The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon, having found him not guilty of charges relating to the measurement of horses and ponies.
At the ten-day hearing, Marc Auerbach of Oak Equine Veterinary Surgery, Ongar, answered charges relating to measuring the height of 29 horses/ponies presented for measurement by two agents in early 2009. Dr Auerbach had undertaken these measurements as an Official Measurer (OM) for the Joint Measuring Board (JMB), which provides a system for independently measuring and certifying the size of competition horses/ponies. An animal's financial value relates to its size, with larger animals being more likely to win in their competitive class.
The case centred on the expected accuracy of such measurements, whether Dr Auerbach was dishonest in colluding with the agents, or whether there had been signs of malpractice which a reasonably competent vet acting as an OM ought to detect.
From evidence submitted, the Committee determined a margin for measurement accuracy, and consequently dismissed from its consideration ten animals where the difference between the initial measurement and the re-measurement was 3 cm or less. However, the College submitted that the average difference was so great that, either, Dr Auerbach had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the correct measurements were recorded, or else he had been dishonest. Dr Auerbach's Counsel accepted the inference that presenting agents were dishonest, but denied that Dr Auerbach was dishonest or had failed to pick up signs of malpractice on the part of the agents.
The Committee was of the view that there may be unscrupulous presenters capable of materially interfering with the height of horses. While it was unable to determine with certainty the extent to which it could be done, the Committee formed the view that unscrupulous interference (together with intrinsic variables) could have caused the differences between measurement and re-measurement in the 19 horses.
The Committee noted there was no evidence of improper payments being received by anyone. It also accepted evidence that Dr Auerbach was not a dishonest man, taking into account his record of 23 years of honesty and excellence in the profession, unchallenged character references and the lack of any credible motive for him to act dishonestly.
Next, the Committee considered whether there had been signs of preparation malpractice which ought to have been picked up by any reasonably competent veterinary surgeon acting as an OM. The College submitted that Dr Auerbach had failed to take several steps including the amount of time and attention given to the animals he measured, and whether they might be drugged or sedated.
The Committee concluded from the evidence, including scientific papers, that mildly sedated animals may not be distinguishable from properly prepared animals; well-behaved horses were not an indication that something was amiss. The Committee accepted that Dr Auerbach took around 15-20 minutes to measure each of the horses presented on 9 January; and, in the absence of guidance from the JMB, it could not conclude this was rushed or unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee was unable to be satisfied, so that it was sure, that the allegation of failure to take sufficient steps to ensure the recording of correct measurements was proved.
"Accordingly, the decision of the Committee is that the facts set out in the Charge in relation to all the horses and ponies listed have not been proved to the necessary standard of proof," said Prof Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee as he directed the charges be dismissed.
The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.
The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.
The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.
As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.
Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.
"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."
The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.
The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.
The RCVS Charitable Trust has teamed up with the Foundation for Social Improvement (FSI) for the launch of the Great Big Small Charity Car Draw 2011.
The draw enables small charities, such as the RCVS Charitable Trust, to sell tickets to supporters which offer a chance of winning a brand new Fiat 500 1.2 Pop. Each ticket costs only £2, and the Trust will receive £1.90 for every ticket it sells.
Tickets can be bought securely online at http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/support-us/get-involved/win-a-fiat-500/ or directly from the Trust office on 020 7202 0721 or by emailing fundraising@rcvstrust.org.uk. Books of tickets are also available to sell to colleagues, friends and family. The deadline for buying tickets is September 16th 2011 with the draw taking place on 25th October 2011.
Here are a few examples of what reviewers have been saying about the Fiat 500:
"The Fiat 500 is both stylish and fun. The modest running costs complement the engaging handling. So, this nimble little city car can be enthusiastically thrown into corners and it should emerge grinning like a Cheshire Cat." Motoring.co.uk
"I love my Fiat 500 1.2 Pop from the moment I drove off in it. Great fun to drive on the motorway and in town for parking into slots others cannot!" What Car?
"It's absolutely fantastic. It drives like a dream. Everybody admires it." Fiat Forum
For further information on the car draw, please contact Fiona O'Regan on 020 7202 0743 or Rebecca Fellows on 020 7202 0721. Alternatively email fundraising@rcvstrust.org.uk.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Vet Futures has published the results of a survey of the profession in which only half of veterinary surgeons who graduated within the last eight years say their career has matched their expectations.
The online survey gathered views from 892 veterinary students (via the Association of Veterinary Students) and 1,973 veterinary surgeons who had graduated within the last eight years, during May and June this year.
