The RCVS has launched an independent service to provide emotional support to veterinary surgeons and nurses who are under investigation by the College after a complaint about their professional conduct.

The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who is acting as witness.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.

“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.

“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in  providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.

“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”

David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.

“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.

“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”

The RCVS and British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BVCIS) are asking all vets and student vets to take part in a survey into disability and chronic illness within the veterinary sector.

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.

The RCVS has set up a new Working Party tasked with increasing disabled people's access to the veterinary profession.

The aim of the Working Party is to compare options, such as limited licensure, for increasing inclusion, source evidence both from the UK and other countries, and to identify any potential unintended consequences of change.

The College says that it is inviting representatives from the Association of Veterinary Students (AVS), British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BVCIS), the British Veterinary Nurses Association (BVNA) and Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) to join the Working Party.

Sue Paterson will be Chairing the Working Party.

She said: “The formation of this new Working Party is a significant and very welcome step in helping to make the veterinary professions more accessible for people with a disability.

"Fellow members of the Working Party include a broad range of colleagues, students and veterinary bodies, to ensure we take into account as many perspectives as possible when we propose recommendations.

"We recognise that many organisations have already begun to explore what we could do to make the veterinary professions more accessible, and we are keen to work collaboratively with them to ensure we keep up the momentum on this vital work.

"The Working Party will endeavour to find a way that those wishing to undertake a veterinary degree or a veterinary nursing qualification in the UK are not faced with barriers due to disability."

For more information, contact Rosie Greaves, Policy and Public Affairs Officer: r.greaves@rcvs.org.uk 

RCVS Council has agreed a 3% increase in the registration and retention fees for veterinary surgeons for 2019/20 which will now be submitted to the Privy Council for formal approval.

Fees will now be £340 for a UK-practising member, £170 for members practising outside the UK, £56 for non-practising vets under the age of 70, and free for non-practising vets over 70.

Restoration fees, charged in addition to retention fees, increase to £85 following voluntary removal, and £340 following removal for non-payment.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This year we asked Council to agree a fee increase to help us prepare for unknowns such as Brexit, as well as fortify our proactive work to help support the professions.

"Over the past few years we have put increased resources into projects such as: Mind Matters, our mental health initiative; Vet Futures, our joint project with the British Veterinary Association; Vivet, our innovation hub; and our recently launched Leadership Programme. Unfortunately there has also been a rise in Disciplinary Committee hearings and we are having to allocate further funds to making our building fit for purpose, and so a small increase has been necessary.

"This still places us at the lower end of fees for regulatory bodies while providing a secure financial foundation."

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."

The RCVS Academy has launched a free scenario-based course to help veterinary professionals respond to complaints with confidence and compassion.

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 RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has struck off an unnamed veterinary nurse after they were convicted of grooming someone they believed to be aged under 16 for the purposes of sexual gratification.

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

Five graduates from St George's University School of Veterinary Medicine (SGUSVM), in the Caribbean island of Grenada, have passed the Statutory Membership Examination of the UK's Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. 

According to the University, SGUSVM graduates have traditionally demonstrated impressive pass rates on this rigorous exam, but this year's 100% pass rate by SGU students - compared with an overall 44% pass rate for candidates overall - is an exceptional result for SGU students, and only the second time it has been achieved in the school's history.

In order to practice veterinary surgery in the UK, all graduates with foreign or Commonwealth qualifications must pass the RCVS examination. The exam consists of two days of written papers, followed by clinical, oral and practical exams at a UK veterinary medical school. Thirty-five St George's graduates have passed into the RCVS since the School's inception in 1999.

The RCVS sets no quota for this Statutory Membership Examination, meaning those who meet the standards will pass, regardless of the number of candidates sitting the exam.  

Austin Kirwan, St George's Associate Dean of UK and Ireland Clinical Affairs stated: "St George's School of Veterinary Medicine once again produces an excellent set of results with a 100 percent pass rate for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Membership Examination for those SGU students who sat the examination.  This is a credit to the school in the quality of education it provides, but also an indication of the calibre of person SGU attracts in its student cohort - outstanding success abounds by thinking beyond."

Presenting the graduates with a membership certificate at the Ceremony of Admissions at Belgravia House in London, RCVS President Dr Jerry Davies said: "I was delighted to welcome so many of this year's successful candidates to the College. Whether newly graduated or long qualified elsewhere, all of those registering today have succeeded in meeting the educational and professional requirements that enable them to call themselves veterinary surgeons and to practise in the UK."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.

The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:

• suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she take out an insurance policy for the dog using owner's details that were different from those used for its current insurance policy;
• dishonestly arranged for or allowed practice records for the dog in the name of Bowkett to be discontinued and separate records to be started in the name Griffiths;
• and, dishonestly maintained practice records for the dog as if she were different from the one for which previous practice records had been maintained.

The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.

At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.

Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.

In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.

Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.

In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.

During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.

In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.

In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.

The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.

The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.

The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.

Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.

In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.

Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."

The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.

Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."

The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons on 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, providing greater definition of the professional and legal responsibilities of veterinary surgeons in the provision of emergency care, as well as owners' responsibilities for their animals.

Two sections of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct have been updated - Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' and Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' - placing a greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for their animals while obligating veterinary surgeons to provide full details of their 24-hour emergency cover provision to clients.

Although veterinary surgeons are professionally obliged to take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief, the new supporting guidance clarifies situations where delaying or declining attendance to an animal may be appropriate. It is hoped this will assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from practice where they feel it is unnecessary or unsafe.

The changes are the culmination of an evidence-gathering process with both members of the profession and animal owners about each group's expectations around the provision of 24-hour emergency care.

This process began with a call for evidence at the end of 2013, which garnered some 656 pages of written evidence, as well as a petition on home visits with over 2,800 signatures. Following this, in March 2014 there was a three-day hearing in which 15 organisations and 10 individuals were invited to attend to give evidence to the RCVS Standards Committee. Also taken into account were more than 1,000 responses from veterinary surgeons taking part in the Survey of the Professions and an online survey with 1,250 animal owners.

After a thorough review of the evidence the Standards Committee developed the new supporting guidance, which was agreed in principle by RCVS Council in its June meeting.

Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "Following the considerable disquiet within the profession following the Disciplinary Committee's decision on the Chikosi hearing in June 2013, we decided that only a thorough evidence-gathering process with all parties could resolve the apparent gap between the expectation of the public regarding 24-hour emergency care and the profession's ability to meet this.

"We are very happy with the way that this process was carried out and would like to thank the many individual veterinary surgeons and animal owners, as well as representative organisations, who have contributed to this outcome.

"By making the legal and professional obligations of veterinary surgeons and the welfare obligations of animal owners clearer we hope that this new guidance should allay some of the frustrations and concerns of the profession."

The new supporting guidance for Chapter 3 '24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/247care, while the additional guidance for Chapter 2 'Veterinary care' can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcare

A webinar in which Gordon Hockey and Clare Tapsfield-Wright, former Chairman of Standards Committee, explain the guidance in greater detail takes place at 8.30pm tonight.

Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs to register.

The RCVS and the BVA have issued a joint statement following yesterday's announcements that Scotland and England will go into new national lockdowns as the UK coronavirus alert level has been raised to 5.

"We are urgently looking at what these new national lockdowns will mean for veterinary professionals and services, and we are liaising with the Chief Veterinary Officers.

"We aim to issue updated guidance in the coming days but can confirm that we will not be reverting to emergency-only work, as we saw at the start of the first UK-wide lockdown last March.

"Instead, we are developing guidance to support veterinary professionals to carry out work that is essential for public health and animal health and welfare, in the context of the very strong ‘stay at home’ messages from both governments.

"We recognise that this continues to be a very challenging and difficult time for our colleagues, and we want to thank veterinary teams across the UK for continuing to work safely so that we can all play our part in stopping the spread of Covid.

"Once again we thank animal owners for their understanding and ask them to continue to respect their vets’ decisions at this time. The range of services available will vary between practices so that vets can work in Covid-safe ways to keep their colleagues and clients safe."

The RCVS has announced that it will start to accept the first applications for the new Advanced Practitioner status from the start of September.

The new accreditation status represents a 'middle tier' between veterinary surgeons holding an initial veterinary degree and RCVS Specialists and will demonstrate that the veterinary surgeon has advanced knowledge and experience in a designated field of veterinary practice.

Practising veterinary surgeons with at least five years' experience and a relevant postgraduate qualification are eligible to apply to be recognised as RCVS Advanced Practitioners. Accepted qualifications include the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) with a designation; the RCVS Certificate awarded up to 2012; postgraduate clinical qualifications awarded by universities or recognised awarding bodies; and other relevant clinical postgraduate master's degrees. Full details of eligible qualifications can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced

Advanced Practitioners will be expected to undertake at least 250 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) over each five-year period of accreditation, of which 125 hours should be in their designated field.

Dr Kit Sturgess is Chair of the Advanced Practitioner Assessors Panel and was involved in the development of the scheme. He said: "I am very proud that we will soon be accepting applications for the Advanced Practitioner status, just two years after the need for such an accreditation was highlighted by Professor Sir Kenneth Calman's Specialisation Working Party, set up to look at the whole specialisation framework.

"Being an Advanced Practitioner is more than just a status - it will demonstrate to members of the public and colleagues alike that a veterinary surgeon is working at an advanced level in their field and has made an ongoing commitment to career development and lifelong learning through engaging with CPD over and above the RCVS minimum requirement."

Applications from holders of the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP) with a designation can apply from 1 September 2014 while those holding any other relevant qualifications can apply from 13 October 2014. The deadline for all applications during this first round is 30 November 2014.

Applications can be made online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced where further information about eligible qualifications, CPD requirements and other details can be found. The application fee for this year is £50 - from next year it will be £80. Thereafter there will be an annual fee to remain on the list (£80 by direct debit; £90 otherwise, at current rates).

All eligible applications will be assessed by the Advanced Practitioner Assessors Panel. The first list of Advanced Practitioners is due to be published, alongside the updated Specialist list, in spring 2015 subject to approval by the RCVS Education Committee in February 2015.

If accepted on to the list, practitioners will be able to use 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner in [designated field]' after their names. The accreditation and its designation will also be a primary search field on the RCVS Find a Vet practice database as well as appearing after an individual's name on the Check the Register search tool.

Once the first list has been published, the status of Advanced Practitioner will be promoted to the public.

A free webinar about Advanced Practitioner status, hosted by the Webinar Vet, will take place on Tuesday 30 September at 8.30pm. To register for the webinar visit www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs-advanced-practitioner-status

For further advice or details about making an application for Advanced Practitioner accreditation, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced or contact the Education Department on 020 7202 0791 or ap@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.