Chris Jordan, veterinary surgeon at Companion Care vets in Chingford, Essex, is the 500^th vet to sign up to the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice (CertAVP), which was launched in 2007.  

Having completed his Professional Development Phase in July, Chris is now working towards a designated certificate in Small Animal Surgery. He said: "The qualification looks well structured and I think it will serve me well whether I continue as a general practitioner or take up a more surgery-focused role."

Freda Andrews, RCVS Head of Education, said: "The modular approach means vets have much more choice about how and what they study. All certificates show the modules assessed, so that it is easy for veterinary employers to see what a vet has studied, whether or not they have taken a 'named' certificate."

To gain the qualification, vets must first enrol with the RCVS, and then enter for assessment in a combination of core and optional modules through an RCVS-accredited institution. Vets then have ten years in which to complete the qualification.  Study can be entirely self-directed; however, there are a number of courses on offer from educational institutions to help vets prepare for assessment.  Distance and online learning is a feature of many of these courses.

Vets who want to pursue an area of interest for continuing professional development without working towards any certificate, can equally enrol for assessment in any of the 85 individual modules currently available; this is done directly through the institutions offering assessment and does not need enrolment with the RCVS.  Full details of enrolment and module requirements can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/modcerts

As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.  

The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.

The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer 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. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.

RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.

"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."

Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.

RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."

Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.

The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).

Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has found London-based Sarah Lee Dantas-Holmes MRCVS not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The charges related to the unexpected death of a cat called Hope during an operation to explore a growth in her mouth, and Dr Dantas-Holmes' subsequent communication with the animal's owners.

Dr Dantas-Holmes accepted that Hope’s death was most likely due to her failing to flush fluid through the giving set attached to an intravenous drip, leaving air in the tubing and causing some air to enter Hope’s bloodstream when the cannula was placed and the giving set’s control opened.

The first set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ initial phone call to Hope’s owners ten minutes after Hope’s death, in which she said that Hope had died because of a reaction to anaesthetic drugs. Dr Dantas-Holmes failed to mention that the cause of death was still to be determined and failed to mention that a likely cause was in fact an air embolism and/or a complication relating to the intravenous drip.

Following her initial phone call to the owners Dr Dantas-Holmes viewed CCTV of her actions.

The owners then came into the practice later in the day, and the communications during that time constitute the second set of charges: that, during this meeting, Dr Dantas-Holmes didn’t correct her earlier statements about the cause of Hope’s death, and that she didn’t mention that there was an ongoing investigation or that a likely cause of death was an air embolism and/or complication.

The third set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ subsequent clinical records, in which it was alleged that she failed to include references to the findings on review of the CCTV footage of Hope’s death, and the possibility of an air embolism and/or complication relating to the intravenous drip.

The fourth and final set of charges were that her conduct was misleading, and/or dishonest. 

With regard to the first set of charges, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did tell the owners that Hope died because of a reaction to the drugs, but that given the short nature of the phone call to the owners and the distressing circumstances there was no duty to discuss the investigation, or to mention the likely cause being an air embolism.

Concerning the communications with the owners when they came to the practice, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did fail to mention that anaesthetic drugs might not have been the cause, and that she also failed to mention the investigation. Dr Dantas-Holmes had agreed with the Practice Manager, however, that she would not discuss the possibility of an air embolism or complication, and so that charge was not found proved. 

On consideration of whether Dr Dantas-Holmes had failed to include relevant findings in the clinical reports, the Committee found both charges proved, and, in relation to the final set of charges, the Committee found that while Dr Dantas-Holmes had misled Hope’s owners, it was unintentional, and she had not been dishonest.

Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Dantas Holmes not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The findings of this Committee demonstrate that there were errors and omissions in communications with the owners. When communicating with a client it is the professional’s responsibility to ensure that the client has heard and understood what has been said. The importance of good and effective communication is particularly important when an unforeseen and shocking event occurs such as it did in this case.

"The particular circumstances of this case demonstrate how important it is to communicate effectively and the need for the veterinary surgeon to ensure that their clinical records for which they are wholly responsible, are complete.

"The Committee concluded that its findings demonstrated a departure from professional standards but that the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The RCVS has announced that it is carrying out an audit of continuing professional development (CPD) for vets in order to monitor compliance and gauge what type of activities they are engaging in.

Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, introduced in 2012, veterinary surgeons are expected to undertake 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period in order to demonstrate that they are maintaining and advancing their knowledge and skills.

Nearly 5,000 vets - made up of three cohorts - have been asked to share their CPD records. The first cohort comprises 4,425 UK-practising vets who registered before 1 April 2012 but who did not confirm their CPD compliance upon renewing their registration this year. The second cohort comprises a random sample of 400 vets who did confirm their compliance upon renewing their registration this year. The third cohort comprises 84 vets who graduated before 2012 but have not yet completed their post-graduation Professional Development Phase.

Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Since it is coming up to three years since we introduced the Code we thought that now is a good time to take stock of the proportion of veterinary surgeons that are fulfilling the requirement and how they are doing so.

"It is also a good time to remind members of the profession of the importance of CPD and that it is not just a tick-box exercise but vital for everyday practice. Engaging in CPD is a personal obligation for all veterinary surgeons and demonstrates to both the profession and public that they are continually advancing their capability and competence.

"This year we will be providing some guidance on what constitutes CPD and how to undertake it to those who are non-compliant. However, from 2015, we may also refer those who repeatedly fail to comply, or respond to requests to submit their records, to our Professional Conduct Department for further investigation."

Vets who have been selected to take part in the audit will have received letters in early November and will have until Monday 1 December to respond. They can do so by either allowing the RCVS to view their online Professional Development Record (PDR) profile or by submitting their paper CPD record by post or by sending the College a scanned copy by email.

For further advice and to submit a CPD record by email, contact cpd@rcvs.org.uk. Those who have not yet registered for the PDR can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk

The Disciplinary Committee has directed that Kfir Segev be restored to the RCVS Register, having removed him over two years ago for dishonesty and misleading clients.

Mr Segev, formerly practising in Stanmore, Middlesex, was removed from the Register following an 11-day hearing ending on 19 May 2009 at which he had been proven guilty of deliberately concealing from his clients that their dog was terminally ill, whilst at the same time recommending that she undergo expensive and unnecessary procedures. 

This was Mr Segev’s first application for restoration to the Register. The Committee found that, during his period of removal, he had undergone “extensive personal and professional rehabilitation”, which included attendance at a clinical psychologist and voluntary work in the local community.

The Committee found that, during his period of removal, he had undergone "extensive personal and professional rehabilitation. 

From 2009 to September 2011, Mr Segev logged 420 hours of certificated continuing professional development, with particular emphasis on ethics, client relationships and animal welfare.

The Committee noted he had also seen practice and taken the advice of mentors, including about 80 days at “a number of high quality practices with eminent members of the profession”.

These included Professor Dick White MRCVS, of Dick White Referrals, Professor David Noakes FRCVS, Emeritus Professor of the Royal Veterinary College and Mr David Grant MBE FRCVS, Hospital Director at the RSCPA Sir Harold Harmsworth Memorial Hospital, all of whom gave evidence at the hearing in support of Mr Segev.

Professor White said that, since late 2009 when he was approached by Mr Segev for help in remedial training, continuing education and mentoring, he had subsequently had frequent dealings and conversations with him.

Professor White said: “I formed the opinion that he invariably exercised professional clinical judgement that is, if anything, considerably deeper than many professional colleagues. I felt he demonstrated compassion for patients and empathy for owners in equal measure and believed him to have come to understand fully the seriousness of his behaviour."

Mr Segev’s efforts at rehabilitation were described as “exceptional” by Professor Noakes, who said he was “impressed by Mr Segev’s genuine acceptance of the fact that he had committed a serious offence and deserved to be punished.”

Mr Grant, who had been in contact with Mr Segev since November 2010, told the hearing that, in his opinion, it was most evident that Mr Segev accepted his wrongdoing and, along with Professor Noakes, indicated that he was willing to offer continued support and help.

The College opposed the restoration of Mr Segev on three grounds, namely: the gravity of the matters found proved at the original hearing; that the length of time off the Register was insufficient to mark these and ensure that the reputation of the profession was not undermined in the eyes of the public; and, Mr Segev’s conduct, relying on two matters arising from the footage in a BBC Panorama programme, which was filmed both before and after the 2009 hearing.

The College also questioned whether Mr Segev genuinely accepted the original findings.

The Committee agreed that the findings of the original hearing were serious; it was, however, impressed by Mr Segev’s complete and genuine written and public apologies for what he had done.

It disagreed that the length of time off the Register was too short.

It was mindful that the purpose of the sanction of erasure is not primarily of punishment and considered that no useful purpose would be served by delaying further Mr Segev’s restoration.

Whilst the Committee found Mr Segev was wrong to have continued to display ‘veterinary surgeon’ on the practice nameplate (as shown in the television footage), it was satisfied that he did not intend to hold himself out as a practising veterinary surgeon and no harm to the public or animal welfare resulted from his mistake.

The footage also showed Mr Segev was in breach of RCVS guidance on the administration of anaesthesia by permitting a student veterinary nurse to induce anaesthesia by using incremental doses of intravenous propofol, with an unqualified assistant offering advice on the depth of anaesthesia during its incremental induction. The Committee considered Mr Segev’s actions to be an error, now cured.

In conclusion, the Committee accepted Mr Segev “had made genuine and successful attempts to reform his previous attitude and failings”.

It noted that a large number of testimonials had been provided by colleagues, friends and clients, and that the impact of removal on Mr Segev had been severe.

It concluded that his previous mistakes provided “no reason, relevant to animal welfare, to suggest that his restoration would be unwise.”

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Beverley Cottrell said: “Restoration to the Register of a veterinary surgeon who has been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect of such seriousness is not something to be undertaken lightly … But, in all the circumstances of this case, [we have] decided that Mr Segev is a fit person to restore to the Register, and so direct the Registrar.”

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has issued a reprimand and warning to Essex-based Donald Stuart Bremner MRCVS, following a conviction of harassment and perverting the course of justice.

Dr Bremner was convicted in 2017 of harassing his ex-wife, and for perverting the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him. He pleaded guilty to both of the charges, saying he did not understand that it was a condition of his bail that he could not contact his ex-wife. He also expressed shame and remorse at his actions, explaining that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.

In relation to the charges, the Respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.

The Committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the Respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges. It was satisfied that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the Committee regarded the Respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences. 

The Committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the Respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee considered various mitigating factors including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.

The Committee also took into account that preventing the Respondent from practicing could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision. The Committee also agreed with the RCVS’s submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the Respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.

Therefore, when taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges. 

Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of proper criminal process.

"However, a particular feature of this case is the risk to the jobs of 33 or so employees if the Respondent were to be prevented from practising as a result of the Committee’s imposition of a sanction. It is this mitigating factor which weighed most heavily with the committee and they therefore concluded that both a Reprimand as to this conduct and a Warning as to any future conduct is sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards."

Mr Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the Committee’s decision to the Privy Council.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed the Registrar to remove Greater Manchester-based Viktor Molnar from the Register after he pleaded guilty to illegally importing puppies to the UK.

Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.

At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.

As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.

The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.

"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."

The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.

In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."

Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."

Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.

The RCVS has the results of research into why veterinary surgeons and nurses leave the profession, finding that a significant number of vets retire early citing health and wellbeing.

The research took the form of a voluntary survey asking those voluntarily leaving their registers to explain why.

643 veterinary surgeons in the survey were leaving the UK-practising category, mostly to be close to family or friends, whilst 306 were leaving the Register altogether.

The next most common reason for veterinary surgeons leaving the UK-practising category was retirement (23%), most of whom were retiring before the state pension age.

Of those retiring before state pension age, one-third cited health and wellbeing reasons.

Vets were asked to explain in greater detail their decision to leave either the UK-practising category or the Register altogether in free text boxes at the end of the survey.

Those leaving the UK-practising category were most likely to mention health and wellbeing issues, closely followed by issues in the profession such as the demands of working in clinical practice.

A third of the comments left by those leaving the Register altogether mentioned issues to do with RCVS regulation, such as cost and continuing professional development (CPD).

Vicki Bolton, RCVS Research Manager, said: “This data is invaluable to us in understanding the reasons why people choose to leave the RCVS Registers.

“The reasons given don’t always make for easy reading, especially when they are to do with dissatisfaction over the direction the professions are taking, physical and mental health and wellbeing, financial pressures and concerns about regulation and its costs.

“However, it is important to remember that, overall, relatively few veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses leave the professions each year.

"There is no mass exodus from the professions and the numbers joining the UK Register annually well exceed those leaving, as demonstrated by consistent year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse registrants.

“That being said, these results will form an invaluable part of our ongoing work on veterinary workforce and gives the RCVS food for thought about how and where we can better support veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to stay in the professions rather than leave prematurely.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/exit-survey-2022-2024/ 

Photo: AI generated. 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused Warwick Seymour-Hamilton's eighth application to be restored to the Register since he was struck off 26 years ago.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register following an inspection of his Kent practice in 1993 which found that his operating theatre “showed a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals and was such as to bring the profession into disrepute”.

Since being removed from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has made applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each was rejected.

In his latest application, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he did not want to re-join the Register in order to practise but to facilitate his research in the area of herbal medicine.

The Committee found that while Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted some of the findings of the original case, he disagreed with important facts, such as whether or not his surgery was open at the time of the inspection, and showed ‘minimal insight’ into the seriousness of the findings.

The Committee also voiced concerns over public protection and animal welfare should he be restored, saying that he had demonstrated little or no understanding of the purpose of regulation. The Committee also noted that he had, by his own admission, spayed two cats at a practice in Calais in recent years despite his long absence from the Register and unregistered status as a veterinary surgeon in the UK or France.

In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece.

In summing up Judith Way, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has concluded that he has not satisfied it that he is fit to be restored to the Register. He has exhibited a disregard for regulation and compliance with the law. He lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. He has not set about addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies wholeheartedly on his research, yet he does not support that research with any real peer-reviewed publications and he fails to acknowledge the consequences of being out-of-practice for so long. He has misplaced confidence in his own abilities and does not recognise that his approach and/or actions can represent a danger to animals and to the public. The Committee has therefore reached the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be restored to the Register.”

The full findings of the restoration hearing for Mr Seymour-Hamilton can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a County Durham-based veterinary surgeon following her undertakings to request removal from the RCVS Register and never to apply to be restored to it.

At the hearing held yesterday, Silke Birgitt Lindridge was charged with disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in regard to four separate allegations, spanning the period of June 2011 to September 2012 whilst in practice at the Safe Hands Veterinary Group. Two of the allegations related to failures to euthanase or arrange the euthanasia of a cat and a dog and being dishonest and/or misleading about these failures, with their respective owners. The other two allegations related to administering a vaccine (Fevaxyn) which was more than two years past its expiry date to a cat, and failure to provide or take adequate steps to provide promptly all the relevant clinical information to a veterinary practice taking over the responsibility for the treatment of a Labrador Cross.

However, before the Disciplinary Committee had heard evidence in respect of these charges, Mrs Lindridge, who did not attend the hearing, had lodged her application for adjournment on the basis that she would request that the Registrar remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and undertake never to apply to be restored to it. The Disciplinary Committee made no enquiry into the facts of the four charges and emphasised that they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, the respondent.

Removal from the RCVS Register removes a veterinary surgeon's right to practise in the UK. The respondent informed the RCVS that she had no wish to return to the practice of veterinary surgery in this country. Should she subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Disciplinary Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with the breach of her undertaking.

The Disciplinary Committee was advised that the views of the animal owners involved had been sought and that all had agreed with the proposed course of action.

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having considered the information before it, the Committee has decided it would not be in the public interest to proceed to a full hearing. It is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the respondent [Mrs Lindridge] protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession."

Professor Lees added: "The undertakings offered by the respondent to request the Registrar to remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and never to make an application for restoration to the Register, go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing. It does not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing."

The RCVS Council has today announced a 'wide-ranging' review of a number of key provisions of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, following ongoing discussions around trialling the development of telemedicine services, including remote prescribing, in UK veterinary practice.

The review was recommended to Council by its Standards Committee following its exploration of the implications of new technologies for both animal health and welfare and veterinary regulation.

The main areas under consideration are the interpretation and application of an animal being under the care of a veterinary surgeon, and the provision of 24-hour emergency cover.

The College says that during the course of its research, which included numerous meetings and reports, a public consultation and examination of external legal advice, the Committee identified a number of anomalies in the College’s existing guidance that could affect how the Code’s provisions were applied across a range of different scenarios.

Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Kate Richards, said: "It became clear to us that we could not consider telemedicine and remote prescribing in isolation and that it raised broader questions around the appropriateness of, and justification for, certain elements of existing RCVS guidance. I’m therefore pleased that RCVS Council has decided that the right and responsible approach is first to conduct a full review of these provisions."

The College anticipates that the review will require wide engagement from all relevant sectors, potentially including a Select Committee-style hearing in certain areas. This, it says, would help to ensure any decision to treat different groups differently, in relation to 'under care' and 'out-of-hours', is both reasoned and justified.

In the meantime, the College says that the current provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance remain in full effect.

Further information about the review will be made available in due course.

UPDATE (19/06/2019)

Following a number of concerns raised by members of the profession about this story, the RCVS has issued a further statement as follows:

We would like to acknowledge and address a number of concerns that have arisen amongst the profession following RCVS Council’s discussion last week that followed up queries raised during the previous debate in November, around the provision of telemedicine services, including remote prescribing.

The RCVS Council decision, made unanimously, was to proceed with a wide-ranging review of RCVS supporting guidance concerning 24-hour emergency cover and the interpretation and application of ‘under veterinary care’, and to postpone the proposed telemedicine trial for the foreseeable future and certainly until the conclusion of this review. The review will encompass, but not be limited to, consideration of what restrictions or safeguards to place on remote prescribing in the form of vet-to-client telemedicine.

RCVS Council discussed this paper ‘in committee’ in order to be able to examine the confidential legal advice it had requested at its previous meeting. The decision to hold these discussions privately was purely related to the privileged nature of legal advice and in no way related to any ‘commercial interests’.

We recognise fully that this is a complex issue, with strong views held on all sides. However, it is entirely right and proper for RCVS Council members to be able to discuss and debate such topics in detail, before reaching a decision through a vote. In the course of such discussions, issues may arise that had not previously been identified, and which may alter the original direction of thinking.

We appreciate that Council’s decision was perhaps unexpected, especially as the original topic had been under consideration for some time. This is why we announced it as soon as possible, along with an indication of what Council would like to happen next.

Whilst it is far too early to have worked out the details of the agreed review, it will be open and inclusive in parallel with our previous consultations, which continue to receive considerable levels of engagement across the veterinary professions and wider industry stakeholders.

We will publish full details about our plans for this review over the coming weeks, and will continue to work hard to engage all veterinary professionals in these important decisions.

A veterinary nurse has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for removing the heads of two dead stray cats and taking them home. 

The nurse, who admitted the charges against her, successfully applied for anonymity at the outset of the case, on the basis that the shock factor of the removal of the animals' heads could greatly upset members of the public and veterinary staff, leading to a backlash which would present a threat to her safety. 

The Disciplinary Committee heard that the nurse, who was working as a locum, asked a permanent member of staff if she could take a couple of skulls from the strays, because she had a friend who 'cleaned up' dead strays and wildlife and displayed the skulls at home. 

The College’s case was that the nurse’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct because she failed to afford the dead animals with the respect and dignity they deserved, there was a risk to human health because she failed to comply with biosecurity measures, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession.

Although she admitted that her conduct fell short of what was expected, the nurse countered that her actions were not intended to be disrespectful to the animals, that she was an animal-lover who had three cats of her own, and that her actions were not malicious but misjudged.

Weighing up the case, the Committee found that the aggravating features of her conduct were around biosecurity and abuse of her professional position, while in mitigation it found that there was no financial gain in her actions and that it was a one-off incident.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct represented a biosecurity risk.

"Any body part would be in some degree of decomposition.

"As the cats were strays, it was unclear as to whether or not they had been in good health.

"Although the respondent transferred the body parts to her home and kept them in the freezer in cadaver bags, there was a risk that they could leak.

"In short, her actions were not without risk to human or animal health.

“The respondent abused her professional position.

"She had an obligation to treat the cadavers with respect.

"Her professional position gave her access to the cadavers.

"She abused her professional position by severing the cats’ heads and, using a scalpel, body bags and other equipment she pursued an interest of her own, rather than performed the role she was employed to undertake.

"Although she may say that she obtained permission to remove the cats’ heads from a permanent member of staff, she was a Registered Veterinary Nurse and therefore an autonomous professional.

"Whatever permissions she received should not have made her believe she had a licence to act as she did.”

Considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account her relative youth and inexperience, the fact she made open and frank admissions at an early stage, the fact she made efforts to avoid a repetition of the behaviours, the insight she had shown into why her conduct was wrong, and the amount of time that had passed since her conduct relative to the total length of her four-year veterinary nursing career.

The Committee also considered positive character references from fellow veterinary nurses with whom she worked and trained.

Kathryn added: “The Committee considered that a reprimand was the sanction it should impose.

"A reprimand marks the Committee’s view of the respondent’s behaviour, thereby satisfying the public interest.

“The Committee did consider issuing a warning as to future conduct, but it had no concerns that the respondent would fail to follow the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses in the future.

"It therefore rejected a warning as an appropriate alternative.” 

The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to reconstitute the RCVS disciplinary committees separately from its Council has come into force and has amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA).

The LRO brings the RCVS in line with regulatory best practice and, says the College, improves the independence of its disciplinary processes, marking a major step towards the College becoming a 'First Rate Regulator'.

The amendment made by the LRO requires that the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees are made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed independently. This ensures that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication.

The LRO also brings lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee and will allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings.

The first external members will join the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees from July 2013. After a two-year transition period, members of the RCVS Council will become ineligible for membership of these committees.

RCVS Registrar, Gordon Hockey, said: "The LRO has been the culmination of many years hard work by the RCVS and Defra, with the support of the British Veterinary Association. At first glance the change that the LRO makes to the Act may appear minor, but the reform fundamentally improves the way the veterinary profession is regulated, and will help to ensure public confidence in the RCVS disciplinary processes."