Although 37% of graduates reported that their working lives had met their expectations, and a further 13% said it had exceeded them, this left 50% partly or wholly unsatisfied. Furthermore, 10% said they were considering leaving the profession entirely.
The RCVS and the BVA say the results should be a “wakeup call” to the profession.
Vets who have been qualified for five years or more were least optimistic about the future, rating their opportunities for career progression less positively than more recent graduates. They were also least likely to feel that their degree had prepared them for their current work. Meanwhile, only 34% of students felt that their degree was preparing them ‘very well’ for the work they wanted to do.
73% of students intended to work in the UK, with most aspiring to work in small animal/exotic or mixed practice, although one in 10 was as yet undecided. Of the students, 45% said they wanted to become practice owners or partners. Clearly the reality is proving less enticing, because only 25% graduates shared the same aspiration. In addition, nearly double the number of graduates said they wanted to work outside clinical practice (18%), compared to students.
When looking for a job, the three factors that both graduates and students agreed would have the greatest influence on their choice of career were intellectual satisfaction, location and a supportive environment.
This last requirement chimes with the fact that among the most popular suggestions for improvement to the veterinary degree were compulsory modules on managing stress, personal development and work-life balance, alongside more teaching of business and finance skills, and extra-mural studies (EMS) placements in a wider range of settings, such as industry.
BVA President, John Blackwell, said: “The drop off in career satisfaction for vets during this crucial first eight years in practice is something we can’t afford to ignore. It points to frustration over career development opportunities and dissatisfaction with support available in practice. For the veterinary profession to remain sustainable, and an attractive career choice for the best and brightest, we need to address these issues with some urgency.”
RCVS President, Dr Bradley Viner, said: “We clearly need to address the disconnect between expectation and reality for many recent graduates. Reviewing the educational foundation of the profession is a thread that runs through many of the proposed actions that will be outlined in the Vet Futures report due this autumn. The teaching and assessment of non-clinical skills – both as part of the undergraduate curriculum and within postgraduate education – will be important, as will be the promotion of non-clinical career pathways.”
The survey also covered issues such as students’ aspirations in terms of the type (size, ownership, sector) of practice in which they would like to work, and graduates’ future career plans. It also considers attitudes from both groups with respect to new technology.
The full research report “Voices from the future of the profession,” can be read at www.vetfutures.org.uk/resources.
Dr Henry faced one charge, that in January 2020 she wrote and/or signed an undated letter confirming that a ewe had died in transit to the surgery due to dystocia and peri-parturient stress, when in fact she had euthanised the animal at the veterinary practice the day before. The letter, which was addressed 'To whom it may concern’, was on practice letterheaded paper and signed "Louise Henry MRCVS".
The second part of the charge outlined that her conduct concerning the letter was dishonest.
The Committee heard that the ewe was lambing and brought to the practice by a client. Dr Henry was on-call at the time and advised a Caesarean section. The client agreed and Dr Henry delivered two live lambs and one dead lamb.
Dr Henry was concerned about the welfare of the ewe post-surgery because of the risk of peritonitis and advised that the ewe should be euthanised.
The client agreed to the ewe being euthanised and then asked Dr Henry to write a letter in which it was stated that the ewe had died in transit on route to the practice. Dr Henry agreed to write the letter in which she falsely certified that the ewe had died in transit.
The letter came to light when the practice director found it in an insurance file. The practice arranged an investigatory meeting with Dr Henry where she admitted that writing the letter was an error of judgement. When asked about her conduct, Dr Henry explained that the client had subsequently been dissatisfied with the letter she had written and asked her to change it. She refused to amend the letter and told him that it was wrong of her to have written it in the first place and that she regretted having done so.
Dr Henry told the Committee that she valued integrity very highly and that she was deeply ashamed that she had been prepared to write the dishonest letter.
The Committee heard several testimonials from people who had worked with or studied alongside Dr Henry, who all attested to her skill as a veterinary surgeon and that they had no concerns about her integrity and honesty. She self-reported her actions from January to the RCVS and from the outset admitted the facts of the charge. During the hearing, Dr Henry submitted that her action of dishonest false certification amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that, in this case, the aggravating features were limited and the mitigating factors extensive. There was no premeditated dishonesty or financial gain involved, there was no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal or human and this was a single incident in an otherwise unblemished 13-year career. The Committee found that the shame and remorse expressed by Dr Henry were entirely genuine. Her conduct on this occasion was entirely untypical of her practise.
