View all veterinary jobs
The Disciplinary Committee made its decision last Friday, following an adjournment of the case, which was initially heard in May of this year.
There were three heads of charge against Mr Hough:
The Committee found the majority of the first head of charge not proven, with the exception of the charges that Mr Hough failed to provide and ensure adequate overnight care for Mya and that it was inappropriate and unreasonable for him to plan for the wound management to be undertaken by Mya’s owners following the second procedure on 21 May 2014.
Regarding the second head of charge, the Committee found it proven that Mr Hough did fail to provide information about post-operative care and out-of-hours cover details to Mya’s owners. However it found Mr Hough’s failure to communicate with the owners regarding treatment options and to provide them with adequate information as to Mya’s post-operative condition not proven.
The third head of charge in its entirety was admitted and found proven.
The Committee also found that those charges that were found proven amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the exception of Mr Hough’s failure to provide and/or ensure adequate overnight care and his failure to failure to provide out-of-hours details to Mya’s owners.
In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee expressed significant concerns over Mr Hough’s treatment of Mya, in particular his "failure to devise and implement proper and sufficient procedures to ensure that this dog was not released to owners unless it was safe for her to be released and... that the owners were fully advised as to what was required of them."
The Committee felt that Mr Hough had given "insufficient attention" to Mya’s post-operative care but did accept that the conduct represented a single incident. During the course of the hearing the Committee also heard mitigating evidence given on behalf of Mr Hough, with a number of written testimonials as well as witness evidence in support of his clinical expertise and surgical skills.
The Committee accepted that Mr Hough had taken to heart the lessons to be learnt from the charges against him and had implemented a number of written protocols to prevent recurrence of the shortcomings in his treatment of Mya. Furthermore, the Committee also found that Mr Hough had demonstrated insight into the conduct found against him and that he had apologised for the disparaging remarks he made about other veterinary practitioners.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In short, the Committee is persuaded that Mr Hough has made a good start in putting in place systems to ensure that the interests and welfare of the animals treated at his practice surgeries are not discharged from care until they are fully ready to be discharged and that the owners of such animals will, in future, be fully informed of what might be asked and required of them when their animals are returned into their care after surgery."
He added: "There are no other areas of [Mr Hough’s] professional practices which appear to the Committee to call for improvements. Accordingly, the Committee is persuaded on this evidence that there is reason to believe that the lessons which Mr Hough needed to learn have been learnt and concludes, therefore, that the sanction of a formal and solemn reprimand adequately meets the needs of the public interest in, and requirements of, this particular case. Mya did make a full recovery from her extensive surgery but she and her owners deserved better post-surgery advice and support."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has launched an online quiz to test its members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct.
The Guide outlines what is acceptable professional and ethical behaviour for veterinary surgeons. It is developed and maintained by the Advisory Committee of the RCVS, which, in addition to veterinary members of RCVS Council, also includes lay members, a member of the Veterinary Nurses Council, and independent (ie non-Council) veterinary surgeons. The Guide is the benchmark against which a veterinary surgeon is judged, by both the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees.
The quiz, which was road-tested at the London Vet Show on 6-7 November, is anonymous, but the College will be collating data on results to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required.
On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.
The quiz is aimed at veterinary surgeons: if it's a success, a version for Registered Veterinary Nurses will follow.
To try the quiz, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz It will initially be online for three months and reviewed thereafter.
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The removal of names from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for non-payment of retention fees is now complete, with 386 veterinary surgeons having been removed, compared with 616 last year.
The RCVS says that the administration involved with removing a name for non-payment is time-consuming and costly. Hence, to be restored to the Register, the veterinary surgeon must pay the appropriate annual retention fee, and the restoration fee, currently £294, which multiplies each time if fees are not paid in successive years.
The College writes to members' Register addresses to remind them when fees are due and, where an email address is maintained by the member as part of their formal record, also sends an email. It is, however, the responsibility of members to inform the RCVS Registration Department of any changes to their contact details and to ensure that payment is made. It is illegal for veterinary surgeons to practise or undertake any veterinary-related activities if their name does not appear on the RCVS Register as a home-practising member.
