointee on RCVS Council, it will be for that body to elect a replacement Council member.
Further details will be announced in due course.
Chris has been an elected member of Council since 2009 and, during this time, has served on the Education Committee, the Examinations Appeal Committee and the Operational Board as Chair of the Education Committee and Junior Vice-President.
He graduated with a veterinary degree from the University of Glasgow at the relatively advanced age of 30 having first attained a degree in Agricultural and Environmental Science from the University of Newcastle. Following graduation he worked in a mixed practice in Herefordshire before buying an equine and companion animal practice in West Berkshire, which currently employs five veterinary surgeons and five support staff.
In his maiden speech, Chris called on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be proud of themselves as people who are committed to the welfare of animals in their care and to not be so hard on themselves.
He also outlined several areas that he would like to prioritise during his presidential year. These included delivering the priorities set out in the Vet Futures Action Plan, exploring bringing veterinary paraprofessionals into the College’s regulatory remit, driving forward the College’s international profile and dealing with blame and fear culture in the profession.
He said: "I’ve seen first-hand in Africa and India what the delivery of veterinary care can do for the welfare of animals in these regions and the wellbeing of people that frequently depend upon them. As one of the richest nations in the world we will further investigate what we can do, through knowledge transfer and support, to help raise the standards of veterinary care in developing countries.
"Sadly we often hear that there are vets and nurses who live in fear of the RCVS. This is something of which I am personally ashamed. Being particularly mindful of the role that fear and anxiety play in mental health, I will do everything I can to replace this fear... I will encourage all hardworking vets and nurses, whichever field they are in, to wear their [MRCVS] ‘badge’ with pride. Feel good about what you do, feel great about what you do."
Chris’ first official duty upon receiving the presidential chain of office from outgoing President Dr Bradley Viner, was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May. He also praised Bradley for his calm authority, humour and wisdom throughout his year as RCVS President.
The RCVS Charitable Trust has released the results of a survey that suggests a lack of available, high-quality research could be hampering the implementation of evidence-based medicine (EVM) in veterinary practice.
Of the 70 survey respondents, although 70% said they were familiar with the concepts of EVM, only 36% said that they always used EVM principles or that EVM principles were deeply embedded within their practices. When asked about the barriers to implementing EVM, many vets commented that there was a lack of high-quality research available to them.
Trust director, Cherry Bushell said: "This survey was relatively small as our intention is for it to help spark discussion at our forthcoming symposium 'The Sceptical Vet: Eminence or Evidence? Finding the best way forward for the veterinary profession'. We want to consider the possibility of developing a range of evidence-based resources for the veterinary profession, so it's interesting to hear vets commenting about the lack of an available, high-quality evidence base."
All those completing the Trust's survey were entered into a prize draw for a chance to have their travel expenses to the event reimbursed. Veterinary surgeon Ariel Brunn (top right) from Vets Now, Maidenhead, was the winner. She said: "I'm really looking forward to this Symposium and the discussion that will come with it - along with clinical governance, evidence-based practice provides a means to offer the best care for our veterinary patients. Having been a practising vet for less than 5 years, I'm excited to learn more about how EVM can be incorporated into veterinary practice and I'm certainly pleased to have won the prize draw to support my travel to this event."
This symposium will take place on Tuesday 30 October 2012, at Church House Conference Centre, London. A limited number of places are still available for practising veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses only via the Trust (a.doorly@rcvstrust.org.uk or 0207 202 0741). For more information visit http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants-and-collaborations/the-sceptical-vet-eminence-or-evidence.
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2016 RCVS Council elections.
Current members Christopher Barker (2,838 votes), Amanda Boag (2,689 votes), Kit Sturgess (2,586 votes) and Stephen May (2,452 votes) were returned to four of the six available seats on RCVS Council. Melissa Donald and Lucie Goodwin are joining Council for the first time with 2,532 votes and 2,307 votes respectively.
The re-election of Stephen May means that he will serve as Junior Vice-President of the RCVS for 2016-17.
Voter turnout was down this year at 15.6% (or 4,403) of those eligible to vote, compared to 18.1% last year and the 17.2% average over the past 10 years.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Acting Registrar, said: "I’d like to congratulate all those who were successfully elected, and re-elected, to Council, and thank all those who took part in this year’s elections – whether by standing as a candidate, casting a vote or submitting questions for the candidates to answer."
The successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 15 July 2016 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Each candidate in the elections was invited to produce a short video in which they answered questions put to them by fellow members of the professions and which appeared on the RCVS YouTube channel. The videos provided by the RCVS Council candidates received 1,169 views while those provided by the VN Council candidates received 779 views.