“After careful consideration, the Committee concluded that the substantial mitigating features permitted it to take the somewhat unusual course of issuing a reprimand in a case involving dishonesty. In taking this course, the Committee attached significant weight not only to the isolated nature of the event but also to the genuine insight shown by Dr Henry and the lasting impact this event has had upon her. In the Committee’s assessment, a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would, in this particular case, regard a reprimand as a sanction which protected the public interest in the profession and upheld its standards.”
The full documentation for the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
As part of its review, the College had planned a series of focus groups of veterinary surgeons and nurses across the UK. However, these have had to be delayed both because of social distancing rules and because of the pressures that practice teams are currently working under. However, the agency tasked with hosting the focus groups is now exploring alternative options and it is hoped there will be a revised timetable soon.
In the meantime, the College says it now plans to commission an additional independent agency to survey veterinary surgeons about their experience of remote prescribing during lockdown.
In March, RCVS Council agreed to temporarily allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, subject to a number of conditions and safeguards being in place.
This position is due for review by 30th June, and the College will be looking for feedback and data from veterinary surgeons about your experience of remote prescribing, in order to determine whether these arrangements can continue, with or without any extra safeguards.
Because remote prescribing is also one of the most important aspects of the planned under care review, feedback gathered now will help inform future discussions too.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: “We recognise the current conditions that veterinary practices are working under in no way represent normal practice life. Most practices will not have been set up to offer remote services and remote prescribing in a way that they might have chosen, given sufficient time and appropriate detailed guidance, if indeed there are any future guidance changes after the review.
"However, we feel it would be remiss of us not to seize the opportunity arising from this current crisis to ask about the experiences – good or bad – of those on the frontline of clinical veterinary practice in providing remote services to their clients.
"Whilst this will be no substitute for the formal evidence gathered by the research agency in due course, whatever data and feedback we can collate from veterinary practices at this unique time for our professions will, I’m sure, be extremely valuable to our ongoing discussions."
Dr Vlad Butnaru faced two charges, the first of which was that in May 2021, he had signed a passport and/or passport application for a horse and electronically signed a declaration stating that he “had read the above microchip, which had previously been implanted for the animal” when, in fact, the microchip had not been inserted into any horse and he had not read it.
The second charge was that, in relation to the matters set out in the first charge, Dr Butnaru’s signed declaration was false, and that he had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, he risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare, and failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
Dr Butnaru admitted the first charge on all counts, and that the declaration he had signed was false.
He also admitted that his conduct was misleading and that he had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
However, he denied that his conduct had been dishonest and that he had risked undermining a procedure designed to promote animal welfare.
In its decision, the committee noted that Dr Butnaru kept introducing new versions of what happened for the first time at the hearing and changed his account as he went along, as well as being evasive when answering questions.
The Committee therefore felt that Dr Butnaru could not be considered to be a reliable witness, and whilst it did not know the true reason why he was prepared to sign a false declaration on a passport application, it was satisfied that he'd made a false declaration dishonestly.
The Committee also found that Dr Butnaru had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate as, if the passport had been issued on a false premise because of misleading information provided by Dr Butnaru, then it could not function as it was meant to which, in the Committee’s view, clearly risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare.
The Committee found that Dr Butnaru had breached the parts 6.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct, as well as Principle 1 of the 10 Principles of Certification, namely that ‘a veterinarian should certify only those matters which: a) are within his or her own knowledge; b) can be ascertained by him or her personally; c) are the subject of supporting evidence from an authorised veterinarian who has personal knowledge of the matters in question; or d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP).’
The Committee found there were no mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors, on the other hand, were that Dr Butnaru had participated in premeditated misconduct, made financial gain from his actions as he was paid to make the false declaration, abused his professional position, and showed blatant or wilful disregard of the Horse Passport System and of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that all proven charges amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect.
On considering the sanction, the Committee once again considered the aggravating factors, as well as additional mitigating factors in that Dr Butnaru had no previous disciplinary history, showed limited insight by admitting to some of the charges, showed expressions of remorse, and was provided with a positive testimonial.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was cognisant of the importance of a veterinary surgeon’s signature on any document.
"This should have been obvious to any veterinary surgeon, but particularly someone of Dr Butnaru’s 11 years’ experience (at the time of signing).
"The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Butnaru of any decision to remove him from the Register, but had to weigh his interests with those of the public.
“In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, Dr Butnaru’s previous unblemished record and the need to act proportionately.
"However, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons and protecting the welfare of animals, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient.
"His actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register and thus the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register.”
The survey was held in mid-June and gathered 196 responses from UK practices. That compared with the 532 responses to the initial survey conducted early in April and 251 responses to the second survey conducted at the start of May.