To help ensure that members removed for non-payment are aware that they have been removed from the Register, the full list of those removed for non-payment and not restored by 10 June can be downloaded from RCVSonline. The current status of individual veterinary surgeons can be checked online (www.rcvs.org.uk/checkregister).
A veterinary surgeon whose name has been removed from the Register and who wishes to restore him or herself should view the information on restoration to the Register.
Alternatively, please ring the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707. Restorations made since 10 June are not shown on this list.
Morally injurious events are defined as experiences which violate one's moral or ethical code.
The research will consider the types of moral injuries veterinary professionals might encounter, their prevalence, the perceptions amongst professionals around how these moral injuries come about, and what support is needed when they occur.
The project is being led by psychologists Professor Neil Greenberg, Dr Dominic Murphy and Dr Victoria Williamson.
The research revolves around an online questionnaire which the researchers say should take no more than 20 minutes to complete: https://tinyurl.com/y7ue5ezw
Victoria said: “If you have experienced an upsetting event in your veterinary role, it would be really helpful if you could fill in our questionnaire which is anonymous and confidential. As part of this study, we are particularly interested in hearing about experiences that may have caused you to question the kind of person you are, or the kind of world we live in. These are things that you feel you may have done or failed to do, or things that others did or failed to do.
"We hope our results will help us to find better ways of meeting the needs of veterinarians in future so we would encourage veterinary professionals to also circulate this study to colleagues. Some participants may be invited to take part in a follow-up telephone interview; however, we would like to assure you this element of the project is completely voluntary.”
The survey will be followed by 1 hour telephone interviews with those who have indicated they are happy to be interviewed about their thoughts, feelings and beliefs since their challenging experience and how the event may have affected them.
The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and summaries will be made available for the relevant stakeholders with the aim of informing future research studies to support veterinary wellbeing, as well as clinical practice and policy.
Those who wish to find out more about the study before completing the survey can contact Victoria at: victoria.williamson@kcl.ac.uk
There were two charges against Mr Staton, the first being that he failed to comply with eight requests from the RCVS sent by letter between November 2014 and August 2017 in relation to his continuing professional development (CPD) records.
The second charge was that between 1st January 2012 and 7th November 2017 he failed to have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements in place.
Mr Staton’s request to adjourn the hearing and agree undertakings was not opposed by the RCVS. The Committee had regard to advice of the Legal Assessor and submissions from both counsel for the RCVS and legal advisor for Mr Staton. In accepting Mr Staton’s request for adjournment and his undertakings no admissions have been made in respect of the charges against him.
In deciding whether to accept the adjournment and undertakings, the Committee was asked to consider a number of factors including Mr Staton’s age and health, his unblemished career of more than 50 years, the fact that he had closed his practice and retired from clinical practice on 31 March 2018 and that he had no intention of practising as a veterinary surgeon again. For those reasons the Committee felt it would be disproportionate to take Mr Staton through a full hearing.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to this decision the Committee considered the respondent’s application to adjourn this inquiry in the light of the evidence he adduced. It had regard to the interests of justice, the public interest in ensuring high standards are maintained by veterinary surgeons and the need to ensure the protection of animals and their welfare."
Should Mr Staton seek to apply to rejoin the Register then the proceedings will become active again and a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be scheduled.
Ms Hickman was charged with leaving three dogs, two of which had undergone surgery the day before and one of which was in for monitoring, unattended for more than three hours on 8th November 2022, after falling asleep.
She was then charged with falsifying clinical records to suggest she had made the relevant clinical checks and offered them water when in fact, she'd been asleep.
The final charge was that her actions in falsifying the records were dishonest and misleading.
At the start of the hearing, Ms Hickman admitted all of the charges.
