The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented.
The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.
The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.
The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:
The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.
It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.
The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.
The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.
In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.
"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."
The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.
On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.
Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.
“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”
The survey was sent to all UK veterinary practices on the 25th November with a deadline to respond by the 1st December and received 186 responses, a response rate of 6%.
The survey found that during this period:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Thank you once again to all the practice staff who took the time to complete this survey, it really is very useful for us to have a clear picture of how coronavirus and its restrictions are affecting day-to-day activities, as it has an impact both on our decision-making and policies, and what we can tell others about the impact on the professions, such as the UK and national governments.
"The overall picture from this survey is that, while for most it is not business as usual, veterinary practices and members of the professions are, to an extent, getting used to the disruption and have plans and policies in place to help mitigate the impact of the mosaic of different restrictions across the UK.
"While there is hope on the horizon with the start of the roll-out of coronavirus vaccines, we will continue to review and keep up-to-date our advice and guidance to ensure that you can practise to the best of your abilities, while keeping safe and within the rules.
“Of course, we also recognise the toll that the pandemic has taken on many people’s mental health and wellbeing, and this is reflected in some of the more concerning statistics around the impact that staff absences can have on the rest of the team.
"We also asked practices what might help them manage from a staff mental health and wellbeing point of view, and will take these suggestions into account when planning further support via our Mind Matters Initiative mental health project. In the meantime, we would like to remind those who are feeling stressed or are in distress that there are sources of help available during these difficult times – these can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/help-links/help-during-covid-19/.”
The full report of the survey is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned a Clwyd-based veterinary surgeon on charges relating to falsifying prescriptions to obtain drugs for her own use.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mrs Alina Grecko admitted that in 2009 she had written out three prescriptions for her own use whilst working as a veterinary surgeon at Greenfield Veterinary Surgery, Holywell, Clywd, and that this amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee found this to be the case, and said she was right to admit it. The Committee also said this was deliberate wrong-doing on three separate occasions and involved an obvious breach of Mrs Grecko's legal duties in relation to prescription which was bound to diminish the profession and public confidence in it. It was also a flagrant breach of the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
In the Committee's opinion the charge was a serious one; it involved falsehoods and disregard of legal obligations and of the profession's standards, as well as compromising another professional - a pharmacist. In mitigation, however, the Committee accepted that the offence involved no harm to any animal or person, nor risk of harm except to herself; nor was there financial gain. Mrs Grecko was a young and relatively inexperienced veterinary surgeon, and the Committee's view was that the offence was the result of her not thinking straight at a time of great stress in her personal and professional life, rather than a clearly thought out course of deliberate conduct. It was in no doubt that Mrs Grecko was genuinely remorseful about her behaviour and had insight into its seriousness.
The Committee also considered evidence relating to the circumstances in which the prescription came to be written. It accepted the general case that the original idea of self-prescribing did not come from Mrs Grecko; however, the Committee did not find that she had been encouraged or persuaded; the most that could be said was that Mrs Grecko had taken up a casual suggestion that she might write the prescription herself.
When deciding on sanction, the Committee took into account both the facts of the particular case and the mitigating factors. It reiterated that the primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish the Respondent but to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and said the sanction applied must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the Respondent's conduct, and weigh the public interest with the interests of the Respondent. The Committee also said that in a case involving the writing of false prescriptions the importance of public confidence in the profession and of upholding the standards of the profession mean that the Committee would normally feel that at least a suspension from the Register should be imposed.
Having given anxious consideration to the question whether that course could properly be avoided in this case, the Committee felt able to take an exceptional course and the sanctions it has imposed are that the Respondent will both be reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct. It directed that these sanctions will remain on her record indefinitely.
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."
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."
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was removed from the Register after his Kent practice was found to have unhygienic and unsterile conditions as well as poor record keeping, although he has always disputed this, maintaining that he was not actually practising at the time of the inspection.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for restoration on the basis that he did not want to be restored to the Register in order to practise veterinary surgery, but so that he could more easily achieve recognition from academics and drug companies for his work on herbal and natural remedies.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's dispute over the original findings of the 1994 case was ruled inadmissible.