One of the main findings was a marked increase in the number of practices running a near-normal caseload, from 3% in May to 32% in June. Practice turnover data similarly reflected a shift back towards normality, with 46% now reporting a reduction of less than 25%, compared with 19% last month.
Other findings included:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This latest survey has demonstrated a continuation of the previous survey’s positive trends including an increase in practice turnover with more practices approaching a ‘near normal caseload’ and with a reduction in the number of practices impacted by staff self-isolating or with confirmed cases of Covid-19.
“In this survey we also asked about what difficulties practices may be experiencing with EMS placements for vet students and VN training placements as a result of Covid-19, and this will help us to understand how we can better support students and practices in these areas.
“We will continue to monitor the situation via these regular surveys, with the next one planned for later this summer. I would urge as many practices as possible to continue to complete them, so that we can build up a stronger evidence-base on how veterinary businesses have been affected and how they are recovering.
"This information is not only vital for our own policy decisions but also allows us to present a stronger case to the Government and other public bodies where we wish to influence the decisions they make that will impact the veterinary professions and businesses.”
The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus-resources.
The Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) is co-chaired by the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer Nigel Gibbens, RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Chris Tufnell, and BVA Senior Vice-President Gudrun Ravetz. The project board also comprises the CVOs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Sheila Voas, Christianne Glossop and Robert Huey, as well as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
The project’s objective is to work with the veterinary sector to better understand the UK’s workforce needs and ensure that both the Government and veterinary businesses can continue to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard the food chain and maintain levels of public health and public services, and enable trade in animals and animal products.
The project will include a joint BVA-RCVS submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on workforce issues post-Brexit. Three working groups have been set up within the project to look specifically at issues of veterinary resources, recruitment and retention.
The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Nigel Gibbens, said: "Leaving the EU provides us with an opportunity to develop gold standard policies on animal welfare. The UK Government is determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain and Ministers have been absolutely clear we will maintain our world-leading animal welfare standards.
"The VCCP is a great example of collaborative working between government, professional bodies and regulators to prepare for our exit from the European Union.
"I am pleased the Prime Minister has set out the government’s aim to secure the status of the veterinary workforce as a top priority as we leave the EU. The UK’s vets - both Official Veterinarians and those in the private sector - play a key role in protecting our country from endemic and exotic diseases, tackling outbreaks when they occur, safeguarding our animals and tackling global challenges like antibiotic resistance."
Chris Tufnell said: "Since the vote to leave the European Union last year the RCVS has been working in partnership with BVA to highlight to Government and others the potential workforce shortages that could arise from a loss of non-UK EU-qualified vets, particularly in public health work where they tend to predominate. Our position was highlighted in our Brexit Principles published earlier this year and at an event organised by us and the BVA at the Palace of Westminster for MPs and Peers.
"We are very glad that Defra is working proactively with us and BVA to understand the scale of the issues and map out the risks and opportunities and to help us plan for a number of different scenarios in advance so that we do not find ourselves in a position whereby animal health and welfare or public health might be compromised by workforce shortages."
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Vets provide the foundation for the UK’s high animal health and welfare, and make an essential contribution to the UK economy and wider society. Veterinary teams up and down the country support the UK’s 11 million pet-owning households; not a penny of the UK’s £12.7 billion livestock industry could be realised without vets; and vets are vital to facilitating UK trade, through health certification and controls, so that consumers have confidence in the food safety and welfare of the products they buy.
"Non-UK EU vets make up around 50% of our new workforce each year yet, since the EU referendum; we are facing increasing problems in recruiting and retaining EU colleagues to the UK. The impact of the loss of even a small percentage of the veterinary workforce could have serious repercussions on the practices, communities and industries that vets serve. This profession-wide project is pivotal to ensuring we have a veterinary workforce that can serve the UK’s needs post-Brexit."
The BVA’s Brexit and the veterinary profession report can be found at www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/policy/future-of-the-profession/brexit/
To read the College’s Brexit Principles in full visit www.rcvs.org.uk/brexit
The Prime Minister has set out the government’s offer for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU on their rights and status after the UK leaves the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu
The government’s response to House of Lord’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee’s inquiry into Brexit: Farm Animal Welfare also addresses veterinary capability post-Brexit:https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-energy-environment-subcommittee/Brexit-farm-animal-welfare/Gov-Brexit-farm-anim.pdf
All veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and VN students are to be invited to take part in an RCVS survey of their profession and, for the first time, these surveys will measure mental wellbeing at a population level.RCVS Registrar, Jane Hern said: "Both surveys are being undertaken on our behalf by the Institute of Employment Studies - an independent research organisation. As in previous surveys, all the data will be anonymised by the IES before being shared with us. This will ensure individuals cannot be identified."The information will provide a snapshot of the veterinary profession and help the RCVS to understand and analyse changing trends. Some of the anonymised data will also be shared with researchers at Defra and at the School of Medicine, University of Southampton, who will analyse selected topics in more depth.Jane added: "These surveys produce very useful information about the veterinary and veterinary nursing profession, not least because they usually get a good response rate.
"We will use the information, for example, in our discussions about new veterinary legislation, 24/7 and the Professional Development Phase for newly-qualified vets. So please make sure that you send the form to the IES - or fill it in online - before 8 February."The RCVS normally surveys veterinary surgeons every four years, and last surveyed veterinary nurses in 2008. To obtain concurrent data regarding vets and VNs, both these surveys are taking place at the same time. Forms can by sent back in the freepost envelope provided, or completed online at www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm (vets) and www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm (VNs). The findings of previous studies can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/surveys.
Captains Nicola Housby-Skeggs and Claire Budge, the first two members of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps (RAVC) to achieve the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP), have been presented with their certificates at Belgravia House.
The two Captains were visiting the RCVS as part of a 'Meet the RCVS Day' organised for a group of Officers from the RAVC. The Captains were presented with their Certificates by Vice-President Peter Jinman.
Capt Nicola Housby-Skeggs had completed a mixture of small animal and equine modules in order to achieve her Certificate, and was positive about the modular approach. She said: "It's reassuring to know you can have a break if you need to. The compulsory module on professional key skills was also more useful than I had anticipated, as it focused on aspects that you don't really have time for at vet school, such as management, and health and safety."
Meanwhile, Captain Claire Budge appreciated the fact that many of her modules could be completed via distance learning. She said: "It was great that I could continue with my studies even when serving in Afghanistan. My only regret is that when I started the Certificate back in 2008, there wasn't the range of modules available that there is now. For example, I would like to have done one of the new Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law modules. However, there is no reason why I can't just take this as continuing professional development - that's the benefit of the modular approach."
More information about the CertAVP can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts.
'Meet the RCVS Days' give members of the veterinary team the opportunity to visit the College and find out what goes on behind the scenes. If you would like to join a future event, please let Fiona Harcourt know, on f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk. Reasonable travel expenses are paid.
The RCVS has announced the appointment of Gordon Hockey as its Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar, has latterly been Acting Registrar, following the departure of Jane Hern in November 2011 and the arrival of Nick Stace as Chief Executive on 3 September.
A qualified barrister and pharmacist, Gordon has been at the RCVS for the last 14 years.
His is a new role created when the old post of Registrar and Secretary was effectively split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary, and Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that Gordon's is my first appointment as Chief Executive, and I am grateful that he held the fort so well for the last nine months. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the RCVS is in the best shape possible to meet the needs of the public and the veterinary team."
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "We have a very strong team to take the RCVS forward. Nick has joined us with leadership experience, consumer expertise and new ideas and impetus; Gordon consolidates this with his legal expertise and experience of the veterinary profession and the RCVS. I look forward to working with them both."
The appointment is subject to formal ratification at the November meeting of Council.
The first part of the charge was that, between 3 November 2014 and 10 December 2016 he did not provide CPD records to the RCVS requested in four separate letters dated November 2014, September 2015, November 2015 and November 2016. The second part of the charge was that, between 11 December 2016 and 26 July 2017, he did not provide the RCVS with his CPD records despite requests.
Dr Zukauskas admitted to the charge against him at the outset of the hearing.
The Committee considered whether Mr Zukauskas’ failure to respond to requests for his CPD records constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that he had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not responding to the repeated requests for information from the College, although the Committee noted that there had not been total silence. Mr Zukauskas had made email contact on at least two occasions in response to RCVS letters and gave evidence that he had attempted to phone the authors of the letters. The Committee also noted that in early February 2017 Mr Zukauskas had made repeated attempts to give the RCVS access to his online CPD account, which he had been updating to reflect CPD work that he had undertaken.
Mr Zukauskas’ explanation for his failure was that he had not fully appreciated the importance of the letters, that his English was poor, and that he failed to obtain appropriate advice about the content of the letters until recently. It was only in a witness statement dated 27 July 2017 that he finally disclosed his full CPD records.
The Committee noted Mr Zukauskas' admission in his evidence that his English was not good, particularly in light of the obligation, brought into the Code in February 2016, for veterinary surgeons to be able to communicate effectively in written and spoken English.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "From that date, if not earlier, the respondent should have been concerned to understand English sufficiently well to address the correspondence from the College. Whilst the Committee did not consider that his conduct in this respect amounted to disrespect, it did consider that he had shown a disregard of his obligations.
"At all times he could and should have made appropriate efforts to respond to the correspondence from the College and obtain appropriate advice. In effect he put off dealing with these matters and put his head in the sand."
Regarding his failure to respond to requests between December 2016 and July 2017, Ms Karve added: "This caused the College a considerable amount of concern and extra work. Had he done so much earlier, much of this matter would have been avoided. The respondent was once again in breach of his obligations."
Having found Mr Zukauskas guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against Mr Zukauskas, taking into account the fact that the Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee had recently suspended a veterinary nurse from the Register for a period of two months having found her guilty of similar charges.
In mitigation the Committee considered a number of testimonials from colleagues and clients, his hitherto long and unblemished career in the United Kingdom, and his open and frank admissions and subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of his behaviour. Language problems were also considered as an explanation for why the situation had occurred. However, it also considered the aggravating factor that the misconduct was sustained over a period of time and that there was unacceptable disregard for the obligations he had to the College as a veterinary surgeon.
In summing up Ms Karve said: "The Committee has determined to impose a reprimand. In doing so it acknowledged that the respondent has shown considerable insight into his behaviour. He had acknowledged that he has needed help in communicating with the College. It noted that he is a good and proficient veterinary surgeon in the work which he undertakes. He expressed remorse for his behaviour. He has carried out sufficient CPD and since December 2016 has been communicating with the College. The Committee considers it unlikely that he will transgress again.
"The Committee has decided that it is appropriate in this case to add a warning to the decision to impose a reprimand. It is mindful of the fact that other veterinary surgeons registered with the College have a duty to discharge their CPD obligations and they honour those obligations. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent has involved a considerable amount of work and expense for the College."
The warning was that in future Mr Zukauskas must respond in a timely and appropriate manner to any communications from the RCVS.
The College says it has become increasingly recognisant of how a blame culture can lead to a fear of making mistakes, something which can have a negative impact on both the mental health and wellbeing of members of the profession and, ultimately, animal health and welfare.
The anonymous online survey, which is being conducted by the Open Minds Alliance, is described by the College as a major step towards moving to a learning culture which has a greater focus on openness, reflective practice, learning and personal development.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: "Moving towards a learning culture is one of the key aims of our Strategic Plan 2017-19 and we have already started to make some progress in this area with our Mind Matters Initiative, for example. This survey will help establish a baseline against which we can measure any improvements over the course of the next three years.
"As a regulator this is part of our attempt to be much clearer about the kind of culture we would like to see in the professions; one that encourages members of the veterinary team to learn from each other, and from their mistakes, and to be more open about when things do go wrong in order to better manage public and professional expectations.
"By moving towards a learning culture we can also hopefully reduce levels of stress and mental ill-health within the profession, as practitioners will feel they can be more open about their mistakes and take steps to improve their practice – rather than feeling like they cannot talk about what goes wrong, which can lead to fear and anxiety.
"This is no easy task – particularly when public expectations of what veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can and should do is increasing – but we hope that by being brave and open about this new ambition we can galvanise veterinary associations, educators, practices and individual veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and make a real difference."
The survey will also be asking to what extent members of the profession feel that the College, as the regulator, contributes to any blame culture and where improvements could be made to the concerns investigation and disciplinary process to help combat it.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, added: "It is a common misconception that if you make a mistake then this will be investigated by the College and you will end up in front of a Disciplinary Committee.
"However, we recognise that mistakes can and will happen and that expecting 100% perfection is unrealistic. The real professional conduct issues arise when members of the profession try to cover up their mistakes, whether that is to professional colleagues or clients, which often does far more damage than if the person was open and honest about what had gone wrong.
"We do also accept that there is always room for improvement in our own processes and if there are positive steps we can take to make the investigation and disciplinary process less onerous for members of the professions then we would like to hear your suggestions."
Click here to take part in the survey.
The symposium will be launched by Dr Leah Quinlivan (pictured right), a research fellow and chartered psychologist at the University of Manchester.
Her talk ‘Evidence-based care for people who have self-harmed: risk prediction, psychosocial assessments, and aftercare’, will outline the importance of improving mental health services for patients who have harmed themselves, via discussion of evidence, policy, and practice for risk prediction, psychosocial assessment, and aftercare.
Leah's talk will be followed by presentations delivered by veterinary mental health researchers from across the UK and Europe.
Topics will include post-Covid wellbeing amongst veterinary professionals, the impact of companion animal euthanasia, workplace stressors and how they change with career stage, and the quality of mental health support received by veterinary nurses.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative project manager, said: “This year, the event promises once more to be a supportive and thought-provoking event, where we can gather to share findings, information and best practice for the good of the professions.
“The recent publication of MMI’s five-year strategy has outlined our recognition that we need to expand the conversation beyond mental health awareness and into looking at more systemic and cultural issues, as well as exploring how the insights gained from research might be implemented in practice.
"These ambitious aims are reflected in the breadth of the talks and presentations at the symposium and so I look forward to hearing more from those who share our values and aims, and to continuing the conversation about how and where we can do more.
“The symposium is very much open to all members of the veterinary team including vets, vet nurses, practice managers and academics."
Tickets cost £45 per person although the event is free for students, people with lived experience of mental health problems, and people who are unwaged, who would not otherwise be able to attend.
www.vetmindmatters.org/events
It was alleged that in September 2015, she had acted inappropriately by striking a Shih Tzu/Toy Poodle cross puppy called Arnie on his head.
The hearing commenced on Tuesday 3 January 2017 with evidence being given by the owner of the animal ("TC"). However, the corroborating witness, who was also the complainant in the case, failed to attend the hearing to give evidence.
Efforts were made by the College to contact the complainant and remind her that she had been summoned to appear before the Committee – however, she still chose not to attend the hearing to give evidence. In response to her non-appearance the Committee decided that her written evidence was inadmissible as there would be no opportunity to cross-examine her about the discrepancies between her account and that of TC.
Miss Faulkner’s counsel then made an application to the Committee that the College had failed to sufficiently prove its case to the requisite standard such that it would not be necessary for her to adduce any evidence in her defence. The Committee granted this on the grounds that there were clear inconsistencies in the evidence given by TC at different stages of the investigation and during the hearing itself.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was unable to conclude that TC was a reliable witness. Given TC’s centrality to the case the Committee is unable to be satisfied so that it is sure that her account of events as outlined in her oral evidence is accurate. Accordingly, the Committee is not satisfied that the College has proved to the requisite standard that the respondent did in fact strike Arnie to the head as alleged.
"Accordingly, the Committee accepts the submission made by the respondent that the College has not adduced sufficient evidence upon which it can find the facts alleged in the charge to be proved. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Committee to consider this matter any further. There is no case for the respondent to answer."
It's the final call for comments on the draft new RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, as the consultation closes on Friday, 24 June 2011.
The new draft Code, which is intended to replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, was produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee.
The new Code is a short, principles-based document using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.
New requirements in the Code include compulsory continuing professional development, the RCVS Health Protocol and more on clinical competence. It also contains an updated declaration to be made by veterinary surgeons, which gives increased emphasis to animal welfare.
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeconsultation.
Comments, which are welcomed from the profession and the public, should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 24 June 2011.
A separate consultation will open shortly on a draft RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.
"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.
"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”
Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.
The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487
More meetings are planned for later in the year:
If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk
The nomination period closes at 5pm on Wednesday 31 January 2018 with the election period set to start in mid-March and close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Candidates need to submit a nomination form, contact details, a short biography and candidate statement and supply a high-resolution digital photograph to use in print and online materials.
In order for a candidacy to be accepted they will also need two nominators who should be veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register but who are not current members of RCVS Council.
Registered addresses and original (hard copy) signatures of both the nominee and the proposers are required on the form in order for it to be valid.
The RCVS is also reminding candidates that the College is currently preparing for a change in its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, as outlined in a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that was agreed by Council members in March 2016.
As it stands, members of the profession are still electing six candidates to RCVS Council in the 2018 elections. However, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places as members of RCVS Council.
There will be no elections to VN Council this year as a decision was made to reduce the number of elected members.
More information on how to stand as a candidate for RCVS Council, as well as nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18
Dr Westwood, who now lives in Australia, had been referred to the Committee in relation to a number of charges against him relating to the treatment of a cat at his former practice in Cardiff in October 2015.
He was not present at the inquiry and had requested that his solicitor, Tony Wilson, act on his behalf.
Mr Wilson made an application to the Committee that the hearing should be adjourned contingent on a form of undertakings being accepted. These undertakings were that Dr Westwood’s name be removed from the Register with immediate effect and that he never apply to be restored to the Register under any category.
The application was granted by the Committee, taking into account a number of factors. These included the fact that Dr Westwood has retired as a veterinary surgeon, that he has closed his practice and returned to his home in Australia with no intention of returning to the UK, and that animal welfare and the reputation of the profession have been protected as Dr Westwood will no longer be in practice.
The Committee noted that there were several precedents for concluding cases in such a manner, and that the application was not objected to by the complainant or opposed by the College.
Dr Westwood’s name was removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons with immediate effect as of Monday 14 August 2017.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has set up a new Veterinary Legislation Group to consider proposals for changes in veterinary regulation, in the light of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's inquiry into the current Veterinary Surgeons Act, and the Government's response to the EFRA Committee's report.
The new group, which will be chaired by RCVS Council Member and Dean of Glasgow Veterinary School, Professor Stuart Reid, will be tasked with taking a fresh look at changes that need to be made to the current legislative framework, and how these might be accomplished. It will not restrict itself to looking at a replacement for the Veterinary Surgeons Act, but will consider other ways that changes can be made in the short- and long-term.
The Group will meet in September, and comprise RCVS Council members and non-members - both lay people and veterinary surgeons. Once the RCVS position has been clarified, further discussion will follow with DEFRA, the BVA and the profession.
Responding to the Government's response to the EFRA Committee report, RCVS President Jill Nute said: "We welcome the fact that DEFRA is willing to consider any detailed proposals that might come forward from the profession, although we accept that DEFRA itself does not have time or resources to be proactive at this stage.
"We are also pleased that Government acknowledges that the veterinary nursing profession has come of age and that the time is right for the regulation of veterinary nurses to be taken forward, although again it is disappointing that DEFRA does not have the resources to progress this at present.
"Finally, we welcome the suggestion that the Presidents of the BVA and the RCVS meet with the Chief Veterinary Officer to discuss plans and to what extent DEFRA can help us - accepting the fact that DEFRA, like the RCVS, feels that a piecemeal approach may not be the most effective," she concluded.
The awards, which which celebrate initiatives that advance the quality of veterinary care and demonstrate a commitment to using an evidence-based approach, will be open for applications until 13th January 2023.
The two new award categories are Antimicrobial Stewardship and Canine Cruciate Outcomes.
The Canine Cruciate Outcome Awards are to recognise and celebrate individuals and teams who are using Quality Improvement initiatives alongside RCVS Knowledge’s Canine Cruciate Registry (CCR) to monitor and improve their canine cruciate surgery outcomes.
Applications are invited by surgeons and teams who are using the CCR.
The Antimicrobial Stewardship Awards, which are divided into farm animal, equine, and companion animal categories, aim to showcase practical examples where individuals and teams are improving responsible antimicrobial prescribing.
In addition, the charity is looking for entries for its existing awards for students and those who have implemented Quality Improvement (QI) techniques.
The Veterinary Evidence Student Awards enables students from around the world to enhance their academic and research skills by writing a Knowledge Summary and submitting it for publication to Veterinary Evidence, RCVS Knowledge's open access, peer-reviewed journal.
The Quality Improvement Awards showcase the implementation of Quality Improvement techniques which drive improvement within the professions.
www.rcvsknowledge.org/awards
At the meeting, which took place last Thursday, Council members were asked to decide how to proceed with three specific proposals on reforming the disciplinary system:
Acknowledging some of the concerns that have been raised about changing the standard of proof, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: “The RCVS is now one of just a few regulators that still uses the criminal standard of proof in determining the facts of a case. We have sought these changes as part of our ongoing aim to develop a compassionate and forward-looking disciplinary system with the protection of the public absolutely at its heart, whilst also acknowledging the huge toll the process takes on the mental health of veterinary professionals.
"Research that we carried out into the impact of changing the standard of proof indicated that it would not lead to a major increase in cases being referred from the Preliminary Investigation Committee to the Disciplinary Committee. Importantly the number is likely to be very low because the standard of proof only applies to proving the facts of a case; the judgement as to whether proven facts amount to serious professional misconduct will follow the same process as at present.
"We estimated that during 2019, there could have been just two more cases brought to DC under a altered standard of proof, with an additional three cases that were borderline but probably wouldn’t have proceeded any further. Conversely, we also estimated that three cases that did go to DC during 2019 would probably not have done, had the ‘Charter Case Committee’ option been available.
"Ultimately, the aim of the RCVS in regulating the veterinary professions is to protect the public and animal welfare as well as upholding the reputation of the professions. We believe these changes will better achieve that aim."
The consultation on whether to change the standard of proof as well as to introduce the Charter Case Protocol and ‘mini-PICs’ is now planned for later this year.
Further information about the proposals, including some of the arguments for and against changing the standard of proof, can be found in the papers for RCVS Council at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/4-june-2020/ (pages 70-97).