The elections were run on behalf of the College by Electoral Reform Services.
The decision was made after Council heard increasing reports that practices have not been keeping records of POM-V parasiticide prescriptions within patient records as has always been required by the VMD.
This created a bit of a problem when the new 'under care' guidance came into force at the start of this month, which requires that veterinary surgeons must perform a physical examination as part of their initial clinical assessment of an animal before prescribing POM-V anti-parasitics.
Failing a record of an existing prescription, that would have meant re-examining large numbers of animals at a time when resources in the profession are already stretched.
RCVS President, Sue Paterson, said: “While it has been both surprising and disappointing to learn of such widespread non-compliance with legislation that has been in place for many years, Council decided to postpone the implementation of this one aspect of our new under care guidance to allow practices additional time to bring their prescribing protocols into line."
The delayed implementation date of 12 January 2024 relates only to the prescription of POM-V anti-parasitics.
The rest of the new under care guidance remains in effect from 1 September 2023
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
However, when asked by VetSurgeon.org which audience - veterinary professionals, it's staff or the public - it was referring to, or what threats to safety and wellbeing were posed by X, the College refused point blank to answer.
So the real motivation remains unclear.
On the one hand, it could be a ridiculously over-sensitive move to protect its unknown audience from opinions that its staff find objectionable.
On the other hand, it could perfectly well be argued that short form social media reduces every discussion or debate to "I'm effing right and you're effing wrong", which is not appropriate for a scientific profession.
Equally, one could also argue that engaging in polarised debate online is not terribly good for one's wellbeing.
Or one could just argue that it's a terrible platform owned by a strangely meddlesome and interfering American.
However, given the College's strange refusal to expand on the reasons for its withdrawal, the first explanation seems more likely.
But who knows?
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-statement-on-x-formerly-twitter/
In mid-September, the Association wrote to the RCVS expressing concern about the August extension to the temporary guidance.
In the latest update from the RCVS, the temporary measure has now been extended to 31 October but the flowchart and guidance have been updated to add some additional steps before a POM-V product can be prescribed remotely.
The BVA says that while it supported the original decision in March as a pragmatic solution and direct response to government restrictions surrounding Covid-19, it is now questioning the ongoing need for such a relaxation in the rules.
In the letter to the RCVS, the BVA also asked for a timeframe for the publication of the results of the RCVS survey of practices’ experiences of remote consulting and prescribing. The Association's own under care working group, chaired by Nigel Gibbens, has been developing a position to respond to the RCVS review.
BVA President James Russell (pictured right) said: "We understand that allowing remote prescription of POM-Vs was a necessary measure at the height of the lockdown, as practices struggled to assess patients in person.
"However, the veterinary professions have done a fantastic job in adapting to the restrictions and are now able to work safely and see patients.
"Whilst we recognise the RCVS has provided additional guidance for the remote prescribing of POM-V, we cannot currently see any reason why a new client would be unable to access in-person veterinary care in the first instance and we are asking RCVS Council to reconsider this measure when it meets in Oct.
"It makes sense to continue allowing vets to remotely prescribe for existing patients, for example if an owner is shielding, but we feel it is no longer appropriate to be remotely prescribing to animals that have never been physically examined by the vet.
“The question of whether we should be able to remotely prescribe POM-V products without first seeing an animal is an important and live debate, and we welcome the resumption of the College’s review. But the longer that temporary measures are in place, the greater the expectation from animal owners that they will always be in place, and the harder it will be to have the discussion about the best way forward.
“As a profession, we are rightly concerned about antimicrobial resistance and we pride ourselves on the responsible use of medicines. Continually extending the temporary measures without a full analysis would risk undermining our position.”
The RCVS has announced that it is to trial a new alternative dispute resolution scheme for users of veterinary services who have complaints which aren't serious enough to call into question a veterinary surgeon or nurse's fitness to practice.
The College says that although it is obliged to investigate all complaints, currently it can only deal with the most serious of complaints raised against a veterinary surgeon's or registered veterinary nurse's fitness to practise. This means that many of the 800 or so complaints received every year by the College's Professional Conduct Department are closed with no further action.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, said: "It was clear from our consultations last year for the First Rate Regulator initiative that many animal owners who had made complaints were dissatisfied and frustrated with the fact that we were unable to take their, often very legitimate, concerns any further.
"It is for this reason that we decided to launch a trial in order to determine how we could develop an alternative scheme that, through conciliation, would try and resolve these disputes in a way that would be acceptable to both parties.
"Although this trial is small-scale we hope that it will provide the framework for a permanent ADR scheme which I believe would both increase consumer confidence in the profession and help maintain and preserve its reputation.
"We hope that the profession will actively support the trial, and any future scheme, as a way of resolving those intractable disputes which we know can hang over veterinary surgeons and practices and that they recognise that, ultimately, what is good for the consumer can be good for the profession."
The trial will be administered by the Ombudsman Services, an independent and not-for-profit complaint resolution service, and limited to no more than 150 concerns raised about veterinary surgeons in regards to the treatment of a small animal. In most cases concerns referred to the trial will have no arguable case for serious professional misconduct. The trial is free to the users and voluntary, and consent will be sought from both parties before the concern is referred to the Ombudsman Services. The costs of the trial will not exceed £120,000.
Recommendations will be determined through conciliation between both parties and the Ombudsman Services will only be able to suggest, rather than impose, a solution that each party is entitled to accept, or not. Solutions could include, for example, financial accommodation up to the small claims court limit of £10,000 (although the average recommendation is around £100), the issuing of an apology or other practical action to remedy the situation.
The Ombudsman Services will be assisted in its investigations by veterinary advisers who will provide guidance on clinical and other veterinary matters.
The results of the trial, which will end in May 2015, will be presented at the June 2015 meeting of RCVS Council where steps will be considered for the development of a permanent scheme.
More details about the trial can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
Belfast-based Des Thompson MRCVS was presented with the first ever RCVS Queen's Medal by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace this afternoon.
Des, pictured right showing off the new medal with his wife Rosalie, received two separate nominations for the medal, both citing his decades of active involvement in veterinary politics which includes being president of the RCVS, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) and the Northern Ireland Veterinary Association, among other organisations.
Also cited was his willingness to help other members of the profession, particularly young vets at the beginning of their careers, through his involvement with organisations such as the Young Vet Network in Northern Ireland and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The Queen's Medal was launched in 2013, with the approval of Her Majesty as Patron of the RCVS, and is now the highest award that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of a particularly outstanding contribution to the profession. In receiving the medal, Des was joined by Professor Stuart Reid, current RCVS President, Colonel Neil Smith, immediate past President, and Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Des said: "It was a complete honour and a wonderful experience to be received by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace today, and I'm thrilled to have been awarded the RCVS Queen's Medal. Her Majesty was interested to hear about Northern Ireland, and the fact that I've been practising there since I qualified."
All veterinary surgeons, nurses and students over the age of 18 were invited to participate by email, which elicited 2,781 complete responses and a further 631 partial responses, 1682 from vets, 328 from vet students, 1,369 from nurses and 553 from student vet nurses.
80% of respondents were female, 16.8% male, 1.4% non-binary, 0.8% genderfluid and 0.9% preferred not to say or to self describe.
93.3% were white, 2% were Asian or Asian British, 0.6% were black, black British, Caribbean or African.
The remainder identified as 'other ethnic group', mixed or multiple ethnic groups, or preferred not to say.
90.4% of participants worked within clinical veterinary practice, three-quarters in small animal practice.
Almost two-thirds worked part time.
Paradoxically, although around 50% of respondents described their physical or mental health as 'good' or 'very good', 75.6% considered themselves to have at least one disability or chronic condition (61% chronic, 48% physical, 39% mental health and 30% neurodivergent).
Female veterinary surgeons were significantly more likely to suffer from a mental health condition (48.3%) than males (19.2%).
Mental health conditions were far more common amongst the young (51% of those aged 18-29), than the old (28% of 50-59 year olds, declining to 9% of 70-79 year olds)
Veterinary nurses were more likely to say they have a mental health condition (47.3%), than veterinary surgeons (27.9%).
As with mental health, the proportion of respondents identifying as neurodivergent decreased with age (42.3% of respondents aged 18-29 vs 6.7% of those in the 70-79 age group).
Whilst overall, 29.8% identify as neurodivergent, the figure was notably higher (83.3%) amongst those who identify as non-binary or genderfluid.
The number of people with a physical condition varied less with age and gender, although of course, broadly speaking, age brings with it an increase in physical problems.
60% of participants said they are affected by their disability/chronic condition every day, and 68% agreed or strongly agreed that they had to make significant changes to their life to continue working.
The most frequently reported symptoms of disability/chronic condition were mental health (45.2%), pain (36.4%), learning, understanding or concentrating (33.8%), and stamina or energy limitations (32.3%).
When asked if they were treated different at work because of their disability or chronic condition, 49.5% said they had not and 34.7% said they had.
Of those who felt they had been treated differently, 45% thought that disclosing their condition had contributed to this.