As the charges had been admitted, the Committee considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it noted sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses that relate to making animal health and welfare a veterinary nurse’s primary concern, the need to provide veterinary nursing care that is appropriate and adequate, and the need to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was in no doubt that the respondent’s failure to monitor properly three patients in an overnight ward in a hospital and the subsequent creation of false records to suggest that appropriate monitoring had taken place amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Committee found that an adverse health condition had influenced the conduct that had led to the disciplinary hearing – including that she had unintentionally fallen asleep while she should have been monitoring the animals – and so considered this a mitigating factor.
Also, by way of mitigation, the Committee considered that Miss Hickman had fully appreciated the implications of her conduct and expressed remorse at the impact it could have on the public’s trust for the veterinary nursing profession.
It also took into account positive testimonials from current and previous employers, her hitherto unblemished career, and the fact that there was no longer any risk of repetition.
However, in terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that it was a case involving dishonesty, and dishonesty which had not been admitted to the RCVS at an early stage.
In addition, it noted that the conduct involved a risk of injury to animals and a breach of trust towards the owners of those animals.
Dr Peaty added: “The Committee was satisfied that a significant period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, serve to maintain the reputation of the profession and promote and maintain proper standards of conduct.
"The Committee considered that a period of suspension of six months was sufficient to satisfy this public interest.”
Miss Hickman has 28 days from the sanction being announced to appeal the Committee’s decision.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.
The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.
At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.
However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application.
The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017.
"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."
Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing.
Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."
Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.
Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.
"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.
"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.
“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.
"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.
"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.
"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.
"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.
"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."
Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.
The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.
Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.
“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.
"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”
Results for the 2010 RCVS Council elections have been released today and, following a slight increase in turnout for the second year running, four existing Council Members and one former Member have been returned for another four years. However, new to Council this year and securing the most votes was Preston-based veterinary practitioner David Catlow.
4,232 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,541 cast their votes this year, an increase of 0.6% from 18.2% in 2009. The results of the voting are as follows:
CATLOW, David Frederick. 2,383. Elected. TAPSFIELD-WRIGHT. Clare Joan. 2,352. Elected.SHIELD, Christine Fiona. 2,133. Elected.MOLYNEUX, Jacqueline Rosina. 2,111. Elected.SMITH, Neil Christopher. 2,089. Elected.PARTRIDGE, Robert Duncan. 1,971. Elected.NELL, Adi. 1,781. ANDERSON, Roy Paxton. 1,455. GODDARD, Philip Campbell. 1,385. LONSDALE, Thomas, 380.
Terms of office for the six successful candidates will (re)commence at RCVS Day on 2 July 2010.
Following a successful partnership last year, the RCVS again teamed up with this website to allow voters more opportunity to quiz the candidates directly and find out more about their views.
Once again, this seemed to prove popular with the electorate although it presented candidates with a large increase in their workload during the voting period. Page views in the election section rose 23% to 28,347 this year; 48 discussion threads were started (slightly down from 53) and total responses rose dramatically by 47% to 988.
A new incentive for members to vote this year was a pledge to donate 20p per voter to the DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal. A donation of just over £845 will therefore be made shortly.
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "An increase in turnout, if only a small one, is to be welcomed and I hope we can continue to increase members' interest in the composition and activities of RCVS Council. I'd like to thank all ten candidates who stood for election this year; my congratulations to those elected and my commiserations to those who weren't successful this time."
Note: there was no VN Council election this year as only two nominations were received for the two available places. These will be filled by Suzanne May RVN and Hilary Orpet RVN.
Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.
In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.
Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence.
The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option.
The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because in its perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
Amir Kashiv faced a charge of being unfit to practise veterinary surgery after twice being found guilty of letting dogs roam freely on public highways or land not owned or controlled by him in Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, once on 20 April 2016 and once on 16 November 2016, and by having repeatedly breached court orders in relation to the same.
Dr Kashiv admitted the convictions, but denied that individually or in any combination they rendered him unit to practise veterinary surgery. This was therefore left to the judgement of the Committee.
In considering whether the convictions rendered Dr Kashiv unfit for practice, the Committee first considered the facts of the convictions.
Dr Kashiv had long taken in house dogs with physical and behavioural problems, at some stages having as many as 30 on his property. In 2014 neighbours became concerned by dogs escaping and noise nuisances, and on 14 November 2014 Dr Kashiv was served by the Police with a Warning Notice, requiring him to install adequate fencing within 28 days.
Four days later he was then served with an Abatement Notice for a Noise Nuisance about the dogs, and on 10 January 2015 he was then served with a Community Protection Notice requiring him to stop his dogs roaming and ensure adequate fencing.
After multiple subsequent escapes Dr Kashiv pleaded guilty of being in breach of the Community Protection Order at the Magistrates’ Court on 20 April 2016, receiving penalties amounting to £5,000 and costs of £6,000, as well as a two year Criminal Behaviour Order requiring him to reduce the number of dogs to no more than five with 28 days, and requiring his dogs to be supervised at all times while they were outside the house.
Two months later one of the dogs was seen outside the property, resulting in another conviction for breach of the Criminal Behaviour Order on 16 November 2016, and Dr Kashiv was fined £250 as well as £250 in costs.
The Committee then considered whether this resulted in Dr Kashiv being unfit to practise veterinary surgery. It considered it a serious matter that a veterinary surgeon should allow himself to be made subject to a Warning Notice, and that, being subject to such a Notice, he should then be found in repeated breach of the Notice and invite prosecution. While the Committee accepts that it is difficult to fence his entire grounds, ten acres in total, the Committee took it as a mark against Dr Kashiv that he failed to address the concerns of the authorities by reducing the number of dogs he housed until he was compelled to do so.
Jane Downes, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee regards this as a case close to borderline. These offences, involving the mismanagement by a veterinary surgeon of his animals and repeated offences demonstrate that Dr Kashiv had a less than adequate insight in 2014 and 2015 into the seriousness of the situation or into the understandable concerns of his neighbours and of the authorities. They are capable of bringing the profession into disrepute so as to undermine public confidence in it.
"But, in the end, The Committee has concluded that Dr Kashiv is not unfit by reason of these convictions to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"It is apparent from the material before the Committee that Dr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon whose life’s work has been devoted to the welfare of small animals and who has gone to extraordinary lengths, at his own expense, to do all that he possibly could to alleviate the suffering of, and rehabilitate, unloved and abandoned and unwell dogs.
"In all the circumstances and in the light of all the evidence the Committee finds that the convictions, whether taken individually or in any combination, do not render Dr Kashiv unfit to practice veterinary surgery."
The model for the forecast was developed by the College with the Institute of Employment Studies using data from the RCVS Registers, the 2019 and 2024 Surveys of the Professions, Office for National Statistics data for projected economic growth and the PDSA’s Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Reports.
However, the model does not take account of the impact of the increasing costs of veterinary care on pet ownership trends, the full effect of which may not yet have been felt.
The main predictions of the model are:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: “In 2021, there were clear concerns about there being a workforce crisis within the veterinary professions, and while that certainly seemed to be the case, and is likely to continue to be so in the short-term, according to this model the future picture for the professions looks much better in most areas of veterinary practice.
“However, government service/public health looks to be an area where there is still a significant shortfall in supply, which is concerning considering the importance of government vets in food safety, disease prevention and international trade and we are willing to continue to work with government to find ways to remedy this shortfall.
“We are aware that there may be some concerns about the implications of the model, particularly concerning the potential oversupply of veterinary nurses.
"While we stand by the robustness of the data, demography is not destiny, and with the planned enhancement of the veterinary nurse role, and the likelihood of suppressed demand due to prior shortages, it is likely that the number of veterinary nursing roles will expand to encompass the number of veterinary nurses available to work in it.
“Finally, we are aware that there are also some limitations to the model in its current form, for example, in terms of regional data.
"This is a work in progress, and we will continue to update and improve the model as and when new data allows.”
The workforce modelling report is available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
Lizzie joined the College as Head of Communications in February 2005, in which role she oversaw the launch of the Practice Standards Scheme in 2006, an overhaul of the College’s design and branding in 2011 and the joint British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project in 2014. More recently, she has been the driving force behind the Mind Matters mental health initiative.
Lizzie was appointed as Director of Strategic Communications in November 2015 and Deputy CEO in September 2016. She became Acting CEO when Nick Stace left the position of CEO at the end of September 2017.
The College advertised the position in the Sunday Times online for four weeks, and used a recruitment agency called Saxton Bampfylde. In all, 60 candidates applied.
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "This was a very rigorous recruitment process with a very strong field of candidates and so it is a testament to Lizzie’s abilities and achievements that she saw off all the opposition.
"For some time Lizzie has been involved in setting the direction of the College through the Strategic Plan and the initiatives and projects that she has managed, which really have had a very tangible impact on the profession.
"For example, the Vet Futures project has encouraged the profession to think more strategically about the issues that are facing it and how to achieve constructive solutions, while the Mind Matters Initiative has helped get veterinary mental health further up the agenda and reduced the stigma that many feel about it.
"Her drive and her passion has really pushed these projects forward and I believe she will bring this to the role of CEO.”
Lizzie said: "I am delighted and feel honoured to have been chosen to take the College forward into its next stage of development. I see the Council’s choice of an internal candidate, able to maintain momentum for change and help the College continue on our current strategic path, as an endorsement of the amazing work of the staff at Belgravia House.
"Under Nick Stace’s leadership, the College achieved some really excellent things for the profession, the public, and animal health and welfare, and I look forward to our next exciting chapter."
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2013 Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections.
4,661 veterinary surgeons voted, the highest turnout seen in ten years. 1,329 veterinary nurses voted, the highest ever number.
Veterinary surgeons voted incumbents Christopher Gray, Peter Jinman, Bradley Viner, Christopher Tufnell, and Jeremy Davies back onto the RCVS Council. However, the highest number of votes was given to Thomas Witte, who will be new to Council when he takes his seat in July. Veterinary nurses voted similarly by returning Andrea Jeffery to VN Council, whilst giving to Amy Robinson, another newcomer, the largest number of votes.
According to the College, turnout in both elections has increased markedly on last year in both absolute and proportional terms. Votes were cast by 4,661 veterinary surgeons (18.8%) and 1,329 veterinary nurses (12.5%), compared to 3,625 (15.1%) and 743 (7.5%), respectively, in 2012.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "We're delighted with the increase in turnout. It's difficult to pinpoint the reasons for the increase, but hopefully, it's because increasing numbers of vets and nurses are feeling more engaged with the College. We have also undertaken extra communications activities this year, such as the 'hustings', which we hope have helped."
The Council election 'hustings' was a new venture this year, with RCVS Council candidates able to select three questions, submitted by voters, to answer in a live webinar run by The Webinar Vet.
Veterinary surgeons and VNs could cast their votes by post, online, or by text. The majority of vets voting chose to cast postal votes (3,247), as did the majority of VNs (1,055). Whilst voting online was used by 1,330 veterinary surgeons, only 227 VNs chose it as a means of voting. Voting by text was used by only 84 veterinary surgeons and 47 VNs.
The successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 5 July.
The full results of the two elections are as follows:
RCVS Council electionWITTE, Thomas Hermann - 2,251 (Elected)GRAY, Christopher John - 1,974 (Elected)JINMAN, Peter Charles - 1,949 (Elected)VINER, Bradley Phillip - 1,927 (Elected)TUFNELL, Christopher Wynne - 1,883 (Elected)DAVIES, Jeremy Vincent - 1,830 (Elected)STURGESS, Christopher Paul - 1,809 CONNELL, Niall Thomas - 1,596 ROBINSON, Peter Bayley - 1,366 ELLIS, Robert Nigel Ward - 1,302 GRANT, Lewis George - 832 TORGERSON, Paul Robert - 824 LONSDALE, Thomas - 337 Twenty-two votes in the RCVS Council election were found to be invalid.VN Council election
ROBINSON, Amy - 725 (Elected)JEFFERY, Andrea Karen - 607 (Elected)BADGER, Susan Frances - 459TOTTEY, Helen Wendy 332 One vote in the VN Council election was found to be invalid.The 2013 RCVS and VN Council elections were run on behalf of the RCVS by Electoral Reform Services.
The first charge related to his conviction on two counts of common assault by beating two individuals at an incident in December 2016, as a result of which he was made subject to a community order and a restraining order, as well as being fined and made to pay a victim surcharge and costs.
The second charge related to him undertaking, or attempting to undertake non-emergency surgery on the eyelid of one of the individuals referred to in the first charge, and administering, or attempting to administer, a Prescription-Only Veterinary Medicines to the same person.
The third charged related to an allegation that he had supplied the same individual with a Prescription-Only Medication other than in accordance with a valid prescription.
The second charge and third charges related to incidents which occurred some considerable time before the assault, not as a consequence of it.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Sutcliffe admitted the first and second charges against him and that these constituted serious professional misconduct. He denied the third charge. In relation to that charge the Committee found that, having considered the totality of the evidence, it was unable to be sure that the College had proved the allegation to the requisite standard of proof, namely so that the Committee was sure. Accordingly Charge 3 was dismissed.
The Committee decided that the convictions in the first charge rendered Mr Sutcliffe unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that his conduct in Charge 2 constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider sanction.
The Committee considered the aggravating features for both charges. For the first charge it considered the actual injury to one of his victims and risk of injury to the other, noting also that both of his victims were vulnerable people and one was a child, and that the overall incident during which the assaults occurred lasted over a seven hour period.
For the second charge, aggravating factors were that the non-emergency surgery performed by Mr Sutcliffe was wholly inappropriate, that there was a risk of injury to the individual on whom he performed the surgery and that his conduct was reckless.
The mitigating factors considered by the Committee were that Mr Sutcliffe recognised the gravity of the findings against him and demonstrated insight into the allegations, that the incident in charge 1, though prolonged, was an isolated one, that the incident in charge 2 was consensual and did not result in actual harm and that neither charge had any connection with Mr Sutcliffe’s veterinary practice, nor did they affect client care or animal welfare.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As recognised by the Committee, the respondent has displayed insight as to the seriousness of his behaviour. Having regard to the evidence of all the character witnesses and the written testimonials the Committee accepts that the respondent’s conduct as set out in charges 1 and 2 was wholly out of character and, therefore, there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. The Committee considers that the respondent would be fit to return to practise, having regard to his excellent track record as a veterinary surgeon to date, after any period of suspension.
"Having regards to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, the Committee has decided that it is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct to give a direction for suspension of the respondent’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
"The Committee considers that the period of suspension must be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the charges but must be proportionate and fair in the circumstances of the case. The Committee has therefore concluded that the appropriate period of suspension is six months."
Mr Sutcliffe has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal to the Privy Council.
Mr Wood faced three charges, all relating to allegations of misconduct over a laboratory test for an alpaca while he was working at a practice in South Oxfordshire.
The charges alleged that in September 2023, Mr Wood told the alpaca’s owner that it had tested positive for Johne’s disease when in fact, the animal had not been tested.
He then allegedly sent a letter confirming a positive test result for the test that had not taken place, and then created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent it to another colleague by email.
He later told the alpaca's owner that he had given her the wrong result by mistake and that the test result was actually negative.
Then in October 2023, he emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report.
In November he told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it.
Finally, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.
Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors in Mr Woods' conduct, including his lack of honesty, probity and integrity, the fact the conduct was premeditated, that it involved a breach of the client’s trust, the abuse of his professional position, the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.
The mitigating factors included positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers, the fact that he had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and that he showed significant insight into his misconduct.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.
“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”
He added: “The Committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
"The Committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent.
"In determining this length, the Committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”
During her two-day hearing, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard that Ms Vockert had been convicted under Animal Welfare Act 2006 at Bournemouth Magistrates Court in April for, by her own admission, failing to protect two dogs she owned from pain, suffering, injury and disease, by not adequately grooming them.
The prosecution had been brought by the RSPCA after one of her dogs, a Shih Tzu named Happy, was taken into care by the local Council in September 2014 as a stray.
The dog was examined by Chris Devlin MRCVS who reported at the time that the dog’s coat was in an "appalling state, with multiple mats of hair all over his body" and with "evidence of faecal and urinary soiling on the fur around the rear end", which constituted clear signs of neglect. The dog was anaesthetised and treated by Mr Devlin for an eye condition and was also given a full body shave. The dog made a full recovery after these operations.
Council employees discovered that Happy belonged to Ms Vockert and referred the matter to the RSPCA who started an investigation into his condition. When two RSPCA inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home in September 2014 they observed a Cocker Spaniel named Millie which had severely matted fur. There were no concerns about any of the other dogs owned by Ms Vockert.
The two inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home the next day by appointment and were told by Ms Vockert that Millie had been euthanased. Millie’s body was subsequently taken to Professor Kenneth Smith MRCVS and Claire Muir MRCVS for a post-mortem examination. In their report following the post-mortem, they observed Millie’s hair coat to be "extensively matted and given the growth of hair over the collar and claws, it is likely that the hair has not been clipped for an extremely long period... and is likely to have restricted the dog’s ability to walk. In addition, a large amount of faecal material has become matted within the hair coat and this finding strongly suggests that this dog was neglected."
As a result of her prosecution by the RSCPA, Ms Vockert was fined £620, ordered to pay costs of £300, a victim surcharge of £62 and a deprivation of animal ownership order was made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Disciplinary Committee considered that the failure to groom extended over a period of months and that any conviction on the part of a veterinary surgeon relating to animal welfare was an extremely serious matter.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The College submitted that the conviction of a veterinary surgeon for an animal welfare offence, of necessity has the potential to undermine both the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.
"In such circumstances, the respondent’s conviction fell far below the standard to be expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering Ms Vockert’s sanction, the Committee took into mitigation her long and otherwise unblemished career both in the UK and Germany, her guilty plea to the RSPCA conviction and the fact she made no attempt to challenge the College’s submissions in relation to her fitness to practise.
However, it also took into account a number of aggravating features, particularly the fact there was "actual neglect of the welfare of two animals, over a protracted period of time, which resulted in pain, suffering and discomfort. This aspect of the case is made more serious because the two animals in question belonged to the respondent, who is a practising veterinary surgeon with access to the drugs and equipment necessary to groom the dogs."
Ultimately, the Committee decided that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Acting Registrar to remove Ms Vockert’s name from the Register.
Ian Green, summing up, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct which led to the conviction, involved a departure from the most basic and pivotal principle of the Code [of Professional Conduct], which states that the first consideration when attending to animals is health and welfare.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
The change marks an expansion of practice standards beyond physical workplace safety into psychological and suicide-risk governance.
The new requirement will oblige practices to assess suicide risk within their workplace and introduce measures to mitigate identified risks.
The requirement recognises that different practices will need different approaches, depending on factors such as access to lethal medicines, access to firearms, and the likelihood of lone working.
The move forms part of the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative’s preventative strategy and follows the College’s response to two coroner-issued Prevention of Future Death reports involving the use of veterinary medicines.
The requirement will apply to all accredited practice types and, through the Code of Professional Conduct, to practices outside the Practice Standards Scheme, which must maintain standards equivalent to the Core Standards.
The College points to three resources to help practices meet the new requirements: the RCVS Academy’s Suicide Awareness Fundamentals course, workplace suicide prevention guidance from the British Standards Institution, and safety planning resources from Samaritans.
Zara Kennedy MRCVS, chair of the RCVS Mind Matters mental health initiative, said: “Many veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other colleagues in the veterinary team have been deeply affected by the suicide of their friends, colleagues and peers in the professions.
“While it may not be possible to prevent every death by suicide, we hope that by taking proactive measures such as the requirement for practices to have suicide prevention plans, we can prevent some.
"In doing so we can help those people who may be thinking about taking their own lives to get the treatment and help they need.”
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/insights/brochures/bs-30480-suicide-and-the-workplace
https://www.samaritans.org
The RCVS is to launch a consultation in the New Year on proposals to allow all RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title 'Dr'/'Doctor', and is seeking the views of all members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, and the general public.
The proposals were raised by RCVS President Stuart Reid at RCVS Day in July 2014, with the aims of aligning the UK with international practice, providing greater clarity for the profession and offering reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard.
In his speech in July, Stuart highlighted that most international veterinary surgeons use the title and that, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment. He went on to outline that, of the three main clinical degrees in the UK, ie medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, only veterinary surgeons do not use the courtesy title 'Doctor'.
Stuart added: "given the fact that all continental EU graduates carry the title 'Doctor', there is now a greater chance of confusion for the lay public than previously.
"This is now an opportunity to provide, for those UK veterinary surgeons who wish it, the legitimate use of a title that offers a level of parity with fellow medical professionals."
The key objective of the consultation is to gauge whether the public and the profession are in favour of the proposal, not in favour of it, or don't mind either way. If agreed, the use of the title would be optional, although the College would regulate its use through the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Background information and draft guidance on using the title is available to read on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/doctortitle, from where respondents can follow a link to answer the consultation questions.
The consultation will open officially on Tuesday, 6 January for six weeks (deadline for responses is 5pm on Monday, 16 February) although it is already available to view via the RCVS website, to allow more time for responses over the Christmas and New Year break.
Do you think vets should be called 'Dr'? Discuss here.
Allegations were reported both in The Times, and the Veterinary Record.
In its statement, the College said: "We know that the University of Edinburgh takes any such accusations extremely seriously and that its inquiry fully and robustly investigated the claims in 2019. This inquiry found no evidence of misconduct, a decision that was later upheld after an appeal.
The College recognised the massive impact that bullying can have on anyone who has been subject to it and acknowledged that the individual accounts published in the Veterinary Record were upsetting to read. However it also drew attention to the 'huge amount of stress that can be caused by ‘trial by media’, especially when an inquiry has concluded that there were no issues to be found'.
As to the role of the RCVS Junior Vice-President, the College pointed out that this is a matter for RCVS Council, as the postholder is elected by Council.
Professor Argyle will be making a statement to Council at its next meeting on 5th November, after which Councillors will be able to ask any questions they have, and then consider the matter.
Meanwhile, the College has asked the Vet Record whether any of the people who made the anonymous testimonials would like to supply any information directly.
RCVS Council agreed, in principle, to the sale of Belgravia House and for the College and its London-based staff to move to different premises at its November meeting.
The sale of the building and the move will be overseen by the College’s Estate Strategy Project Board headed by former RCVS President Barry Johnson and including current and former RCVS Council members and RCVS staff.
The RCVS has been based at its current premises in 62-64 Horseferry Road for 25 years, but says it now needs more up-to-date and modern facilities to accommodate a projected increase in the number of staff.
The College says it has considered a number of alternatives, including expanding the current premises by adding or expanding floors. However, due to the fact that the building is in a conservation area, it has become clear that any such expansions would be unlikely to get planning permission from Westminster Council.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "For a number of years it has become apparent that it is fast approaching the time at which our current premises will no longer be fit for purpose due to an increase in the number of RCVS staff – something that is projected to continue in the future – the ongoing need to use the building for Disciplinary Hearings, which take over the lion’s share of available meeting space, and the need for better and more modern facilities.
"Even putting our need for increased space on one side, Belgravia House requires major refurbishment in key areas such as air-conditioning and lifts, which would require staff to vacate the premises for up to 18 months, which would be costly and disruptive.
"We are therefore pleased that Council has recognised the need for the College to move somewhere that better reflects our needs and, over the coming months, we will be exploring a number of different options for new premises.
"In parallel to this we have put out an invitation to tender for agents to manage the sale of the building. The plan is for the arrangement to include lease-back so that we have time to find a suitable premises and enabling us to act quickly when we do."
Any organisations that are interested in putting forward a tender to manage the sale of the building should contact Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, on 020 7202 0724. Responses to tender are required by 30 November 2018.
Photo: Copyright Google 2018