In considering his application, the Committee took into account the fact that he had not accepted the original findings from 1994 nor had he, over the course of his various applications for restoration, shown any insight into his original conduct or the serious concerns about his fitness to practice raised in previous restoration hearings.
It also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had been off the Register for 29 years and would need to have demonstrated prolonged, intensive and formal training to ensure he met the Day One Competences required of a veterinary surgeon.
The College submitted that he had made no such attempts and so would pose a significant risk to animal health and welfare if he were allowed to practice again.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France – and had used his own animals to try out new and untested ‘herbal remedies’.
The College submitted that this indicated someone who didn’t have due regard to the importance of the current level of skills, experience and qualifications required in order to undertake veterinary surgery competently, and therefore posed a risk to animal health and welfare.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The College invited the Committee to consider that where, as here, some 29 years have passed since this veterinary surgeon has practised, there has been no intensive, and prolonged re-training, no acceptance of the original findings and no insight into concerns about his fitness to practise, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals and the wider public interest if the applicant is restored to the Register.
The Committee agrees, and considers that the applicant has not shown the required insight as to the steps he needs to take to return to safe veterinary practice.”
Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.
Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.
The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.
Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.
Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15th and 16th respectively out of 16 candidates).
Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.
The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.
Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.
The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.
The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.
Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'
The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.
In a statement given to the Veterinary Record earlier this year, the College said:
"In 2017, our commitment to equality for our LGBTQ+ employees, members of the professions and other stakeholders, was cemented when we became a Stonewall Diversity Champion, with the aim of ensuring that all people in the community are accepted, without exception, within the veterinary professions.
In subsequent years this commitment has been demonstrated by the establishment of our Diversity & Inclusion Group, for which LGBTQ+ representation is a key component and has been incorporated into both our internal and external diversity and inclusion strategies.
Focusing on our internal diversity and inclusion strategy, the insight from Stonewall and our internal LGBTQ+ group, has aimed to make the RCVS a safe space for people from the LGBTQ+ community by creating a fully inclusive workplace.
These insights have also fed into the profession-facing work of the Diversity & Inclusion Group and its strategy.
After six years as a Stonewall Diversity Champion, we have decided this year not to renew our contract with the organisation, on the basis that we feel we no longer need to work with an external organisation to continue to deliver on our commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
The RCVS will continue to demonstrate allyship and be a safe space for all groups within the LGBTQ+ community, as demonstrated by the fact we are creating a staff network representing RCVS colleagues from marginalised communities.
We may in future decide to work with another accredited organisation, but until the staff network is in place, no decisions have been made. For example, we have recently brought in a staff policy regarding how best to support RCVS employees who are going through the process of gender reassignment, reiterating the current legal position, how to report experiencing or witnessing transphobic discrimination, as well as advice for colleagues supporting those undergoing gender reassignment and those who have family members going through the process. We are grateful for Stonewall for working with us over the past six years and helping us, through its Workplace Equality Index, to finesse our policies and procedures in relation to LGBTQ+ rights and issues and drive forward our agenda to be a diverse and inclusive workplace and regulator."
Neurodiversity Celebration Week is a worldwide initiative that challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences, and the neurodiversity resource hub (www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/) aims to help members of the veterinary professions better understand how, for over one million people in the UK, neurological differences mean they learn and think in a way that is different to what is considered ‘neurotypical’.
Among the resources contained in the hub is information about neurological conditions closely associated with neurodivergence such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia and dyslexia, as well as information for employers about neurodiversity, including inclusive working tools and sources of government support.
A new ‘kite’ with six new modules are also being added to the MMI Kite App – a specialist microlearning platform for topics related to veterinary wellbeing – that deal specifically with issues related to neurodiversity. The six modules cover: what is neurodiversity; the importance of talking about neurodiversity; different types of neurodiversity; bespoke considerations for neurodivergent individuals; how neurodivergence can lead to innovation through thinking differently; and, exploring further how different brains work and how we can make our brains work best for us.
The College is also publishing a blog on the resource website by Dr Kirstie Pickles, Clinical Assistant Professor in Equine Medicine at the University of Nottingham, about her current MMI-funded research investigating the various workplace stressors that affect autistic veterinary professionals and what adjustments can be introduced to mitigate these stressors.
Lastly, at BSAVA Congress on Saturday 26 March between 3pm and 4pm, the RCVS has organised a discussion session on neurodiversity.
The discussion will be led by Roxanne Hobbs, a consultant in workplace inclusion particularly around neurodiversity, and will look at how to nurture and cultivate neurodiversity in the veterinary professions.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Manager, said: “As a project focused on the mental health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, the Mind Matters project has a commitment to recognising and providing a space for all forms of diversity, and so we are very glad to be supporting Neurodiversity Celebration Week again this year.
“We hope that our neurodiversity resource hub and our other initiatives during Neurodiversity Celebration Week will be useful source of information for everyone and will aid people in understanding neurodivergence, how it can manifest and how it can be supported in the workplace and educational settings.”
Reporter Andy Davies spoke to Charlotte Debbaut MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Belgium working at the Tindale Veterinary Practice in Gloucestershire, where there are 13 vets with eight different nationalities. He also interviewed Matthew Pugh MRCVS and Ovidiu Oltean MRCVS from Belmont Veterinary Centre, a mixed practice in Hereford which employs five foreign nationals out of a team of 13 veterinary surgeons.
Finally, he talked to John Blackwell MRCVS at Brownlow Veterinary Group in Shropshire, where Brexit had already caused a Croatian member of his team to refuse a permanent position and return to Ireland.
Congratulations to the RCVS and BVA press offices, who will have been hard at work behind the scenes.
See: https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-affecting-vet-recruitment
Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.
She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.
There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.
Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.
The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.
Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.
Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.
Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).
Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.
Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.
At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.
Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.
After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.
Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.
In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.
Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.
In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:
The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.
The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.
When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:
The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”
She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.
"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.
“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.
"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”
Musculoskeletal therapists currently have their work underpinned by an Exemption Order to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which allows them to treat an animal under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has first examined that animal.
The College says it has recognised that there has been confusion over whether musculoskeletal therapists need a veterinary referral for maintenance work, such as massage, in a healthy animal. This may lead to delays in animals receiving maintenance care.
The new guidance, found in Chapter 19 (www.rcvs.org.uk/unqualified) of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct, sets out the existing rules for musculoskeletal treatment of illness, disease or pathology, and clarifies that healthy animals do not need a veterinary referral for maintenance care.
The guidance stresses that musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team, and that any animal, including healthy ones, should be registered with a veterinary surgeon and referred to a vet at the first sign of any symptoms that may suggest underlying health issues.
The guidance also says that vets should be confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified; indicators of this can include membership of a voluntary regulatory body with a register of practitioners, and associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a complaints and disciplinary process.
In March 2019 the RCVS published the Review of Minor Procedures Regime (www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/report-to-defra-on-the-review-of-minor-procedures-regime-and/) which noted that the existing exemption order was not suitable for underpinning the work of musculoskeletal therapists, and recommended that this be remedied by reform of Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, alongside regulation by the RCVS through Associate status for musculoskeletal therapists.
This would allow the RCVS to set and uphold standards for musculoskeletal therapists in a similar way to veterinary nurses, giving further assurance to both the veterinary professions and the public. The recent Legislation Working Party Report recommendations builds on that recommendation, and is currently open for consultation at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has removed a veterinary surgeon formerly working in Lincolnshire from the Register, after finding him guilty of serious professional misconduct for drink-driving related convictions, failing to inform his employer of these convictions, and driving whilst disqualified.
Jaroslaw Slominski, a former employer of Grants Veterinary Services plc, chose not to attend the three-day hearing. The Committee considered whether to proceed with the case, using criteria identified by the Court of Appeal in R v Jones (Anthony) in 2002 and confirmed by the House of Lords. It concluded it was in the interests of justice that the hearing should go ahead.
The charges related to two convictions Mr Slominski received on 17 March 2010 at Lincoln Magistrates Court: failure to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and driving without due care and attention (after his vehicle collided head-on with another car). Mr Slominski failed to inform his employers of these convictions, as he was contractually obliged to do, and that he was now disqualified from driving.
Having heard evidence from Mr Slominski's line manager, the Committee also found that he had driven his employer's vehicle whilst disqualified, although it could not be sure that he had done so on all the occasions alleged. Therefore, the Committee did not go on to consider an alternative part of the charge - that Mr Slominski had dishonestly claimed money from his employer by falsely submitting expenses claims.
Disciplinary Committee Chairman Prof Peter Lees said: "The combination of factors in this case, namely, the serious nature of his conviction in failing to provide a specimen of breath, his subsequent premeditated conduct in not informing his employers and driving whilst disqualified should be treated by the profession very seriously. The Committee has concluded that the combination of the conviction and the conduct is incompatible with Mr Slominski practising as a veterinary surgeon."
The Committee directed that Mr Slominski's name be removed from the Register.
First prize went to the University of Edinburgh’s Molly Vasanthakumar (pictured right) for her Knowledge Summary comparing the ecological impact of woven versus disposable drapes. Molly found that there is not enough evidence that disposable synthetics reduce the risk of surgical site infections when compared to reusable woven drapes, based on her assessment of the available literature.
Molly said: “The Veterinary Evidence student competition gave me an opportunity to identify a specific issue, find and appraise the evidence and then apply it to a practical setting.
"Winning the competition has given me a chance to further my skills in evidence-based veterinary medicine [EBVM] and also raise awareness of an incredibly important and topical issue."
Molly received her prize at RCVS Day, and her published paper can now be read in Veterinary Evidence: http://bit.ly/MollyVasanthakumar
Second prize went to Honoria Brown of the University of Cambridge, whose paper asked: "Can hoof wall temperature and digital pulse pressure be used as sensitive non-invasive diagnostic indicators of acute laminitis onset?"
Honoria said: "Writing this Knowledge Summary was the perfect chance, not only to develop my ability to navigate and analyse databases, but also to present my findings for the benefit of other clinicians who face these issues.
"I feel that these skills will be very useful to me later in my career, and I am grateful to Veterinary Evidence for providing me with the opportunity."
Jacqueline Oi Ping Tong from the University of Edinburgh won third prize for her critical appraisal of the evidence for whether a daily probiotic improved clinical outcomes in dogs with idiopathic diarrhoea. She said: "This experience makes me recognise the importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine to the veterinary community; it connects scientific research to everyday practice.
"It was a great opportunity to engage in EBVM early in my veterinary career, and start learning how to critically appraise the current evidence."
Jacqueline and Honoria’s Knowledge Summaries have been accepted for future publication in Veterinary Evidence.
All submissions were subjected to the same standards and peer-review process as normal journal submissions.
RCVS Knowledge’s Executive Director, Chris Gush, said: "EBVM and its application into practice starts as part of the undergraduate degree, and we are delighted to encourage and champion student involvement.
"This new initiative from our journal taps into the student body’s potential to help grow the evidence base, whilst preparing the next generation of veterinary professionals for when they graduate."
The Veterinary Evidence Student Awards are running again for 2020 and are open for submissions.
The awards are open to all undergraduates studying veterinary medicine, veterinary nursing or bioveterinary science (and equivalent). More information can be found here: http://bit.ly/VEstudentawards
At his first Disciplinary Committee hearing in January 2018, the Committee directed that Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen’s name be removed from the Register after finding him guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of four charges against him. These related to an incident of petty theft in California in the United States, and his subsequent dishonesty in not disclosing this to the College.
Following the Disciplinary Committee hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. In July 2019, the Privy Council partially upheld his appeal, determining that the RCVS had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen’s infraction for petty theft was a conviction under Californian law and therefore Dr Schulze Allen had not made false representations to the College when he said he did not have any criminal convictions or a criminal record.
However, the Privy Council partially upheld the College’s charge that Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest and made false representations when he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any adverse findings and that he should have declared his infraction for petty theft. The Privy Council also set aside the Disciplinary Committee’s original sanction and remitted the task of sanction back to the Disciplinary Committee.
As a result of the Privy Council’s decision, the Disciplinary Committee held a further hearing in relation to Dr Schulze Allen to decide the sanction in relation to the upheld charge against him.
The Committee noted that the aggravating factors were the fact that Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest to his regulator and in making a false declaration, demonstrated a wilful disregard for the regulatory role of the RCVS. In mitigation the Committee considered that there was no harm to animals, that it was a single and isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career, and that he had accepted his wrongdoing, albeit at a late stage, and was developing some insight.
The Committee considered whether a reprimand or warning would be the most appropriate sanction but determined that this would not reflect the seriousness of the dishonesty in this case, nor maintain public confidence in the profession or uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is suspension from the Register for a period of three months. A period of three months reflects the seriousness of the charge. Such a sanction sends a clear message to Dr Schulze Allen, the profession and the public that behaving dishonestly towards the regulator is a serious matter. The Committee considered that removal from the Register would be disproportionate given that this is a single incident and Dr Schulze Allen now accepts his wrongdoing."
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against Duncan Davidson MRCVS, a South London veterinary surgeon accused of clinical failings in relation to his treatment of a cat and of keeping poor and misleading clinical records.
The Committee heard the case against Dr Davidson, who was the sole practitioner and owner of Mitcham Veterinary Clinic until his retirement from clinical practice in November 2014, at a hearing which concluded on 22nd January.
The first charge against Dr Davidson alleged that, between 7 November 2013 and 13 December 2013, he had failed to provide adequate care to Ameira, an Egyptian Mau cat. The charge was in four parts: that he had inappropriately administered corticosteroids; had failed to administer adequate fluid therapy; discharged the cat to its owner suggesting a referral when he should have suggested or arranged a same-day referral; and that he failed to communicate the urgency of referral/ further investigation of the cat’s condition to her owner.
The second charge was that, between 7 November 2013 and 17 January 2014, he dishonestly made retrospective alterations to Ameira’s clinical records and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
From the outset Dr Davidson, who attended the hearing, did not admit the charges against him and denied that his conduct, if found proven, constituted serious professional misconduct.
A summary of the circumstances of the case were that the cat had been admitted to Dr Davidson’s practice on 8 November 2013 with poor appetite and a piece of thread in its mouth. The cat was later admitted, on 21 November, with dehydration and was diagnosed with a linear foreign body (ie the thread) on 25 November 2013. Dr Davidson continued to treat Ameira with corticosteroids and rehydration fluids at the practice but a second opinion was sought by Ameira’s owner from a nearby veterinary practice. This practice referred the cat to the Royal Veterinary College for treatment. Surgery to remove the linear foreign body was undertaken on 13 December 2013, albeit with a poor prognosis, and Ameira subsequently suffered two cardiac arrests and died on 14 December 2013.
In terms of its findings on the first charge, the Committee heard from an expert witness, Mr Hurst, regarding the use of the corticosteroids which were administered to the cat by Dr Davidson on 22, 27 and 30 November 2013 and 5 and 12 December 2013. Although Mr Hurst said that a minority of veterinary surgeons may have provided corticosteroids when the cat was first presented to Dr Davidson on 8 November; when it was determined by Dr Davidson’s colleague Mr Holden that the cat’s condition was due to it having ingested thread, the use of corticosteroids was inappropriate from then on and would be considered contra-indicated. The Committee found this charge proven.
The Committee did not find the charge against Dr Davidson that he failed to provide adequate fluid therapy proven. When the cat was presented to the practice on 21 November 2013 suffering from dehydration, fluid rehydration was given but not administered intravenously. The Committee concluded that intravenous hydration was not necessary because the clinical records from both Dr Davidson and the Royal Veterinary College indicated that Ameira was only moderately dehydrated.
Regarding the referral of Ameira, the Committee could not be sure that the cat was sufficiently unwell on 23 November that it required immediate referral. Dr Davidson had sent Ameira home with her owner on that date on the basis that she was stable and that he would arrange a referral for her on 25 November. There was conflicting evidence from Dr Davidson and Ameira’s owner on the matter of whether, on 23 November, Ameira’s owner was advised that the cat’s condition was critical or that a referral was urgently required. Dr Davidson accepted that he did not seek to make an urgent referral. The charge was not proven.
Regarding the communication of the urgency for further investigation of Ameira’s condition, the Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Dr Davidson did not adequately communicate with Ameira’s owner after the diagnosis of a linear foreign body was made on 25 November. According to Dr Davidson, he explained the risk of further damage to the oesophageal and gastrointestinal tract and offered further radiography. This was strongly contested by Ameira’s owner. However, ultimately the Committee were unable to be satisfied as to which version was correct to the necessary standard of proof required.
Regarding the retrospective amendment of clinical records, the Committee found that although there were some “troubling aspects” about the case, particularly evidence of a telephone call with the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in which Dr Davidson said that no retrospective alterations had been made, it was unable to be satisfied so as to be sure of his motivation for changing the records. His contention was that changes had been made as he was concerned he would be subject to civil litigation by Ameira’s owner. However, the Committee found the charge not proven, also taking into account Dr Davidson’s good character and unblemished professional record over 40 years.
However, the Committee did find that Dr Davidson’s clinical records were illegible. Dr Davidson recognised the poor quality of his handwriting, which the veterinary surgeons to whom Ameira was referred were unable to understand. The Committee found this charge proven.
Taking into account the charges it found proven, the Committee then considered whether they constituted serious professional conduct either individually or cumulatively. Judith Webb, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "It does not consider that on the facts of this case the administration of corticosteroids amounted to disgraceful misconduct."
She added: "The Committee has already emphasised the importance of making legible handwritten records but it does not consider that the failure to do so in this case amounts to disgraceful misconduct.... The Committee has found that Dr Davidson was wrong to make retrospective entries in this case without making it clear when such alterations were made. The Committee does not consider that in this case the making of those alterations was capable of being disgraceful misconduct. The case is dismissed."
David Chalkley MRCVS faces four alleged charges:
At the start of the hearing Mr Chalkley made no admissions as to the charges but he had made an application for an adjournment based on undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.
In addressing the Committee on behalf of Mr Chalkley, his counsel said that Mr Chalkley denied all charges of dishonesty, that there was no evidence of harm to animals as a result of the alleged conduct, that there had been no complaint from the client and that he had repaid all the sums he had received for tuberculin testing on the farm in question.
His counsel also submitted that a full hearing would be expensive and time-consuming, and that it would serve no useful purpose as animal welfare and the protection of the public would be served by Mr Chalkley’s proposed undertakings.
Counsel on behalf of the RCVS confirmed that the College did not oppose the application and confirmed that the Animal Plant and Health Agency did not object.
However, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that because the case concerned issues of alleged dishonesty in veterinary certification over a prolonged period of time and the importance of public trust in the accuracy and reliability of that process, there was a need to hold a full, public hearing into Mr Chalkley’s alleged conduct.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee expressed no view as to whether the allegations could be substantiated or not and it recognised that the process of determining the allegations would be burdensome for many, particularly the respondent.
"It was satisfied, however, that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would be disturbed to learn that allegations of this kind had not been the subject of a formal determination by the Disciplinary Committee. The respondent’s own interests had to take second place to this important public interest.
“The Committee therefore declined to accept the application to adjourn this inquiry [until an unspecified date] and directed that arrangements should now be considered for the listing of a hearing in this case.”
It is expected that the full hearing will take place in spring 2021.
In previous years, candidates were only asked to provide manifestos, which often contained information that wasn't especially relevant to whether or not they should be elected to Council.
Now, they are asked to share their reasons for wanting to be elected, what they can bring to Council and what experience they have.
That should make it much easier for voters to pick the right candidates, which is no bad thing because there are 20 vets standing this year, a record since electronic records began in 1997 and 1 more than the previous best in 2014.
This year’s candidates are:
Louise Allum MRCVSSam Bescoby MRCVSAndrew Clemence MRCVSTshidi Gardiner MRCVSReginald Godwin MRCVSPaddy Gordon MRCVS Danielle Greenberg MRCVSGerard Henry MRCVSRichard Hillman MRCVSBenjamin Kennedy MRCVSDarren Partridge MRCVSMartin Peaty MRCVSAlison Price MRCVSPeter Robinson MRCVSJennifer Simmons MRCVSSadie Spencer MRCVS Mary Thomas MRCVSWilliam Wilkinson MRCVSLara Wilson MRCVS
and the inevitable Tom Lonsdale MRCVS.
The full biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote25.
The four candidates who get the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the College’s Annual General Meeting on Friday 4 July 2025.
Simon Wiklund, Assistant Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “We are glad to see such a large number of veterinary professionals putting themselves forward as candidates for this year’s elections.
"It is worth noting that any future governance changes, including RCVS and VN Councils becoming all-appointed bodies, are contingent on new legislation and, until that happens, we will continue to hold our annual elections.
“You may have also noticed some differences with this year’s elections, particularly in terms of the candidate statements.
"This is thanks to a change to our election scheme, which provides greater flexibility about how we run our elections, and the information that we can ask the candidates to submit.
“This means that, rather than asking candidates for a broad manifesto statement, we’ve asked them to answer key questions that are relevant to the role of a Council member, including what skills and experiences they can bring to the table.”
Ahead of the elections, RCVS will be running its ‘Quiz the candidates’ initiative in which veterinary surgeons can submit questions to the candidates standing in their respective elections, in order to better understand them and their views.
However, due to the additional information now included in each of their statements, this year candidates will only answer one question of their choice each.
Before submitting questions to the candidates, please note the RCVS will only accept one question per person. Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will be rejected by the Returning Officer and not be passed on to candidates.
Veterinary surgeons can submit a question to the RCVS Council candidates by emailing vetvote25@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed charges of serious professional misconduct against a veterinary surgeon and former employee of Medivet (Watford).
Tomasz Nazimek, who qualified in Poland in 2001 before starting work in England in 2005, was alleged to have charged for the use of a blood pressure monitor during an exploratory laparotomy on a cat called Mitzi, whilst working at the Watford branch of Medivet in June 2009, when he knew, or ought to have known, it had not been used.
Despite his previous signed statements to the contrary, Mr Nazimek admitted at the outset of the hearing that no blood pressure monitor had in fact been used.
Accordingly, the Committee only had to establish whether Mr Nazimek himself had entered the fee for its use into Mitzi's records and, if so, whether this was done dishonestly.
The alleged incident came to light as a result of a covert investigation into Medivet conducted by the television production company Fulcrum TV in 2008/9, and subsequently commissioned by the BBC and broadcast in July 2010 as part of the Panorama programme 'It Shouldn't Happen at a Vets''.
Former dental nurse Alexandra Lee was employed by Fulcrum TV as an undercover reporter to work as a 'trainee veterinary nurse' at Medivet, in order to record audio and video footage of her experiences there.
The case against Mr Nazimek was based partly on a conversation overheard by Miss Lee following the operation on Mitzi, where she maintained that Guy Carter, a senior Medivet partner and veterinary surgeon, told Mr Nazimek (who was sitting at the practice computer typing up Mitzi's records) not to forget to include a fee for use of the blood pressure monitor.
However, Miss Lee's equipment had not recorded this exchange, due to a fault, and her video diary of that day's events was not put in evidence before the Committee. Miss Lee also accepted in evidence that she had not actually seen who entered the fee into the records, but had assumed it was Mr Nazimek.
Despite giving serious consideration to all of Miss Lee's evidence, the Committee found it of limited value.
The Committee considered the statements signed by Mr Nazimek, but prepared for him by the Medivet senior management in December 2009 and October 2010, which stated that he had used the monitor, consulted Mr Carter about charging for it and then added the fee himself.
The Committee also considered a third statement provided to the College (September 2011), in which Mr Nazimek recalled that Mr Carter had priced up the operation himself, but not asked for his input.
When questioned about the discrepancies in his statements, Mr Nazimek told the Committee that he had confused different operations and now knew his earlier statements to be wrong.
He indicated that he had been under pressure from his then employers to sign the statements, that his attempts to change them were ignored by Medivet's managing partners and that he was depressed and under stress at the time.
He was not told that the statements could be in relation to charges against him, or that he was entitled to legal advice when discussing them with his employers.
The Committee found Mr Nazimek's oral evidence to be persuasive, his manner open and his responses under cross-examination frank.
In the absence of satisfactory and reliable evidence to the contrary, and in view of supportive testimonials provided from his current employer and former colleagues as to his honesty and integrity, the Committee found Mr Nazimek's repeated assertion that he did not make a charge for the monitor "entirely plausible" and believed that he told the truth.
Nevertheless, the Committee emphasised that a charge for the monitor had been entered into the records when no such device had been used, which it regarded as unacceptable.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is not satisfied by the evidence so that it is sure that [Mr Nazimek] entered into the records for Mitzi a charge for the blood pressure monitor. [It] believes that [Mr Nazimek] told the truth when giving his evidence and the character references support his honesty.
"In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the charges further and the allegations against [Mr Nazimek] are dismissed."
Currently Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, University of London, and previously Dean of the University of Glasgow’s School Of Veterinary Medicine, Stuart has been a member of RCVS Council since 2005, and served as RCVS President in 2014-15.
As chair of the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in 2011, Stuart oversaw the College’s review of veterinary specialisation, which also led to the new Advanced Practitioner status.
He has also been a driving force behind the joint RCVS and BVA Vet Futures project since its inception in 2015.
As Chair of the RCVS Governance Panel, he recently saw through reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
Stuart has also chaired the RCVS Science Advisory Panel.
He continues to chair the College’s Mind Matters Initiative, which aims to improve the mental health and wellbeing of all those in the veterinary team.
A particularly notable achievement during his Presidential year was to allow UK veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ if they so wished.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive said: "We have been incredibly fortunate to have someone of Stuart’s calibre, character and international renown on our Council for so many years. His contributions and commitment to the RCVS, as well as to the wider veterinary professions, are as significant as they are often understated.
"On behalf of RCVS Council and all the staff, I should like to say how delighted we are that he has been honoured in this way. Such recognition is very much deserved and we send him our warmest congratulations."
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:
Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.
Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;
Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;
Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;
Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;
Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and
Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).
Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.
He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.
The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.
It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.
The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.
The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.
"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.
In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.
In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.
"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.
“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.
"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.
"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”
The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: "I am so proud of our performance in the Great Place to Work Awards and the efforts of everyone at the College, and especially our HR team, who have been tirelessly and creatively striving to make the College a wonderful place to work.
"Consistently being placed in the top 50 Great Places to Work is also a testament to the sustained hard work all of our employees and the important part they play in creating a supportive, interesting and good-humoured workplace.
"We are a service-led organisation and we want to make sure that we give our best to the veterinary professions and the general public. If our team enjoys the work, and the workplace, that will improve the service we are able to offer and, ultimately, benefit animal health and welfare."