18% of those in education and 36% of those in work said they had experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment because of their disability/chronic condition.
Discrimination, bullying or harassment was more likely to be reported by those with a mental health condition or who identify as neurodivergent (47% and 46%), than those with a physical or chronic condition (38% and 37%)
Perceived discrimination, bullying or harassment was most likely to have come from managers (76%) and colleagues (64%) compared to clients and 'other' (15%).
63% of respondents believed there was a strong or moderate understanding of the Equality Act at their workplace but 12% thought their employer had no knowledge or understanding.
45% thought their employer had strong or moderate understanding of the Access to Work scheme, while 27% reported no understanding at their workplace.
Examples of good practice were given by some respondents about their existing or previous workplaces. These included reasonable adjustments such as adjusted working hours, environment and task adaptations, alongside good communication, support (from colleagues, managers and external sources), and additional resources.
Gurpreet Gill, Leadership and Inclusion Manager at the RCVS, said: “While there are some sobering elements in this report, and some clear and unfortunate examples of poor practice and discrimination, the overwhelming feeling is that there is goodwill and a desire to help people out there in the professions, but sometimes a lack of understanding and knowledge on how best to do this.
"Of course, there are also some excellent examples of good practice in terms of putting in place adjustments and accommodations for employees and staff with disabilities, as well as for students on placements.
“Overall, this should be taken as a call for more members of the professions to familiarise themselves with the Equality Act 2010 (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010) and its provisions.
Under this legislation, it is unlawful to discriminate against people with protected characteristics, including disability.
"The act sets out the legal requirement for workplaces and educational institutions, among others, to make reasonable adjustments to avoid disabled people being placed at a disadvantage.
“We will now be considering how we, as the regulator and Royal College, can best support members of the professions in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and what further training and education can be provided, looking at the RCVS Academy as a potential vehicle for doing so.”
Olivia Anderson-Nathan, a Director of BVCIS added: “Overall, the report demonstrates that although there are systemic issues that require a shift in workplace culture, there may be some relatively ‘easy wins’.
"For example, improving line manager knowledge of the Equality Act and providing reasonable adjustments that are typically inexpensive and simple to implement, such as providing seating and ergonomic equipment, and rota or shift changes.
"Many changes, like flexible working, will actually benefit everyone.
"Most importantly, employers and educators need to make sure that those with disabilities, neurodivergence, and chronic illnesses understand their rights and are given positive support to identify their needs.
"This means co-designing individualised adjustments and avoiding a one size fits all approach.
“BVCIS will continue our work to educate the profession, offering support and guidance for anyone not sure where to start.
"We also offer community support through our Veterinary Spoonholders Facebook page for disabled, chronically ill and/or neurodivergent people in the veterinary world so – please do come and join us if any of the experiences detailed in the report resonate with you.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The final deadline for paying the fee was 31 May 2019, with the 346 who did not pay being removed on 1 June 2019, compared to 308 last year.
Those who were removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
The RCVS says it sent reminders to all MsRCVS, including emails and text messages, reminding them that the fee was due. Letters were sent to those members that the College does not have an email address or mobile telephone number for.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published. Practices are encouraged to check the list to ensure that no employees are named.
The College also wants to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS is now accepting disclosures from veterinary surgeons about any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings they may have against them, as part of a voluntary period before the requirement to disclose commences in 2014.
The requirement that veterinary surgeons notify the College about criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings on registration, and on an annual basis as part of their registration renewal each March, was introduced as part of the Code of Professional Conduct in 2012 (section 5.3, see Notes to Editors). However, the College has allowed a bedding-in period for the Code before enforcing the requirement.
From 2014, new registrants will have to disclose any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that may affect registration (for example, those from university fitness to practise procedures).
Veterinary surgeons already on the Register (including overseas and non-practising categories, as well as UK-practising) will only be required to disclose criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that have occurred since April 2006. Fixed-penalty motoring offences are excluded.
The veterinary profession has fallen under the Notifiable Occupations Scheme since April 2006, which means that serious convictions are already passed to the College from the police.
If a veterinary surgeon declares a criminal conviction, this will be initially considered by the Registrar, and, if necessary, referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee. In some cases, the matter will be referred on to the Disciplinary Committee to decide if the nature of the caution or conviction affects the veterinary surgeon's fitness to practise - in which case the usual sanctions of removal or suspension from the Register could apply.
Eleanor Ferguson, Head of Professional Conduct said: "We hope, through this new requirement, to increase the public's confidence in the veterinary profession, and to safeguard animal health and welfare. The move brings the veterinary profession into line with many others - including registered veterinary nurses, who have made such a disclosure since their Register was introduced, in 2007."
