The RCVS has announced far-reaching changes to the CPD requirements for veterinary surgeons, agreed by Council at its June meeting.

The proposals put to Council by the Education Committee included six key recommendations for changes to CPD policy: 

• To change the CPD requirement – as stated in the Codes of Professional Conduct – to 35 hours per calendar year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours in the same period for veterinary nurses, from the start of 2020. This replaces the previous requirement of 105 hours and 45 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively. 

• Making the use of the new CPD platform (currently in development) for recording learning and development mandatory from 2022. 

• Giving veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who, upon renewing their registration, have confirmed their compliance with the requirement, the opportunity to download a certificate demonstrating this. 

• The introduction of an administration fee (which is currently yet to- be determined) that will be charged to any veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who continually (defined as two or more years in a row) fail to confirm their compliance with the requirement and/or fail to respond to requests from the College for their CPD records.

• Changing the words of the Codes of Professional Conduct to include the fact that CPD should be ‘regular’ and ‘relevant’.

• The continuation of the RCVS CPD Referral Group, which meets to consider what further steps should be taken in cases of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who continually fail to comply with CPD requirements and/or respond to requests. 

RCVS Council agreed, by a majority vote, to approve the above recommendations. 

RCVS Council member Dr Sue Paterson (pictured right), who introduced the paper and is the incoming Chair of the Education Committee, said: "While the majority of both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses do recognise the importance of continuous learning and development for their professional practice, their clients and, ultimately, animal health and welfare, it’s clear that there has been a cohort of people in both professions who take a more lax view of undertaking CPD.

"The changes to our CPD policy are intended to tighten up our processes and are targeted at those who, when challenged about why they have not undertaken sufficient CPD, say that they will meet the requirement one or two years down the line as part of the rolling three-year system. The administration fee also recognises the amount of time and effort spent by staff in the College in contacting and chasing up those people who aren’t compliant. 

"However, we also recognise the fact that some members of the profession may have personal circumstances that means they are unable to meet their CPD requirement in a given year – whether that’s because of parental leave or other caring responsibilities, or long-term sick leave. So we will be retaining flexibility within the system and will be considerate and compassionate when taking into account individual circumstances when considering non-compliance.

"Furthermore, in light of the fact that the majority of vets and vet nurses do meet the requirement but also often go above-and-beyond it, we also thought it would be a good idea to introduce a downloadable compliance certificate in recognition of their achievement. This could be displayed, for example, in the practice and would be particularly useful for Practice Standard Scheme assessments.

"Over the coming months we will be fine-tuning the details of these policies and will be making further decisions about how they will work in practice in due course."

Veterinary surgeons and nurses who feel they will struggle to complete their CPD requirement within a 12-month period due to personal circumstances can contact RCVS confidentially at any time to discuss their difficulties on cpd@rcvs.org.uk

For full details about the decision, you can download the RCVS Council paper at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-council-papers-13-june-2019/

A joint statement issued by the RCVS and the BVA with updated guidance for the professions about working during the coronavirus pandemic has led to an outcry on social media and highlighted flaws in the structure of the veterinary profession. 

Earlier this month, the government had exempted veterinary surgeries from the requirement to close their doors during the pandemic. Strictly speaking, the exemption meant that practices could carry on offering the same level of service as before, provided they followed further government guidelines on social distancing.

However, the College then advised that non-essential treatments should not be carried out until further notice, and that animals should only be seen in emergency, or if their health was likely to deteriorate as a result of inaction.

This included vaccination, where RCVS advice stated that whilst routine vaccinations were considered not urgent, there "may be scenarios where, in your professional judgement, vaccines are being given to reduce a real and imminent risk of disease; this includes in the face of an animal disease outbreak, or in a scenario where part of a vaccine course has been given and the animal may be exposed to the disease." 

The updated College guidelines, issued last Thursday evening, appeared little changed, except to say that its advice concerning vaccinations is under review. Meanwhile, its new flowchart gives a very clear framework for veterinary professionals to work within, essentially leaving it to your own professional judgement to weigh up the risks.

However, the BVA went further, declaring amongst other things, that:

Vaccinations – we are now recommending that primary vaccinations and year 1 boosters in dogs and cats go ahead due to the increased risk of disease outbreak over a longer period of time, and annual leptospirosis vaccination due to the zoonotic risk. If additional component of the core vaccine is due at the same time, it should also be administered. In addition, we’re recommending rabbit vaccinations go ahead due to the seasonal disease risks. Rabies vaccinations should be carried out if required for certification reasons

.... leading to an outcry that the BVA's advice appeared to be being relaxed at precisely the point when the government is imploring the public to stay at home, and that:

• it must have been the result of pressure from corporate veterinary businesses which are taking a severe financial hit from the loss of vaccination sales,
• that it would lead to veterinary surgeons being forced by their (probably corporate) employers to work when they believe it is wrong to do so,
• that it would put unnecessary strain on practices that are struggling to look after urgent case with reduced staff,
• that it would lead to pressure from the public to carry out non-essential vaccinations,
• that it would cause Vesuvius to erupt and the oceans to boil.

To add further fuel to the flames, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association then issued a statement to the effect that it had not been consulted during the preparation of the new BVA guidelines, which BVA past President Robin Hargreaves felt was so economical with the truth that he resigned his BSAVA membership on the spot.

COMMENT
At the end of it all, there is but one simple truth for every veterinary surgeon who is working in these difficult times, and it is this: The government and the RCVS guidance gives you the freedom to exercise your professional judgement concerning whether or not an animal needs to be seen for whatever reason. Provided you can explain why you reasonably concluded that an animal should or should not be seen, that is all that matters. It trumps everything else.  

This whole farago has highlighted a number of important issues in the profession, starting with the social media conspiracy theories that the new guidance came after pressure from corporate practices when as far as I can tell, it appears to have been driven by a genuine concern that that failure to vaccinate could cause significant welfare issues in the future.

That seems a reasonable argument, and very much in line with the College advice. But that in turn raises a far bigger question, which is what on earth the BVA (a voluntary membership organisation) was doing issuing what appeared to be instructions ostensibly for all members of the profession. Notwithstanding the fact that BVA recommendations have no legal weight, having all these chefs running around with different recipe books is itself a recipe for muddled communications and confusion over leadership.

In turn, that raises the even bigger question of what the BVA's role should be. Should it be snuggling up in bed with the RCVS, issuing joint edicts? Or should it instead be holding the College to account, challenging its decisions and demanding clarification where clarification is necessary. I would argue the latter. In this situation, the ONLY organisation issuing guidelines about vaccinations for practising vets should be the regulator. And it is the role of the BVA to challenge those guidelines if necessary, or to demand clarification.

Which leads me on to the next thing, which is that increasingly, members of the profession seem to demand explicit rules or guidelines to operate within. There are lots of hypotheses for why this might be true. Perhaps because we live in a more (or seemingly more) litigious world and veterinary professionals like the reassurance rules provide. Perhaps it is because the younger cohort of vets lack the self-confidence needed for decision-making. Perhaps corporatisation has a part to play, in that employees of larger organisations tend to play more by the rules. Or perhaps it is a consequence of the growth in the 'refer everything’ culture which means vets take fewer clinical risks.  

Whatever the reason, it seems clear that in some cases, the RCVS tack of "you're a professional, decide for yourself" is perfectly reasonable, whereas on other occasions, such as Schedule 3, more explicit guidelines are demonstrably necessary. Once again, surely the role of the BVA as the "Voice of the profession” is not to issue its own advice, but to press the College for more explicit guidelines as necessary.

Lastly, there is the role of Facebook in all of this. Quite obviously vets are no more immune to conspiracy theories than members of the public who think that coronavirus is spread by 5G telephone masts. Sadly, the truth is usually far less exciting. However, the problem at the moment is that the growth in social media and Facebook groups has left the regulator and the representative associations on the back foot, such that it is often left to individuals from those organisations who 'happen to come across OK online' (rather than having any properly defined role) to firefight.

Photo: https://www.scientificanimations.com/wiki-images/

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended London-based veterinary surgeon Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq for six months, and found no misconduct against Mr Oscar Perez Maillo in the hearing of a case in which two newborn puppies were taken from their owner.

The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.

Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.

The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.

There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest. 

The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.

As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.

The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.

The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.

However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.

In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.

The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.

The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.

Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.

In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.

"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.

"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.

"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."

The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.

Clwyd-based veterinary surgeon, Alina Grecko has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for obtaining a prescription-only medicine knowing that it was for human and not veterinary use.

Mrs Grecko faced two charges. 

The first was that she got a nurse colleague to order griseofulvin, a prescription-only antifungal medication, knowing that it was for human use, rather than legitimate veterinary use.

It was also alleged that she then caused a student veterinary nurse to record the order in the name of another veterinary surgeon, who was not involved in the order or prescription of the medication, and falsely record that it was for Mrs Grecko’s dog.

The second charge was that she had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, as the medication was, in fact, intended for use by her husband.

At the outset of the hearing, Mrs Grecko admitted she had asked her RVN colleague to order the medication and for her SVN colleague to record that the medication was for her dog and that doing this was dishonest and misleading.

Mrs Grecko accepted that these admitted charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

She denied asking an SVN to record it under the name of another veterinary surgeon.

However, the Committee heard from two eye-witnesses who testified consistently that Mrs Grecko had told her SVN colleague to record the medication under another vet's name, and from another witness who testified that Mrs Grecko had made a similar admission.

It therefore found it proven that she had asked her SVN colleague to make a false record, that it was dishonest and misleading, and that together, the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that Mrs Grecko’s conduct had breached her obligations as a veterinary surgeon to respect the proper protections that were in place for the control of prescription-only medications.

"She had committed a serious abuse of her position in using the fact that she could obtain medications by virtue of her profession to circumvent the protections.

"She had been prepared to involve others in the course of the conduct.

"In addition, Mrs Grecko had been prepared to engage in an attempt to conceal her actions and falsify the clinical records in the process.

“Although it was acknowledged that Mrs Grecko may have been subject to some conflicting demands, being affected by her husband’s interests and may have felt a pressure to act, the Committee considered that she had completely failed to acknowledge and respect her overriding professional responsibilities.”

The Committee considered that the offence was a serious one, taking into account the abuse of position and pre-meditated and dishonest conduct.

The Committee also took into account previous adverse findings against Mrs Grecko from 2011, which involved misconduct of a very similar nature, which meant that they could not accept her argument that she had learnt her lesson, and also meant that, in the Committee’s judgement, she presented a significant risk of further repeated errors of judgement and dishonest conduct.

Mr Morris added: “Further, the Committee considered that members of the public would be very concerned to learn that, having once been reprimanded for her previous dishonest conduct, Mrs Grecko had repeated her behaviour.

“It [the Committee] concluded that this rendered Mrs Grecko’s disgraceful conduct in a professional respect incompatible with continued registration and no lesser sanction than removal from the Register would be sufficient to protect the wider public interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.”

Mrs Grecko now has 28 days from being informed of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Council has approved a pathway for veterinary and animal health paraprofessionals to become associates of, or accredited by the College and thereby fall within its regulatory remit.

At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.

The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.

Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.

Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.

"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.

"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."

David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."

Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."

The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses. 

On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."

RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175^th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."

The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/ 

Dr Marthinus Ryk Botes has been struck off after he carried out total hip replacements (THR) on four dogs which did not uphold the animals’ health and welfare and without consulting with their owners about alternatives (including more conservative treatment options) and gaining their informed consent to carry out the procedures.

Dr Botes faced a total of nine charges against him, relating to performing (or recommending) inappropriate total hip replacements on five dogs without adequate investigation and without getting informed consent from the owners.

One of the charges also related to a failure to keep adequate, clear and detailed clinical records in relation to the five dogs. 

Dr Botes denied the first two charges which were later dismissed because the owner did not attend the hearing and counsels agreed that it would not be in the public interest to pursue them. 

Dr Botes admitted the other seven charges and that they amounted to serious professional misconduct, and they were therefore found proven by the Committee.

In considering whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee considered an expert report from Professor John Innes, RCVS Specialist in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) and Mr Midgley, RCVS Advanced Practitioner (Small Animal Orthopaedics). 

Ian Arundale, Chair of the Committee, said: “In coming to its decisions, the Committee took into account Professor Innes’ opinions that it was not reasonable for Dr Botes to have carried out the THR without sufficient investigation into Kilo’s pain; that the THR undertaken in respect of Sora was not in the animal’s best interests; and that it was ‘entirely unnecessary’ to recommend the THR in respect of Penny.

"In addition, the Committee has found that both THRs performed in respect of Daisy were not in her best interests.

"Thus, in the Committee’s view, Dr Botes’ actions and omissions did not ensure the animals’ health and welfare.”

The Committee took into account that the THRs in question were a source of financial gain, that Dr Botes’ conduct was repeated over a considerable period of time and that he was in an increased position of trust and responsibility because of perceived expertise in small animal orthopaedics and its education.

However, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, that Dr Botes has indicated some insight into some aspects of the charges in his written communications to the College, in his witness statement dated 29 December 2021, and in his admissions at the start of this inquiry.

The Committee then considered what would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, hearing from several character witnesses including Dr Midgely, who was put forward as Dr Botes’ proposed supervisor if the committee agreed to a postponement with undertakings.

When making their decision, the Committee took into account the fact that Dr Botes had been suspended from the Register in 2008 for six months for serious professional misconduct over the care of a dog that had been involved in a road traffic accident.

The Committee considered a postponement of judgment with undertakings, which was submitted by Dr Botes’ counsel.

However, the Committee took the view that a postponement would not be appropriate because the failings were not in limited aspects of practice but were wide-ranging, covering the fundamental requirements of any veterinary surgeon.

In the Committee’s view, this would mean nothing less than direct supervision, where Dr Botes’ practice was directly monitored on a day-to-day basis would be sufficient to protect animals, clients, and to uphold the wider public interest.

It would be impracticable to formulate undertakings capable of effectively addressing these issues.

The Committee also noted that the disgraceful conduct was serious and there was a pattern of sustained and persistent misconduct.

The Committee therefore did not believe that no further action, a reprimand or a warning were appropriate or proportionate outcomes.

The Committee also considered whether suspension was appropriate but concluded that there was a real risk of repetition of the behaviours outlined in the charges, and so the Committee was unable to conclude that Dr Botes would be fit to return to practice after a period of suspension.

The Committee therefore decided to direct that Dr Botes should be removed from the Register indefinitely.

In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on Dr Botes both professionally and financially, and took into account his witness statement in this regard.

Ian Arundale added: “In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”

Dr Botes has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has published a new waiting room poster which details what pet owners and veterinary professionals should expect from each other.

It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses. 

As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.

In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years. 

The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France. 

VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.

On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.

To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster. 

The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.

If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this -  cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause. 

Cardiff-based Nicola Burrows has been struck off the Register for creating an inaccurate clinical history for her horse and then dishonestly attempting to make insurance claim for its treatment.

Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her. 

The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.

The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.

Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.

Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.

The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.

However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of  a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.

Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.

Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.

The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”

Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.

The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.

Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.

Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.

“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.

“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately  five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.

“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”

She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”

Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.

The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disclipinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct a Brighton-based veterinary surgeon who failed to maintain a proper boundary between her professional and personal relationships with a client.

The eight charges considered at the seven-day hearing involved Marie-Louise Schlemm's treatment of Ratszy, a 16-year old Jack Russell with chronic renal failure, and her relationship with the dog's owner, Ms B, who suffers from mental illness, during May 2010. At that time, Ms Schlemm was employed by Coastway Veterinary Group in Brighton to work for its out-of-hours veterinary services, Vetcall, to which Ratszy had been referred by the PDSA. 

The College alleged that Ms Schlemm deliberately misled Ms B as to the condition and prognosis of Ratszy, removed the dog without Ms B's consent, and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in her dealings with Ms B. Other allegations were that that she had suggested Ms B tell the PDSA a fabricated story in order that she might see the dog again; made an offer that Ms B and Ratszy could come and stay with her at her home; required Ms B to attend a supermarket car park at 12.30am to collect Ratszy; and took money from Ms B other than for the purposes of legitimate veterinary treatment.

The Committee found both Ms Schlemm and Ms B to be truthful and honest witnesses, and that Ms B's recollection was given to the best of her ability. However, where recollections differed, it relied on contemporaneously prepared clinical records to find that Ms Schlemm did not mislead Ms B to the effect that the dog was not dying. Although recognising that Ms Schlemm's actions were misguided the Committee found that the dog was not taken without consent.

Furthermore, the Committee said in making the offer that Ms B and Ratszy might come and stay with her, Ms Schlemm was wholly misguided and had blurred the distinction between personal and professional activities. By this time, she was aware Ms B suffered from mental illness and so should have allowed the mental health services to take control of the situation. Similarly, she should not have required Ms B to meet in a car park to collect Ratszy, behaviour the Committee described as bizarre and which had compromised Ratszy's welfare.  Although the Committee gave Ms Schlemm the benefit of the doubt as to whether money taken was, in fact, to pay for alternative therapy for Ms B, she did not deal with the matter openly and it was a clear breach of trust to both Ms B and Vetcall.

In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Schlemm now had a genuine insight into her lack of judgement in her relationship with Ms B, had reflected on the decision of the Committee and fully accepted the "utter stupidity" of her actions. She had also attended courses on teamwork and managing client relationships, and had established good working relationships in a new practice.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "While the Committee has accepted that Ms Schlemm was motivated by good intentions towards Ms B and Ratszy, she breached the trust of both of Ms B and Vetcall in the way in which she behaved [and] acted in a misguided way in dealing with a vulnerable client, who was suffering from mental illness. In light of the serious nature of its findings, the Committee does not consider it appropriate to take no further action. The Committee has concluded that Ms Schlemm should be severely reprimanded for her conduct and given a warning as to her future conduct [and] reminds the profession of the importance of maintaining a proper boundary between the professional and personal relationships of client and veterinary surgeon."

The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.

At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.

On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.

Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.

Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.

In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."

The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.

Nottinghamshire-based veterinary surgeon Victor Daniel Pousada Garcia has been suspended from the Register for five months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following a conviction for harassment.

Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services. 

The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.

At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having  considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."

Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.

The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition. 

Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour." 

Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision  are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Leeds-based Gary James Cassius Samuel has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following his conviction for animal welfare offences in 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.

Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.

Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.

Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’. 

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."

In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future. 

Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."

Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here

Stephen Prichard has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he was found to have taken and used controlled drugs, reported for work while unfit to do so, and ignored requests from the College to respond to the concerns raised against him.

The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.

However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.

Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use. 

He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.

In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.

The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.

At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.

The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.

Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.

Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.

The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.

Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.

“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.

"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary