The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he accepted the seriousness of its finding.

In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.

At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon, including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs). These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.

The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also taken as relevant in this regard.

The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer suffers from an alcohol problem.

Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his name being restored to the Register."

She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of particular importance that any member who has been removed should recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."

On the 1st July, the RCVS will publish new guidelines about whether procedures count as routine veterinary practice (RVP), clinical veterinary research (CVR) or as experimental.

The new guidance replaces Chapter 25 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct.

Routine Veterinary Practice describes the procedures and techniques performed on animals by veterinary surgeons (or veterinary nurses under their direction) in the course of their professional duties, which ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to their care. 

CVR is when routine procedures are undertaken for the benefit of the animal/s, with the concurrent intention to generate new knowledge that benefits animals, such as developing new procedures, improving a diagnosis, changing a routine procedure, or comparing existing procedures.

While the idea of CVR is not new, this is the first time that the RCVS has provided specific guidance on it.

The guidance also introduces an obligation, which comes into effect on 1st September, to obtain ethics review for all studies where one would be expected to obtain permission from the owner/keeper of an animal prior to being enrolled, or when consent is needed for use of previously collected samples or the use of data from an animal.

The newly drafted Chapter 25 gives extra guidance on the following areas:

• What do you want to do?
• Why do you want to do it?
• Does the procedure or technique include the use of a medicine prescribed under the cascade?
• Do you have informed consent?
• Is this clinical veterinary research?
• Has the procedure or technique been performed before?
• Have you performed the procedure or technique before?
• Do you need to obtain ethics review?

Chair of the Standards Committee and incoming RCVS President, Dr Melissa Donald (pictured right), said: “We hope that the guidance will inspire confidence in our veterinary colleagues at all levels to undertake treatment routes which develop veterinary knowledge as a whole, while still being for the benefit of the animal being treated.” 

For further information or advice on whether a proposed procedure would be covered by the guidance, contact the Standards and Advice team via advice@rcvs.org.uk.

The new guidance will be found on the RCVS website from the 1st July: www.rcvs.org.uk/recognised

For further information in relation to ethics review of proposed veterinary clinical research studies, contact the Secretary to the RCVS Ethics Review Panel via ethics@rcvs.org.uk or visit www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics

The RCVS has launched two new awards for veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who are making a tangible positive impact on the profession and who are inspiring others by their example.

The RCVS Inspiration Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout his or her career.

The award is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals or groups or who have worked at a profession-wide level. It will recognise those who have gone 'above and beyond' what may normally be expected from a professional colleague or tutor. 

The RCVS Impact Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has made a considerable impact that has affected the profession, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.

Chris Tufnell, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS, said: "I am very excited to be introducing these two new awards for those veterinary surgeons and nurses who go above-and-beyond the call of duty for the benefit of their profession, animals and society as a whole.

"I am keen to emphasise that these two new awards are relevant for veterinary professionals from all walks of life and any stage of their career – these are not life-time achievement awards but are for those making a tangible difference whether that’s in their practice, their region or across the country as a whole.

"If you know someone like this then I would strongly encourage you to find out more on our website and fill out a nomination form."

These two awards join four others made by the College:

• The Queen’s Medal, for veterinary surgeons who've made a significant impact on their profession over the course of a career.
• The Golden Jubilee Award, for veterinary nurses who've have made a significant impact on their profession over the course of a career
• Honorary Associateship for laypeople who have made a significant impact in the veterinary field.
• International Award for individuals who have worked internationally from either within or outside the UK, to safeguard and improve animal health and welfare. 

Nominations for all six honours are now open. Nomination forms and guidance notes can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and any questions can be directed to Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.

The deadline for making nominations is Friday 22 September 2017. 

Brian Cullen Bowles has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he was found to have put public health at risk by dishonestly certifying cattle test results.

Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.

The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.

The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.

The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.

The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.

The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.

The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.

The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.

These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.

Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.

The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.

In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.

Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.

"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.

"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”

The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.

It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.

It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.

Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.

Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.

"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.

“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.

"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.

"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.

“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.

"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to accept undertakings from a Dorset veterinary surgeon, Philippa Ann Rodale MBE, in which she requests that her name is removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons with effect from 31 July 2015, and undertakes never to apply to be restored to it.

The Committee met on Monday 17 August, resuming a hearing which had been adjourned on 20 July. The adjournment had been made to allow Ms Rodale time to submit formal responses to the charges against her and indicate whether she agreed with them. In the event, as outlined by a letter from her solicitors received by the College on 14 August, Ms Rodale declined to comment on the charges and did not admit to any of them.

Ms Rodale did not attend the hearing on 17 August, however, the Committee decided to continue in her absence, on the understanding that, as evidenced by her solicitors’ letter, she was fully aware of the hearing and had voluntarily waived her right to be presented and represented.

The original charges related to Ms Rodale’s standards of practice (in relation to issues such as biosecurity, hygiene, in-patient facilities, drug storage and the disposal of hazardous waste, among other things) and also to a test for Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin. The charges relating to her standards of practice did not have complainants, as the College raised the matters itself; with respect to the Tuberculin test charge, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as the relevant body, raised no objection to the proposed course of accepting undertakings.

In accepting the undertakings, the Committee felt that a contested hearing that could take up to seven days and involve up to eight witnesses for the College and up to three for the Respondent would not be in the public interest. Furthermore, since the 20 July hearing, Ms Rodale had retired and closed her practice. The Committee also noted that there had been no previous disciplinary findings against her, in what was otherwise a long and unblemished career.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals since the Respondent has now retired and is no longer in practice. It is also satisfied that the reputation of the profession is upheld since the undertakings offered go beyond any sanction which the Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing, were any of the Heads of Charge to be found proved. It considers that it would not be proportionate or in the public interest for there to be a lengthy contested hearing.”

A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons audit panel is to visit UK veterinary schools to assess how Extra-Mural Studies (EMS) is being carried out, identify good practice and make recommendations for improvement. The exercise is part of a package of measures which aims to improve the way that EMS helps veterinary undergraduates to gain skills and knowledge in a practice environment.

RCVS Council agreed to the implementation of proposals made by a Working Party set up to review the whole EMS process in November 2009. While the EMS system was largely agreed to be valuable and working well, some areas were identified for improvement. Many of the recommendations centred on a better understanding amongst all parties involved - students, practices and vet schools - of the aims and objectives of EMS for the student, and improved communication about expectations and outcomes.

As a first step, the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee has put in place an audit of EMS at the veterinary schools. It has commissioned Dr Barry Johnson, who led the original Working Party, together with practitioners David Black, David Wadsworth and Dr Chris Chesney, to follow through individual cases, talking to the students, practitioners and clinical tutors and EMS co-ordinators at the vet schools, to build a picture of how administration, communication and follow-up is managed.

Barry said: "The objective of the audit is to identify areas of good practice that can be shared, and identify where improvements could be made - it will also promote dialogue between practices and the schools. The exercise will be repeated over the next couple of years to track changes."

The first audit took place at the Royal Veterinary College in February, as part of the full RCVS visitation of the undergraduate degree programme. The EMS audit panel will report its initial findings in June.

The full report and recommendations from the EMS Working Party can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/EMS.

The lower age limit for student veterinary nurses - previously set at 17 - has been removed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in order to comply with age discrimination legislation.

The entry requirements remain unchanged: five GSCEs at grade C or higher, or five Scottish Standards at grades one to three (including English Language, Maths and a Science subject).

Candidates must also have a place with an RCVS-approved Training Practice or on a recognised veterinary nursing degree course.

Libby Earle, Head of Veterinary Nursing said: "We hope that the removal of this age barrier will be seen as a positive step that will serve to improve access to training. Practices remain free to recruit as they see fit to meet the particular demands of their business."

New veterinary nursing careers leaflets have been produced to reflect the change and are available from vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0711, or to download from RCVSonline: www.rcvs.org.uk/publications

The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.

The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.

The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.

Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."

The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.

Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."

The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia

Ed's comment: The new guidance seems like common sense to me. A couple of things stand out as useful reminders, though. The first is to anonymise details of the cases you discuss on vetsurgeon.org, or get your clients' prior permission to discuss their animal in a professional forum. The other is the fact that being disparaging about a colleague online is as much of a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct as if you do it offline. So don't!

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the Register for nine months for convictions regarding docking puppies' tails and driving offences, and for failing to obtain a client's consent to treatment or explore other treatment options.

At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Leicester, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute. 

They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained.  Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent.  Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008. 

Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery. It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass."

On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies.  He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over £3,000.  During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children.  He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues.  He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008.  He also drew to the Committee's attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.

The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife's death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.

It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog's tails unless for "truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons." In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a  period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.

Mrs Freedman said: "The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct." 

She added: "Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension. However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College's Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register."

The RCVS has published the report on its second survey on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on veterinary businesses, finding a small improvement on the situation last month.

The survey was held between the 1st and 5th May and was sent to the 3,139 UK veterinary practices for which the RCVS holds a unique email address. In total it gathered 251 responses (a response rate of 8%) compared to the 532 responses to the initial survey conducted between 3rd and 7th April (a response rate of 17%).

The main changes compared to last month's survey were:

• Fewer practices were affected by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses having to self-isolate. In the April survey some 30% of respondent practices were affected by this compared to 20% in the May survey.
• Last month, the overwhelming majority of practices (97%) had limited their caseloads to emergency or urgent cases only. This month, only 26% were seeing emergency cases only. The majority of practices (69%) reported seeing a reduced caseload, including some routine work.
• In the April survey 42% of respondents reported a 51% to 75% fall in turnover, while 24% of respondents reported a fall in turnover of more than 75%. This month, the majority of respondents (46%) reported a 25% to 50% drop in turnover, while just 6% of practices reported a more than 75% reduction in turnover. 

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This latest survey has identified some positive trends in terms of a slight uptick in business, including turnover, and fewer incidences of staff having to take time off with COVID or COVID-like symptoms.

“I am glad to see that the framework we published in April has, so far as we can see, provided veterinary professionals with greater guidance and reassurance regarding the fact that if it is feasible to do something safely under social distancing guidelines, then they can go ahead, if they choose to.

"We left plenty of scope for veterinary professionals to use their clinical judgement as to what services actually offer, depending on their facilities, level of staffing, availability of protective equipment, local disease pressures and so on.

"However, it is also clear that we are, by no means, out of the woods and that veterinary businesses are still struggling financially, with some of them reporting a very acute impact of the coronavirus and the associated restrictions on their businesses.

“We will continue to monitor the situation via these regular surveys, with the next one planned for early June. 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. 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 RCVS has announced that it has joined forces with the Doctors’ Support Network (DSN) to launch the ‘&me’ campaign which aims to tackle mental health stigma in the health professions by encouraging prominent members to speak out about their own experiences.

The campaign was officially launched at an event at the Palace of Westminster sponsored by Kevan Jones MP (Labour, North Durham) who has spoken about his own experiences with depression, and featured first-hand testimonials from senior veterinary surgeons and doctors who have experienced mental ill-health.

‘&me’ is a collaboration between the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative, which seeks to address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession, and the Doctors’ Support Network, which provides peer support for doctors and medical students with mental health concerns.

Introducing the campaign, Mr Jones said: "The key message I have today in regards to mental health is talking about it and trying to get it out of the dark corners rather than it being something you are ashamed to talk about. That is how we get people to help themselves with their own condition and to seek help. The other key thing is not to write people off if they have a mental illness."

The floor was then opened to personal stories from those who have lived experience of mental ill-health. Dr Louise Freeman is Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and was diagnosed with depression in 2009 as a result of the way in which her return to work was handled after having time off work as an emergency medicine consultant following a bereavement.

She said: "This experience made me think that doctors with mental health problems were in a small minority and that it was probably our own fault anyway. Both impressions are completely wrong. The incidence of mental health problems is one in four people in any one year and is actually higher for doctors, who are often slower to seek help than non-medics. The good news is that well supported doctors have excellent treatment outcomes.

"During my own return to work, I was told by my clinical lead that they had 'always thought that I was a mental health problem waiting to happen.' I think this says more about them than it did about me! On reflection, yes that was true, but only inasmuch as this applies to all of us during our lives.

"I hope that the ‘&me’ campaign can start to address this by encouraging senior healthcare professionals, who are currently well, but have experienced mental health problems, to disclose that they have 'been there themselves'. I think that this will help to normalise mental ill health for healthcare professionals and therefore remove some of the barriers to unwell professionals seeking help at an earlier stage. Overall this would be better for healthcare professionals, their colleagues and their patients."

David Bartram, Director of Outcomes Research for the international operations of the largest global animal health company and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' governing Council, spoke next. He gave his perspective on coming to terms with a mental health condition in a profession that has some stigma attached to it.

A number of years ago David attempted suicide following the breakup of his marriage and explains what happened from there: "I just thought I was stressed – after all, who wouldn’t be in those circumstances? But in fact I was becoming progressively more unwell. What started as worry, early waking and palpitations – which I recognised – led to patterns of thinking which I did not recognise as being disordered. I felt trapped and worthless – suicide was the only escape. From a medical perspective, my biological, social and psychological risk factors had converged and tipped me into major depression.

"That was the first of multiple suicide attempts and several prolonged stays in hospital. Over a three-year period I spent 12 months as a psychiatric inpatient. I was treated with antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, talking therapies and electroconvulsive therapy.

"But now thankfully I am well – and I have been for 14 years…. To what do I attribute my recovery? A mixture of medical treatment, psychological therapies, supportive friends and family, rest and time – they all contributed, probably in similar measure." 

He added that while his episode of mental ill-health does not define him it has changed him in a positive way and that no one is immune from it.

Dr Jonathan Richardson is Group Medical Director for Community Services at the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust who had a mental health condition when he was a medical student and spoke about how it is possible to flourish in your career with a mental health diagnosis.

"I was unwell as a teenager with a physical illness and later as a medical student with a mental illness… these two experiences crystallised my drive to become a doctor and my own approach to healthcare. I wanted to be able to deliver the care that I was fortunate to receive. I wanted to be as patient-centred and compassionate with the patients I would serve, in the same way as the teams who delivered my care. I was lucky to have support when I was unwell from very good friends, some from school and some from university; and a very close family. I have been able to recover.

"It is 24 years since my mental illness. I now work in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, one of the largest mental and learning disability health trusts in England – and one of only two to be rated outstanding by the Care Quality Commission…. I do not feel that my illnesses have stopped me."

Dr Angelika Luehrs is the chair of the Doctors’ Support Network and a consultant psychiatrist who was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder while she was a trainee psychiatrist. She said: “When I asked for advice about how to access help one of the answer I got was one of ‘whatever you do, make sure that you don't have any mental illness in your medical records otherwise you will never go anywhere in your medical career. However, getting the diagnosis and help from a Consultant Psychiatrist was the best thing that ever happened.”

She added: "The reality is that my diagnosis has not stopped me – I have been a consultant psychiatrist since 2010 with the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, last year I was appointed as medical lead for West Wiltshire including early intervention, intensive services and primary care liaison services.  I have a special interest in supporting doctors with mental illness and I am delighted to be appointed by the newly launched GP Health Service as a special advisor for complex mental health cases."

The last speaker was veterinary surgeon Neil Smith who chairs the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative and outlined how to participate in the campaign. He said: "This event is just the start… the real challenge is to start to get this message out to the wider professions. Stigma is a difficult thing to tackle, but the good news is that changing our minds is within the power of every individual to do." 

Following the launch the ‘&me’ campaign is now encouraging other senior health professionals to step forward and talk about their own experiences with mental ill-health, especially as both medical doctors and veterinary surgeons have higher suicide rates than the general population but often have more reluctance to seek help because of the impact it may have on their career.

The campaign is interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill-health. To participate in the campaign email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.

Further information about the ‘&me’ campaign can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me

The RCVS has announced a number of senior staff changes.

Gordon Hockey has been ratified by Council as Head of Legal Services and Registrar. This is a new role created when the post of Registrar and Secretary was split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary; and Head of Legal Services and Registrar.

Gordon, who was previously Assistant Registrar/Head of Professional Conduct, and then Acting Registrar, will have oversight responsibility for registration and professional conduct.

At the same time, Eleanor Ferguson, formerly Acting Head of Professional Conduct, has been confirmed in the position.

The post of Head of Registration has been made redundant, with a new role of Customer Experience Manager created to ensure that the customer (public and profession) journey improves across the organisation. This position will also report into Gordon Hockey.

There have been other changes on the Senior Team at the College. The post of Head of Corporate Services that had been vacant since the departure of Richard Holford last December will not be filled, and Head of Finance Corrie McCann has been promoted to the new role of Head of Operations, which will incorporate finance, corporate services (IT, mailing, reception) and facilities.

Two other posts have been made redundant: Special Projects Manager and RCVS Charitable Trust Director. A new post of Executive Director for the Trust will be developed, with a view to taking the Trust through a full strategic review. 

Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "I believe that an engaged and well-purposed team of staff, with a focus on customer service and driving improvements, lies at the heart of any successful organisation. These changes will enable the College to move into the next stage of its development towards becoming a first-rate regulator."

The changes will mean that the Senior Team is reduced from 11 people to seven, being the Chief Executive plus Heads of Legal Services, Operations, Human Resources, Education, Veterinary Nursing and Communications.