The College has confirmed that it has now received an official complaint about the matter and it is now investigating under its normal 'concerns' investigation process.
Professor Argyle made a private statement about the allegations to RCVS Council at its meeting today, having already answered written questions from a number of Council members in the preceding days.
The Council did not ask Professor Argyle to step aside, but acknowledged that this was his choice, made for personal reasons.
The College said that in line with its normal protocols, and to ensure fairness for all parties, it will not make any further public comment about the investigation for the time being. However, it wanted to stress that it remains firmly committed to following due and proper process in all its regulatory activities.
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.
The Disciplinary Committee took the unusual step of granting an application by the respondent for anonymity, after seeing evidence of a real and immediate threat to the individual’s security if their details were made public.
For the purposes of the hearing, the respondent was therefore referred to as 'X'.
The Committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, were ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years; and were made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.
At the outset of the hearing the individual admitted to all the charges against them and the Committee also noted that there was a certified copy of the conviction available.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct. In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case, these being that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor, that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days, that the individual displayed predatory behaviour including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature, and that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact that the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real. It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the Committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”
In considering the individual’s sanction, the Committee heard from a character witness who said that the respondent’s actions were out of character, that they had a previously long and unblemished career, that they had made full admissions and demonstrated insight, and that they had a low risk of reoffending in the future.
Cerys said: “The Committee accepted that X had been an excellent veterinary nurse and that X’s criminal conduct did not relate to X’s practice as a veterinary nurse. However, in the Committee’s judgement, the aggravating factors outweighed the considerable mitigating factors in this case.”
She added: “The Committee decided that a suspension order was not the appropriate sanction for such a serious offence because it did not reflect the gravity of X’s conduct. In the Committee’s judgement, the wider public interest, that is the maintenance of the reputation of the profession and the College as a regulator, required a sanction of removal from the Register. The Committee considered that X had much mitigation and was clearly a dedicated veterinary nurse but the reputation of the profession was more important than the interests of X.
“Further, the Committee noted that in circumstances where X’s probation order expired in 2022, and where the ancillary orders, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a requirement to register on the Sexual Offences Register did not expire until 2025; the only proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove X’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
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 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
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 VCMS, which is administered by Nockolds Solicitors, was formally launched by the RCVS as an alternative dispute resolution service in October 2017 following a year-long trial.
The aim of the service is to resolve, by mediation, disputes between clients and veterinary practices that do not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct that is needed for the RCVS to investigate a concern through its formal processes.
Since the service’s trial, which started in October 2016, the VCMS has given preliminary mediation advice on how to resolve a case in more than 1,700 instances with over 580 cases having gone to full mediation of which 89% have concluded with a resolution.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: "From the perspective of both the public and the profession, the establishment of the VCMS has been a "win-win" situation. For the public it has provided them with an additional route to solve those complaints which wouldn’t cross the threshold to progress in the concerns investigation process.
"For the profession it has provided a more appropriate format for resolving a client dispute that doesn’t involve the time, effort and formal process of an RCVS investigation for those cases that will never amount to serious professional misconduct. I think this has been demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of the profession are willing to engage with the VCMS process, even though it is entirely voluntary.
"The VCMS has also had a positive impact on the College and its concerns investigation process, allowing us to focus greater resources on those cases that do meet our threshold of serious professional misconduct. This has had a very clear impact on the speed with which we either close cases or move them on to the next stage of consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), which, again, is important to both the public and the profession."
The College says that around 90% of cases investigated at Stage 1 of the process are now either closed or referred to PIC within four months – the College’s key performance indicator at this stage. This compares to around 50% of these cases being closed or referred within four months at Stage 1 in 2016.
The College also says that in total (including both preliminary and full mediation cases), 86% of the cases dealt with by VCMS were successfully mediated and feedback from both clients and veterinary practices has been largely positive. In client feedback from the third quarter of 2018, 93% said they would use the VCMS again and 79% considered it to be fair, while the equivalent figure amongst veterinary practices was 94% and 87% respectively.
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors who heads up the VCMS, said: "It is a good sign that mediation is largely working as it should when both parties are reporting similar satisfaction rates and we pride ourselves on negotiating resolutions that are acceptable and beneficial for both the clients and the practices.
"It is great to see that our efforts are also having an impact on the RCVS concerns investigation system by allowing it to concentrate on more serious cases."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation process, including the different stages of an investigation, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Further information about the VCMS can be found on its website at www.vetmediation.co.uk or by calling 0345 040 5834.
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.”
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 aim of the survey is to provide a better understanding of the views, experiences and challenges faced by disabled and chronically ill people within the veterinary profession and provide an insight into how the profession and educational institutions can be more inclusive.
You do not have to be disabled or chronically ill to complete the survey, which will take you around 20 minutes to complete.
Claire Hodgson, director and co-founder of BVCIS, said: “Working in the veterinary professions with a chronic illness or disability can be hugely challenging, but there is currently a knowledge gap in terms of understanding exactly where the problems lie.
“A 2019 RCVS survey of the professions found that around 6.7% of vets and 7.4% of RVNs have a disability or medical condition that limits work that they can do, but the true figures are likely to be much higher.
"No reliable data for veterinary students currently exists.
“The purpose of this survey is to close that knowledge gap and help us understand how we can better support disabled and chronically ill people in the workplace and education to create a more inclusive working culture.\
“Those living with disability and chronic illness are often hugely resourceful and fantastic problem solvers because of the day-to-day challenges they have had to learn to overcome.
"They have a great deal to contribute to the sector, and it is important that they feel valued and respected and have access to the tools they need to thrive.
“Diversity makes the workforce stronger, so we are calling on as many different people as possible from across the veterinary community to complete our survey so that, together, we can help create a more inclusive workplace for all.”
The survey will be circulated by email to all RCVS registered veterinary surgeons in the near future.
Details will be circulated to students via their educational institutions.
The RCVS says all survey responses will be completely confidential, and results will only be analysed and reported at a level that does not allow identification of individuals in any way.
Completed surveys will not be seen by anyone at the RCVS or BVCIS – the IES will send through a report with key research findings to both the RCVS and BVCIS after the survey has closed.
Kit, who has served on Council as an elected member since 2013, is currently the Chair of the RCVS Finances & Resources Committee and has been RCVS Treasurer for the past three years.
He is also a member of a range of committees and project groups across the RCVS including: the Audit and Risk Committee; the PIC/ DC Liaison Committee; the Certification Subcommittee; the Estate Strategy Project Board; the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees; and the Advanced Practitioners Panel.
Since 2003 Kit has been working as an internist (he is an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Small Animal Medicine) in private referral practice. In 2006 he became a founding partner in a multidisciplinary referral centre that he saw grow from five to 65 members of staff within five years.
His interests include workforce issues, communicating the diverse clinical and non-clinical skills of veterinary surgeons to the general public and government, and facilitating life-long learning through achievable further professional qualifications and effective CPD.
Kit said: "It was a great honour to be elected as the next Junior Vice President by my fellow council members. I feel that I can make a positive contribution to the work that the RCVS is already undertaking in ensuring the veterinary team remains healthy and respected. In particular I am keen to look at how the RCVS can help find solutions to our workforce issues - improving retention as well as encouraging and facilitating vets and nurses back into the profession."
In addition to Kit being elected as JVP, the current holder of that office, Dr Mandisa Greene, was confirmed as President for 2020-21 and current President, Dr Niall Connell, was confirmed as Senior Vice-President for this period.
Professor Susan Dawson was voted in as RCVS Treasurer, and she will be formally invested in this role at Royal College Day on Friday, 10 July.
Professor David Argyle has been elected as Chair of Advancement of the Professions Committee for a second year, Dr Susan Paterson has been elected as Chair of Education Committee for her second year, and Dr Melissa Donald has been elected Chair of Standards Committee for her second year.
Kit and Melissa's positions are subject to their successful re-election in the 2020 RCVS Council Elections
More information on the RCVS Council and its members can be found on the RCVS website: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council.
The review, announced earlier this year, was recommended to RCVS Council by its Standards Committee following its exploration of the implications of new technologies for both animal health and welfare and veterinary regulation.
The main areas under consideration include the provision of 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon.
The initial stages of this review had been drafted for Standards Committee to consider at its meeting on 9 September, where the outline timetable was also discussed.
Standards Committee Chair Melissa Donald, said: "This is set to become one of our most fundamental reviews of RCVS guidance in recent years.
"Considering the complexity of the issues in question, and their importance to animal owners and the professions alike, it is vital that we allow ourselves enough time to ensure this review is as thorough and comprehensive as possible.
"We have a clear responsibility to seek, understand and, where we can, accommodate the opinions and experiences of as many different people from within and around the professions and the public as possible. I would urge my fellow vets and vet nurses to please find some time to consider these issues very carefully over the coming weeks and months, and to send us their views."
The review will comprise several stages and is expected to take around 12 months to complete. The outline timetable, which may be subject to change, is as follows:
October 2019 – January 2020: six-week Call for Evidence, followed by independent qualitative analysis of all evidence received
February – March: Select Committee-style meetings and independent qualitative analysis of additional evidence gathered [NB this stage is subject to Standards Committee requirements, depending on the evidence gathered.]
April – June: Consider all evidence and draft any new policy
July – August: six-week public consultation on draft policy
September – October: independent review of consultation responses, and production of any proposals for change
November 2020: Finalise any proposals for change and publish any new guidance
To support and promote the various stages of the review the College is also planning a programme of stakeholder engagement, and will also provide regular updates on progress to both Council and the wider profession.
Members of the professions and the public will be able to follow the progress of the review via the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from Dr Janos Nemeth, who was struck off in 2009 for fraudulent registration.
This was Dr Nemeth's second unsuccessful restoration application, and the Committee said it would hear no further application unless the Committee Chairman, advised by the Legal Assessor, considered it to have a reasonable prospect of success.
At the original hearing on the 23rd February 2009, Dr Nemeth, who had practised in the Wokingham area of Berkshire, was found to have dishonestly entered his name in the RCVS Register. Although he held a veterinary science degree from the Szent István University in Budapest, he had included a forged document in his registration application. He lodged an appeal with the Privy Council the following month, but did not pursue it; the appeal was dismissed in September 2009 and his name was removed from the Register. Dr Nemeth was ordered to pay costs of £8,904.59, which remain outstanding.
In September 2010, he applied to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for restoration of his name to the RCVS Register, denying that he had produced a fraudulent document. In refusing the application, the then-Committee told Dr Nemeth that it had no appellate jurisdiction and that the onus was on him to demonstrate that he was a fit and proper person, before his name could be restored. It advised him generally about a future application for restoration.
At this week's restoration hearing, Dr Nemeth told the Committee that he did accept the original findings of the Committee but, at the same time, told them again that he was not party to the forgery. He also said that he held a licence to practise from the Hungarian Veterinary Chamber, and had been employed since October 2011 as a veterinary surgeon in a small animal hospital in Budapest, where he carried out a wide range of work including surgery. He also said he had attended two CPD courses.
The Committee accepted this. However, it continued to be concerned about the absence of evidence. Dr Nemeth had not produced evidence of CPD undertaken or provided letters of support from employers or colleagues, to give comfort to the assertion that he should be permitted to practise in the UK. The Committee rejected Dr Nemeth's argument that his licence to practise in Hungary meant he did not need to do this.
Committee Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is disappointed by Dr Nemeth's continuing lack of insight and is satisfied that he has paid insufficient attention to the guidance given at the previous restoration hearing. The burden remains on him to satisfy this Committee that he is a fit and proper person, before his name can be restored to the Register."
The application was dismissed.
The ‘Introduction to the UK veterinary professions’ is a two-part online course run in partnership with VDS Training, designed to equip vets and nurses with the insight needed to work in the UK veterinary profession.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the course has been moved online. It includes a series of free online pre-recorded talks from representatives at a number of different veterinary organisations, including the RCVS, VDS Training, the British Veterinary Association, Vetlife, and VetAbroad.
The talks cover a variety of topics such as the Code of Professional Conduct, how to find the right job for you, how to look after mental health and wellbeing, and recognising and understanding cultural differences.
There will then be a number of live Question and Answer sessions across different dates over the coming months [see below], which are also free to attend, so those who have watched the videos can ask further questions from some of the speakers themselves.
Part 2 of the course is an optional practical and participatory paid-for online live communications skills training session run by VDS Training, looking at how to navigate some of the most common pitfalls encountered during client consultations, helping to equip you with the skills and confidence to communicate effectively in practice.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “While we enjoyed running this course in person and meeting veterinary professionals from all over the world, the coronavirus pandemic has also given us the opportunity to look at how we can make this course even more accessible for a greater number of people.
“While there is still a significant live element, albeit online for the time being, the pre-recorded talks enable those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to do much of the learning in their own time, without having to take time off work or travel to London for the day, meaning that more people can engage with this crucial information on working in the UK.”
Elly Russell MRCVS, a consultant at VDS Training, added: “Communicating with clients can be one of the most rewarding, but also challenging parts of our jobs as veterinary professionals. Communication problems lead to complaints, increase your stress at work and can impact the care our patients receive. Join VDS training for a highly interactive, online 4-hour workshop. Work in small groups with our experienced facilitators and role players using realistic scenarios to practise and develop your communication skills. Let us help you feel more confident managing common communication challenges in UK practice: improved communication will help you, your clients, and your patients.”
The dates for the free live 2021 Q&A sessions are:
The dates and times for the paid-for live online communications skills workshops from VDS Training are:
The cost for attending the communication skills session (Part 2) is £150 +VAT per person. It is not mandatory to complete both parts of the course, but those who are interested may choose the part of the course most suitable for them.
For further information: www.rcvs.org.uk/overseas-cpd
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
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.
Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."
Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."
The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.
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 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 course was developed with RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, Gurpreet Gill (pictured), and aims to increase self-awareness of unconscious bias, explore strategies to reduce it, and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Gurpreet said: “Unconscious bias is an area that some within the professions may not be familiar with and so this course provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact in the workplace.
“We also explore strategies that we can all apply to help reduce unconscious bias.
"This is important in helping to achieve fairer and more equitable working environments, and I’d encourage any veterinary professional, whatever your role, to undertake the course.”
The course is accessible free via the RCVS Academy, and takes about an hour and three quarters to complete,
Building on the unconscious bias course, the RCVSA academy has also launched a course for members of the Fellowship Credentials Panels, who are responsible for assessing applications to the Fellowship.
Dr Niall Connell FRCVS, Acting Chair of the Fellowship Board, the governing body for the learned society, said: “This course explores the complexities of assessing applications, ensuring that each candidate receives a fair and thorough evaluation.
"Participants will gain insights into best practices for reviewing applications, offering constructive feedback, and identifying and addressing potential biases that may influence decision-making.
"By completing this course, participants will gain a heightened proficiency in assessing applications and managing bias, enabling them to support the RCVS’ mission of fostering equity, diversity and inclusion within the Fellowship.”
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a London-based veterinary surgeon, having found charges related to fraudulent registration not proved.
Miss Maria Becerra Parga was charged with fraudulently entering her name on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, by submitting a registration application in 2005 that contained a forged certificate of good standing from the Distinguished Official Veterinary Association of Lugo, Spain.
The Committee said that, in order to conclude Miss Becerra Parga had acted dishonestly, it needed to be sure that when she submitted the certificate to the RCVS she knew it was not genuine.
Miss Becerra Parga admitted that she did not make any application for the certificate directly to the Lugo Association. She accepted that the certificate she supplied to the College (the number of which was genuine and corresponded to a male veterinary surgeon registered in Spain) was a forgery, and that it contained a reference to her degree, a statement of good conduct, and was dated before she had a need for it; however, she said, this had been given to her by a friend and veterinary colleague and she had understood that she had been given a temporary membership of the Lugo Association for the purpose of registering with the RCVS. She also said that she had left these arrangements to her colleague and assumed that the document she had been given was genuine.
Her colleague, called as a witness by the College, said that Miss Becerra Parga had admitted the fraud to her and she denied that she had given the certificate to Miss Becerra Parga. Her friend said that she gave no more than general guidance because she knew that Miss Becerra Parga would be guided by a UK company that would arrange for her registration with the RCVS and through which she would be employed. She thought it possible that she had told Ms Becerra Parga that she needed a letter of recommendation, but she was not sure.
After careful consideration, the Committee preferred the evidence of Miss Becerra Parga and found her account to be "consistent with her naivety, inexperience and trusting nature" and "was sure that she did not forge the document herself". It found that to the extent that Miss Becerra Parga read the certificate at all when given it, she obviously did not notice its date or significance. The Committee was not able to say who was responsible for forging the certificate.
The Committee also dismissed an argument RCVS Counsel put forward, that Miss Becerra Parga had neither offered nor made payment for the certificate, and that she had forged the certificate to avoid a payment. The Committee said it did not find it credible that a veterinary surgeon, in work with a supportive family, who obviously was easily able to obtain proof of her good character directly from the university if necessary, would have jeopardised her entire career by forging the document, let alone for a small financial advantage.
The Committee directed that the charges be dismissed.
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.
At the outset of the hearing, which was to consider evidence for a number of charges relating to the treatment of three colts at his former practice in 2015, Mr Denny made an application to the Committee that the hearing should be adjourned contingent on a form of undertakings being accepted. These undertakings were that his name be removed from the Register with immediate effect and that he never apply to be restored to the Register under any category.
The application was granted by the Committee, taking into account a number of factors. These include the fact that Mr Denny had now retired and closed his practice, his long and hitherto unblemished veterinary career and the fact that it would not be proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy hearing on the matter.
The Committee noted that there were several precedents for concluding cases in such a manner. The Committee also noted that the application was supported by both the College and the complainant.
Mr Denny was removed from the Register as of Monday 24 April 2017.
Dr Crespo appeared in front of the Disciplinary Committee earlier this week with two charges against her. The first was that, in November 2015, she dishonestly and falsely made an online representation to the College that she had no criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings despite having been convicted, in January 2015, of failing to provide a specimen of breath. The second charge against her was that, in March 2016, she once again dishonestly and falsely failed to declare her conviction when renewing her registration.
During the hearing the Committee had two main considerations in respect of both charges – as to whether Dr Marin Crespo had been dishonest in failing to declare the conviction and as to whether the respondent ought to have known that her representations were false. Regarding the dishonesty element, the Committee found the College had not sufficiently proven this, as it accepted Dr Marin Crespo’s evidence that she did not believe she needed to declare a motoring-related offence as it was not relevant to her professional practice.
However, the Committee found it proven that the respondent ought to have known that the representations were false, taking into account that Dr Marin Crespo made admissions that she ought to have checked the guidance on declaring convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings and ought to have been aware that making such declarations is a requirement of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Having found the parts of the two charges relating to false representation proven, the Committee then considered whether this constituted serious professional misconduct.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:"The Committee considers that the false declarations made by the respondent were born of a careless disregard for the disclosure process. The Committee notes that the respondent could easily have checked online, and/or by telephone, as to what she was obliged to do when making the relevant declarations. She failed to do that.
"In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct fell far short of that which is to be expected of the veterinary profession. Therefore, in the judgement of the Committee, on the facts found proved, the respondent is guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
In considering Dr Marin Crespo’s sanction the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including her full cooperation with the College’s investigation, her hitherto unblemished career, her testimonial evidence which it felt demonstrated her dedication and professionalism, and the fact that she has displayed remorse and insight into her conduct.
Judith Webb concluded: "The Committee notes that the respondent’s conduct caused no harm, or risk of harm, to animals or humans. The Committee also notes that there is no charge arising out of the criminal conviction itself. The Committee considers that, if the respondent had answered the online questions correctly, it is unlikely that the respondent would have appeared before the Committee.
"Every veterinary surgeon must ensure that they adopt a careful and accurate approach to the self-certification exercise, which is crucial if the public and the College are to have trust in that process. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the proportionate sanction in this case is that the respondent be… reprimanded for her conduct."
The RCVS issued a reminder today that there is just over a month left before the 1 April deadline for all veterinary practice premises from which medicines are to be supplied to be registered with the College.
Just over 4,500 premises have applied for registration since November 2008. This includes about 750 premises not previously listed with the College, demonstrating the usefulness of the process, which will enable the government to fulfil its obligations under European law to maintain and improve traceability of, and accountability for, veterinary medicines.
From 1 April it will be an offence for a veterinary surgeon to supply a veterinary medicinal product from any practice premises not registered with the RCVS. On conviction, those committing the offence may be liable to prosecution, which may include a fine or prison sentence. Veterinary surgeons convicted of criminal offences are also considered by the College's Preliminary Investigation Committee to decide whether the conviction would affect the individual's fitness to practise and should be referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
In addition to ensuring their practice premises are registered, veterinary surgeons also need to keep a record of other places where medicines are stored, so these can be considered during an inspection - such as vets' homes or cars, or perhaps a charity premises from which veterinary work is carried out and where medicines are stored. Such records will not be published, although some of those premises may need to be registered in their own right.
Practices accredited under the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme will be inspected by the RCVS; non-compliance with medicines standards will be dealt with under the rules of the Scheme. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) will carry out inspections of other registered premises to ensure compliance with the Veterinary Medicines Regulations. Where non-compliance is noted, the VMD will take a proportionate enforcement approach ranging from issuing advice to, where appropriate, serving an improvement notice or seizing medicines.