The RCVS has launched a dedicated advice line to assist affected veterinary surgeons, on 07818 113 056, open Monday to Friday, 11am-4pm.
Callers will speak to one of three RCVS solicitors who can advise on the process and the possible outcomes of disclosure. Alternatively, veterinary surgeons can contact disclosure@rcvs.org.uk.
Detailed information regarding the requirement, including examples of the kinds of convictions that may be referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee, and a disclosure form, can be found on www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.
At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.
He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.
Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.
The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.
The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.
However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.
Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.
This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed.
The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".
The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.
In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.
It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.
In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking. In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.
It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act.
"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.
It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short."
After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."
Generally, veterinary practices may remain open, but there are national variations in what services should be offered and how, including the conditions under which remote prescribing can be used to help support a case.
Wales currently has the tightest ‘firebreak’ restrictions, meaning practices can only provide essential and urgent work until midnight on 8 November 2020, thereafter, returning to usual operations in line with Wales’ standard measures around workplace safety.
England and Northern Ireland are under national restrictions (4 Nov – 2 Dec, and 16 Oct – 12 Nov, respectively), meaning practices can provide treatment essential for maintaining animal health and welfare, along with non-urgent work providing that social distancing measures and safe working can be maintained.
Veterinary surgeons practising in these three countries may also choose to support a case remotely at an earlier stage, for example, through the remote prescribing of POM-Vs without first having conducted a physical examination.
Scotland remains the only country under regional tiered restrictions, meaning practices can continue to provide treatment whilst maintaining social distancing; however, before remote prescribing is offered, veterinary surgeons should first consider whether the animal can be brought under their care.
The full guidance and corresponding flowcharts should be consulted together and are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq2and www.rcvs.org.uk/covidfaq4.
Developed in partnership with the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), the course uses practical examples based on real-life experiences.
The course shows how to assess complaints from a client’s perspective and how building client relationships can help defuse complaints.
Jennie Jones, Head of VCMS, said: "Leveraging insights from the VCMS and involving our entire team with its production has enabled us to develop highly effective materials that ensure veterinary professionals are well-equipped to manage complaints."
The course takes one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog.
At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince.
The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.
Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care.
Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.
When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.
The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession.
Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."
The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards. "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.
The VetGDP, which replaced the Professional Development Phase (PDP), provides a period of structured support to aid the transition of newly-registered veterinary surgeons from veterinary studies to life in the workplace.
VetGDP is being rolled out during 2021 and this year’s veterinary graduates will need to enrol on it.
One of the main features of VetGDP is the requirement for a trained VetGDP Adviser to be available in the practice to provide their new graduate with one-to-one, meaningful support and guidance, to help develop their confidence and capabilities.
In order for veterinary surgeons to become VetGDP Advisers they must complete an online training package being developed by the RCVS and formally commit to supporting new graduates.
Practices that have trained VetGDP Advisers and make this commitment will receive the status of an RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice.
The original plan was that practices who wish to employ this year’s cohort of graduates should have obtained RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status by June 2021.
This has now been amended in recognition of the additional pressures that veterinary practice teams are under as a result of the pandemic.
Practices who employ graduates this year will now have until December 2021 to achieve this status, provided they have started to work towards RCVS-Approved Graduate Development Practice status and commit to supporting their new graduate while they do so.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The ongoing pandemic restrictions, specifically changes made by the government to veterinary professionals’ key worker status on 13 January, means that there are now significant additional pressures on practice teams, particularly in terms of staffing, as many members of the profession will be balancing their work with caring responsibilities. We recognise this and, as such, we have updated the timeframe for the completion of our training for VetGDP Advisers.
“I would also like to personally thank the 850 vets who have already registered their interest in becoming VetGDP Advisers. It is very reassuring to see so many members of the profession committed to supporting new members of the profession, and wanting to engage with the training and with VetGDP to help nurture and develop our future vets through their first few years in practice.”
The College will be holding three VetGDP workshops in February. Each workshop will feature the same content, so there’s no need to attend more than one.
They take place on:
The workshops are open to anyone in the veterinary team including veterinary surgeons who may be considering becoming a VetGDP Adviser, practice managers and others involved in graduate recruitment and anyone else who would like to find out more about VetGDP.
The sessions will be interactive and there will be a significant portion of time given over to Q&As. The RCVS Chair of Education Committee, Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, and Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, will be available to answer any questions which can be submitted live during the event. You can also submit questions as you register for the workshop at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdpworkshops.
For more information, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetgdp