At the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee considered whether she had accepted the findings of the Committee at the original inquiry hearing, the seriousness of those findings, whether she had demonstrated insight into her past conduct, and the protection of the public and the public interest.
In her restoration application, Dr Burrows included continuing professional development (CPD) certificates for the courses she had completed since her removal from the Register, letters/informal witness statements from the veterinary surgeons and nurses she had worked who had expressed a willingness to employ her again, together with character references and reflection statements.
She also made a detailed opening statement in support of her application, in which she said that the period since her name was removed from the Register was extremely difficult and also that she now unconditionally accepted all the Committee’s original findings in May 2021, some of which she had previously denied and had failed to acknowledge.
Dr Burrows went on to state that she only had herself to blame for her actions and that she now understood and accepted that the original sanction of removal from the register had needed to be severe given the serious breach of trust to the public, to the veterinary profession and the insurance industry that was a direct consequence of her dishonest actions.
Since removal from the Register, Dr Burrows had taken on the role of receptionist in a Vets4Pets practice in Cardiff, which required her to deal directly with the public and their insurance requests and entitlements.
She stated that as a result of her involvement over the past 18 months in processing insurance claims, she acknowledges the “delicate” relationship between veterinary surgeons, clients and insurers.
Additionally, working as a receptionist, had allowed her to recognise the need for contemporaneous and clear clinical notes.
She also highlighted her CPD, which was relevant to insurance, as well as the fact she’d undertaken a professional ethics course to assist her rehabilitation, reflection, and insight.
In support of Dr Burrows’ restoration to the Register, the Committee took into account three witness accounts from people who work at the Vets4Pets branch where Dr Burrows works as a receptionist.
All witnesses gave positive reflections on Dr Burrows’ character and assured the Committee that they would provide the correct level of support to allow her to return to work safely and that they would have all the necessary safeguarding measures in place to ensure that the public’s and the profession’s interest is always at the forefront.
Judith Way, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was impressed by the fact that busy professionals chose to give up their time to provide witness statements and give evidence in support of Dr Burrows’ application.
"All witnesses were clearly supportive of Dr Burrows’ request for restoration to the Register.
“The Committee found Dr Burrows to show remorse and she does now accept the findings of dishonesty that were made against her in the original enquiry hearing and stated that her conduct was dishonest.
"In the Committee’s view, the evidence given by Dr Burrows on affirmation was very believable and she now accepts her dishonesty together with the gravity of her dishonesty.
“The Committee also formed the view that the steps she has taken to address her dishonesty serve to confirm that she is passionate about the prospect that she be allowed to return to practise.
"The Committee was impressed by Dr Burrows and the evidence given and is now satisfied that she will ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in the future.
“Having taken all evidence into account, the Committee is satisfied that the future welfare of animals under Dr Burrows’ responsibility will be properly protected, and that her future dealings with insurers will be honest in all respects and that the interests of the public will be met.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Under the protocol trial, the RCVS can launch private prosecutions against unqualified people practising veterinary surgery or using the title 'veterinary surgeon'.
The College says that where breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act cross over to other criminal offences, for example, fraud by false representation, they will be more properly dealt with by the relevant police force.
Local authority trading standards agencies will also deal with issues around, for example, misleading courses that purport to lead to registration with the RCVS but do not; concerns about dog grooming businesses and concerns about dog breeding establishments (other than where there is illegal practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons).
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “This protocol recognises that there are constraints on the time, resourcing, and budgets of both the police and public prosecutors which means that the pursuit of these breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, both of which carry minor criminal penalties, is not necessarily a priority.
“While we are always willing to work with the police and other agencies to pursue such breaches, the protocol details how we can act independently where appropriate and ensure we are fulfilling our stated ambition to safeguard the interests of the public and animals, as well as the reputation of the professions, by ensuring that only those registered with us can carry out acts of veterinary surgery.
“We would like to manage expectations around this trial period as we will only be launching private prosecutions where they meet the criminal evidential standards of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it is judged to be in the public interest to do so.
"We will also be relying on members of the professions and the public to report breaches and provide sufficient evidence to us, as we have no statutory investigatory powers.”
The trial period will last for one year and the College has set aside £50,000 to pursue private prosecutions.
The trial will be overseen by the Disciplinary Committee/ Preliminary Investigation Committee Liaison Committee while decisions on whether to pursue private prosecutions will lie with the Registrar/ Director of Legal Services.
Suspected breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act can be reported to the RCVS Professional Conduct Department on breachvsa@rcvs.org.uk.
The main change to the guidance was from:
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care should have a 24/7 facility to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
to
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care must be able, on a 24/7 basis, to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, equines, farmed aquatic animals and game.
Where a veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service, they must make arrangements for another veterinary service provider to do so on their behalf, details of which must be provided to the client in writing in advance of providing veterinary services.
The new guidance elaborates on the details which must be given to clients:
Veterinary surgeons should provide clients with full details of this arrangement, including relevant telephone numbers, location details, when the service is available and the nature of service provided.
The amended guidelines maintain that the prescription of antimicrobials and controlled drugs requires a physical examination in all but exceptional circumstances, but clarify that for antimicrobials, this applies to all except production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
The guidance for limited service providers, such as vaccination and neutering clinics, has been amended with the requirement that if they engage the services of another provider to provide 24-hour emergency cover, this arrangement must be confirmed in writing with the client before veterinary services are offered.
Council voted unanimously for a review of the guidance to be conducted 12 months from the implementation date, with the caveat that the Standards Committee would continue to monitor any impacts on an ongoing basis.
The full details of the amendments can be found in the papers for the March 2023 RCVS Council meeting at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/
Linda Belton MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, said: “I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals within the professions who helped provide the crucial content and context for the case study scenarios, as well as feedback to make sure they were realistic and applicable in practice.
"Thank you also to all those who have fed into the further improvements that have been made to the guidance and I would like to reassure those with concerns that the guidance is robust, we have considered how it will be enforced and we will continue to review the guidance.”
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, added: “Ahead of it coming into force, we will also be publishing resources about the guidance, including the case studies that we are currently finalising, and some FAQs.
"We hope these will help to further explain the context behind the guidance changes, and help to counter any misunderstanding about the impact of the guidance and what it will actually mean for practising professionals on a day-to-day basis.”
For further information about the guidance and the consultation process that led to its development visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
There are 10 candidates standing this year and vets can vote for up to three of them until 5pm on Friday 21st April 2023:
The biographies and statements for each candidate are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July 2023.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com stating which election they intend to vote in.
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The increase, which was approved by the Privy Council on Thursday 2 March, will mean that the standard annual renewal fee for UK-practising veterinary surgeons (which must be paid on or before 1 April 2023) will increase by £15 to £379.
The full list of RCVS fees can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/fees
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “We are proud that all throughout the pandemic period, when we know that many were struggling, we managed to keep our fees at the same level in the 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23 fee years.
“The increase that we proposed to the Privy Council is very modest, particularly in comparison to the overall levels of inflation that the British economy has experienced over the past year, which has had an impact on our costs.
“While we appreciate that any rise in fee levels will not be welcomed by everyone, we can assure all members of the professions that we are continuing to use our income prudently and with oversight from our Audit & Risk and Finance & Resources Committees.”
As the increase has been confirmed by the Privy Council, annual renewal fee notifications will be sent to all veterinary surgeons in early March.
The survey was conducted following the recent RCVS Council decision to redefine ‘Under Care’ to allow vets to prescribe remotely.
692 veterinary surgeons took part in the survey, 88.7% of which worked in practice, 8.7% worked elsewhere and 2.6% are retired.
42.4% worked in corporate practice, 42.4% at an independent practice (spooky), 9.6% locum and 2.6% at a charity.
94% worked in first opinion practice, 5.7% in referral practice.
When asked: “Do you agree with the RCVS Council decision to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe medication without having seen / examined the animal in person?”, 78.2% said no, 13.6% said yes and 8.2% said ‘ambivalent’.
This raises an interesting discussion about the role of RCVS Council, which the College has long said is ‘representative of’, but not there 'to represent’ the profession in self-regulating.
By any measure, this decision was not ‘representative of’ the wider body of opinion.
It could be argued that electorates vote for representatives to make more informed decisions than they themselves are able, and certainly MPs have voted in ways that are not representative of the wider body of public opinion.
But this is the veterinary profession. MPs have to represent a wide cross-section of society, some groups of which might struggle to field one working brain cell between them.
By contrast, veterinary surgeons are a highly intelligent, highly educated subset of the population, who you might assume are better qualified to make decisions on matters such as these.
So why this level of disagreement? We asked respondents to select any benefits and drawbacks they think remote prescribing will bring, from a list but with the option for them to write in any we hadn’t thought of.
When asked to select benefits of remote prescribing, the majority (70.9%) selected: “Reduced cost to the pet owner (driving/parking etc)’.
39.3% said it would bring an improvement to vets’ quality of life through more flexible working.
27.5% said animal welfare would be improved through increased access to veterinary services.
14.3% said it would bring an ‘Improved client/vet relationship’.
Of those people who selected a benefit, 49.9% said the biggest benefit of remote prescribing is a reduced cost to the pet owner (driving / parking etc).
Other benefits highlighted in the comments section were
Notably, in the comments section for the benefits of remote prescribing, out of the 104 comments, 33 actually commented 'no benefit' or negatively.
When asked to select the drawbacks of remote prescribing, 94.3% selected: ‘Harm to animals caused by misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses.
68% said: Worsened client / vet relationship
60.6% said: Threat to independent practice (corporates funnelling clients from online consults to their practices).
Other drawbacks identified by respondents were:
Amongst the written drawbacks, the biggest themes concerned abuse of drugs and antimicrobial resistance.
When those who had selected a drawback were then asked which was the biggest, 83.3% said ‘Harm to animals caused by misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses”
So in simple terms, in weighing up the pros and cons, it’s between the reduced cost to the owner on the one hand, cited by 70.9%, and harm to animal welfare on the other, cited by 94%. And the harm to animal welfare was selected by significantly more vets as the biggest concern, than reduced cost was selected as the biggest benefit.
In other words, vets think remote prescribing will make veterinary care cheaper, but at the overall cost to animal welfare.
British Veterinary Association President Malcolm Morley said: “New technology presents many opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services, with potential benefits for vets, clients and patients.
"However, we recognise there are concerns within the profession, particularly around the potential unintended consequences of the RCVS’s revised guidance on ‘under care’ in relation to animal welfare and access to veterinary services.
"This survey echoes these concerns as well as supporting the British Veterinary Association’s call for the RCVS to commit to a post-implementation review.”
The definition agreed by VN Council is as follows:
Veterinary nursing aims to ease the suffering and pain of animals, and to improve their health and welfare.
This includes providing any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to animals under the direction of a veterinary surgeon who has that animal under their care.
Veterinary nursing can be either proactive or reactive, and autonomous or collaborative. It is carried out in a wide variety of settings, for animals at all life stages, and considers the background and needs of the animal’s owner or keeper.
Matthew Rendle RVN, the Chair of VN Council, said: “Although it is just a few short lines, this definition of veterinary nursing has been in the pipeline for some time.
"While we as veterinary nurses have always been able to define ourselves by the type of tasks we carry out, or our relation to veterinary surgeons in terms of delegation, there hasn’t necessarily been a clear statement articulating the art and science of veterinary nursing.
“With the RCVS looking to expand its regulatory remit to include other veterinary paraprofessionals over the long term, we thought it was particularly important that we set out the stall for veterinary nursing and we hope that this clear statement will, in particular, aid the public in understanding the role of a veterinary nurse.
“It should be noted that this definition is VN Council’s own considered interpretation of the art and science of veterinary nursing.
"Other interpretations from other organisations, provided they conform with both Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, could sit comfortably alongside ours, and we hope there continues to be healthy discussion about the contribution of the profession to the veterinary team, as our role evolves.”
There are 10 candidates standing for the three available elected places on RCVS Council.
The candidates are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23.
Ahead of the start of the election in mid-March, the RCVS is asking veterinary surgeons to email questions for candidates to: vetvote23@rcvs.org.uk in order to better understand them and their views.
You have until Friday 24 February 2023 to submit your question.
The voting period for RCVS Council opens on Monday 13th March and closes at 5pm on Friday 21 April 2023.
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for your professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
Discuss here.
Expanding on the training available in autumn 2022, which was launched based on the results of an extensive training pilot, MMI is offering a total of 14 sessions taking place both online and in person over the next few months. Sessions will be running from January to April 2023. The courses will cover areas that have been identified as priority topics from previous MMI surveys, feedback from the professions, and evaluation of the training pilots.
Mind Matters Initiative Manager, Lisa Quigley, said: “Mental health and wellbeing are impacted by a whole host of structural and societal factors and maintaining a healthy workforce goes far beyond supporting people on an individual level.
"Whilst it is undoubtedly important to provide people with the skills they need to look after themselves, we are aiming to expand on this by providing individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to recognise and address wider collective issues. For example, the importance of creating and maintaining a positive workplace culture.
Session dates and specific topics are as follows:
Mental Health First Aid (£30 in-person)
9am – 5pm
Psychological Safety and Civility (£20 in-person, £15 online)
In-person – 9am – 4pm
Online – 9am – 1pm
Sustaining Your Emotional Health (£15 in-person)
2pm – 5pm
For more information on the training courses, visit: https://vetmindmatters.org/training/
At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.
There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.
The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.
Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:
Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.
The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.
Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.
"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.
"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.
"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.
"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”
“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”
In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.
The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.
Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.
"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.
"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.
"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.
“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.
"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At a hearing in April Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him, which related fraudulent claims for the treatment of animals, two of which were fictitious, where he arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account.
Dr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee Chair Paul Morris said: “The Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the respondent’s dishonest conduct will have severely undermined the confidence of the public in the veterinary profession and, further, that his conduct fell far short of the standards and conduct properly to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee is satisfied that this conduct by the respondent brought the profession into disrepute.”
The proceedings were then adjourned to allow a psychiatric report and other mitigation to be prepared.
At its resumed hearing on earlier this month, the Committee considered what sanction to impose.
The Committee found that aggravating features of his misconduct were that it was premeditated, carefully planned and sophisticated in that it involved the creation of numerous and extensive false clinical records to support his fraudulent claims.
It also considered the fact that he implicated an innocent professional colleague who worked alongside him at the practice, that he abused the trust placed in him by clients, that the dishonest conduct was repeated and that it involved significant financial gain in excess of £13,200 to be further aggravating features of his conduct
In terms of mitigation, the Committee accepted that he had made early admissions regarding his conduct to his employer and the College and accepted responsibility.
The Committee also heard that he had made attempts at remediation involving repayments of some of the sums lost by the practice and insurers.
It also considered positive testimonials from family and professional colleagues and the fact that Dr Johnston had taken significant steps to deal with the gambling addiction that was at the root cause of his misconduct.
Having considered all the evidence, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of 2 years on the condition that Dr Johnston agree to undertakings including refraining from any form of gambling, subjecting himself to a close regime of support and supervision, and repaying some of the sums he had defrauded.
Paul added: “In reaching this conclusion the Committee wishes to make it clear that it has taken an exceptional course in this case.
"Ordinarily conduct of the type covered by the charges which this respondent has accepted will merit the imposition of a sanction of removal from the Register or a period of suspension from the Register.
"In this instance the Committee has found it possible to take the course that it has because it is satisfied that the respondent was, at the time, suffering from a recognisable psychiatric compulsive addiction… and that the fraudulent attempts by the respondent to obtain funds with which to gamble would not have occurred but for this psychiatric condition.
“The Committee further considers that the undertakings offered by the respondent will serve to reduce the risk that he will relapse into gambling again, for his conduct will be closely monitored and he will accept continuing support and guidance from the organisations currently assisting him.
“The Committee is also satisfied of the requirements that neither animals nor the public will be put at risk by this proposed course of action; that the respondent has demonstrated insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and that there is currently no significant risk of repeat behaviour; that his practicing standards are not in need of improvement so long as he continues to fulfil his CPD obligations; that the undertakings offered are capable of being met, are appropriate and are measurable; that there is evidence that his underlying medical problem is being appropriately addressed, will be monitored and reported on; and that he has responded positively to the opportunities for support and counselling which have been offered to him.”
If Dr Johnston fails to comply with his undertakings the Committee will reconvene and consider the charges with the full range of sanctions at its disposal.
Nominations will remain open till 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2023 and the elections will take place in March and April 2023.
RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald, a member of RCVS Council since 2016, said: “I am a general practitioner by background, and so having the opportunity to serve on Council and be at the heart of decision-making that has a real and consequential impact on how we as vets work and conduct ourselves, has been a real privilege.
“In my six years on Council I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in fascinating debates and discussions, to represent the RCVS and its activities at country fairs and congresses, and to talk to and get the views of peers and colleagues from across the UK.
"Serving your profession in the RCVS is a fantastic opportunity and I would recommend anyone who wants to have a real say and impact on the future of the profession to stand for next year’s Council elections.”
The full eligibility criteria, info and FAQs for vets who want to stand can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil23.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council can also contact Melissa Donald for an informal conversation about what it means to be an RCVS Council member: president@rcvs.org.uk.
There is also an opportunity for prospective candidates to attend a meeting of the RCVS Council on Thursday 19th January 2023 at the University of Nottingham Veterinary School, as an observer.
Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you'd like to go.
The Action Plan presents what the College is doing to tackle the issue and explains how collaboration, culture change, career development and leadership, among other things, could help with workforce shortages by improving retention of current members of the professions, encouraging more people to join, and making it easier for those who have left the professions to return.
The report lists seven main areas to be addressed:
The full list of actions, with context about what has fed into ambitions, can be found in the Action Plan which is downloadable at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, Junior Vice-President and Chair of the RCVS Advancement of the Professions Committee, said: “This is a very complex, broad and multi-faceted area of concern so the Action Plan has been a long time in the making to ensure that we adequately capture what needs doing and how, in order to enable us to work collaboratively with all veterinary organisations going forward.
"This is not a finished list, but gives all within the veterinary sector the ability to look at the key areas of work that need to be done and prioritise the ones that most suit their organisational needs."
The training sessions are taking place both online and in person and places will be allocated on a first come first served basis.
Upcoming training dates are as follows:
https://www.vetmindmatters.org/training/
The RCVS awards for which nominations can be made this year are:
RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, said: “It is important that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses uplift each other, and recognise those everyday heroes who impact the animal health and welfare in their local community day in, day out.
"So, if you know anyone who fits the bill for one of our award categories, please make sure to take a bit of time to fill in the nomination form and put them forward.”
The deadline date for the 2023 awards is 5pm on Friday, 27 January 2023.
To read the guidance on making a nomination and to download the PDF nomination forms for each of the awards, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/awards
At first glance, one might ask why? After all, who - other than the pilot - would fly with Thomas Cook sober?
However, there's a world of difference between being not entirely sober and Ms Heyes's level of intoxication, which according to the judge at Greater Manchester Magistrates Court, made her 'every passenger's worst nightmare', and earned her a sentence of 80 hours community service, a victim surcharge of £80 and £250 in costs.
At the start of her disciplinary hearing, Ms Heyes admitted the facts of her 2020 conviction, but denied that the conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Heyes's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Disciplinary Guidance states: “A conviction may be related to professional or personal behaviour and whether it renders a respondent unfit to practise is a matter of judgment for the Disciplinary Committee.
"Behaviour unconnected with the practice of veterinary surgery can cause concerns about the protection of animals or the wider public interest.”
The Committee concluded that the conviction and underlying behaviour was sufficiently serious that it required a finding that Ms Heyes was unfit to practise veterinary nursing on public interest grounds and that it also breached Code 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses which states: ‘Veterinary nurses must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession’.
The Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Ms Heyes, taking into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the risk Ms Heyes caused to passengers, including children and that she had behaved recklessly, falling far below the standard to be expected of a member of the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered this was a single and isolated incident, Ms Heyes had no previous disciplinary findings against her and following her conviction she had shown developing insight.
It also noted that she had continued to practise as a competent and dedicated veterinary nurse.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided to reprimand Ms Heyes because of its finding that the charge amounted to disgraceful conduct and rendered Ms Heyes unfit to practise.
"Such a sanction was necessary in the Committee’s view because the conviction brought the profession into disrepute.
"Whilst the charge was not so serious as to require suspension or removal from the register, the Committee decided it is necessary to issue a formal warning to Ms Heyes as to her future conduct.
“Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case including the positive references and the fact that a number of mitigating factors set out in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance were present in this case, the Committee was satisfied that this sanction would meet the public interest and protect the reputation of the profession and uphold standards within the profession; thereby maintaining public confidence in the College as the regulator for veterinary nurses.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The hearing took place in Mr Prichard's absence after he failed to respond to Colleges attempts to contact him, including by email, post, telephone and personal service of documents.
However, in its decision to proceed in Mr Prichard’s absence, the Committee confirmed that it would not hold his non-attendance against him or attach any adverse inference to that fact.
Mr Prichard was charged with taking quantities of the controlled, prescription-only drug Vetergesic from the practice’s stock other than for legitimate veterinary use.
He was further charged that he took Vetergesic from the practice by drawing it into a syringe for the purposes of self administration, and that in doing so, his conduct was dishonest.
In another set of charges, it was alleged that on five separate occasions, Mr Prichard had attended the practice to work as a veterinary surgeon whilst unfit to do so.
The final charge related to Mr Prichard’s failure to respond adequately or at all to all reasonable requests from the RCVS for his response to concerns raised about his conduct.
At the beginning of the hearing Nicole Curtis, acting on behalf of the College, read the written evidence from 11 separate witnesses outlining the facts related to the charges against Mr Prichard, including the record of an investigative meeting held by the practice in which he admitted his theft and use of the controlled drug and following which, he was dismissed from his employment.
The Committee found all the charges proven and then considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors the Committee found that there was a risk of injury, recklessness, premeditated and sustained misconduct, and that there was an abuse of his professional position in accessing prescription-only controlled drugs for reasons other than legitimate veterinary use.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that he had made admissions as part of the practice’s internal disciplinary investigation.
Overall, the Committee found he had breached aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct related to honesty and integrity, making animal health and welfare his first priority, appropriate use of veterinary medicines, taking steps to address physical and mental health conditions that could affect fitness to practise, responding to reasonable requests from the RCVS, and bringing the profession into disrepute.
Therefore, the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all of the charges charges.
The Committee felt that, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, removal from the Register was the most appropriate decision.
Austin Kirwan, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “This is a case involving serious dishonesty, sustained over a period of time, and conduct potentially detrimental to animal welfare, as well as wilful disregard of professional regulations.
“Regrettably, Mr Prichard’s failure to engage with the College and with the regulatory process limited the options open to the Committee.
"Notwithstanding this, Mr Prichard’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of standards.”
Under the previous system, complaints made about a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse would, at Stage One, be considered by a Case Examiner Group (CEG) which would determine if there was an arguable case of serious professional misconduct.
If the CEG found there was an arguable case, it would then refer it to Stage Two of the process for consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
The CEG stage of the process has now been replaced by Stage One Preliminary Investigation Committees which, rather than using the ‘arguable case’ threshold, will consider from the outset whether there is a realistic prospect that the alleged conduct constitutes serious professional misconduct and that there is sufficient evidence.
The new Stage One Preliminary Investigation Committees will comprise members of the professions and lay people, and will be assisted in their investigations by an RCVS Case Manager who will also be the first point of contact for those raising concerns, witnesses and respondents in the case.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “By keeping to one consistent threshold for serious professional misconduct throughout the concerns investigation process, we hope that these changes will help to simplify our investigations while still ensuring that the process remains robust and thorough.
"We also hope that, in time and when the changes are fully bedded in, we may also see a swifter resolution to some cases, as concerns that may previously been referred on to Stage Two of the process can now be closed at Stage One.”
If a Stage One Preliminary Investigation Committee cannot close a case it will refer it on to a Stage Two Preliminary Investigation Committee.
This will gather additional information and evidence and then determine if there is a realistic prospect of finding serious professional misconduct and if it is in the public interest for the case to go to Stage Three - a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
Eleanor added: “The introduction of these new stages is the first step in the programme of reform of our concerns investigation and disciplinary processes.
"Next year we will be looking to introduce our Charter Case Protocol which will be a way of resolving some less serious cases of alleged misconduct where it would not necessarily be in the public interest to hold a full Disciplinary Committee hearing.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
A paper introduced by the RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson looked at the possibility of the RCVS prosecuting, for example, unqualified individuals undertaking veterinary work and courses falsely purporting to lead to a registerable qualification.
The paper also explored other options, including better educating animal owners about veterinary services and assisting people with concerns about the breaches of the VSA to raise them with the authorities.
Council heard that over the past year, the RCVS had assisted other agencies on investigations of suspected VSA breaches on a number of occasions.
It was considered that the RCVS could consider undertaking its own private investigations and criminal prosecutions when statutory prosecuting authorities did not have the resources to pursue these cases.
However, the RCVS has no statutory powers of investigation, so if it did pursue a private prosecution, it would have no powers to carry out a criminal investigation or compel evidence.
Council members voted for a further paper setting out a draft policy on private prosecutions, as well as what general information regarding breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could be provided to members of the public and the professions.
The online book invites veterinary surgeons to leave written messages of condolence, and pictures.
The book will be available until Monday 3rd October.
Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, President of the RCVS who will be attending the Queen’s state funeral on behalf of the College, said: “I, along with my colleagues in the Officer Team and on RCVS and VN Councils, were greatly saddened to learn of the death of Her Majesty the Queen last week.
“As our Patron and benefactor since her accession to the throne 70 years ago, as a keen supporter of the veterinary professions who had many interactions with its members, and as an animal-lover, we were keen to give veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses the opportunity to leave messages of condolence, anecdotes about meeting Her Majesty, and tributes for her many years of duty and service to this country.
“After it closes, we plan to save a digital copy of the online book in the RCVS historical archives for posterity.”
Any nurses who have not received the original email should contact communications@rcvs.org.uk.
Dr Dyson was removed from the Register after she was found to have fabricated a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector in support of a paper she had submitted to a journal, explaining why conducting her research had not required a Home Office Licence.
The original Committee made its decision on the basis that her conduct was knowingly dishonest, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in it, and, furthermore, risked undermining the Government’s system designed to promote animal welfare and research ethics.
In considering Dr Dyson’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors: her acceptance of the findings of the Committee at the original hearing; the seriousness of the original findings; public protection; risks to animal welfare if she were to be allowed to practise again; the length of time off the Register; her conduct since being removed; her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice; the impact of the sanction on her; and public support for her.
The Committee found that while Dr Dyson had demonstrated some insight into her misconduct, had expressed remorse and admitted dishonesty, it was undermined by her continuing denial that she had been knowingly dishonest in her conduct, having attributed her actions to being in a dissociative state at the time.
In terms of seriousness, the Committee considered that Dr Dyson’s misconduct was at the highest end of the spectrum, having involved being dishonest with multiple people on multiple occasions, and then inventing a fictitious Home Office Inspector to continue the deceit.
The Committee also considered that public confidence in the profession and the RCVS as the regulator would be undermined were Dr Dyson to be allowed to be restored to the Register without genuinely accepting full responsibility for her actions.
In her favour, the Committee considered that there was no risk to the health and welfare of animals and that she had provided ample evidence of her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice should she be allowed to practise again.
In addition, she had made some progress, for example she was able to show some insight by the steps she had taken to avoid finding herself in such a stressful environment in the future. The Committee also considered the many positive testimonials it received from professional colleagues and clients.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided to refuse Dr Dyson’s application.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession will not be maintained if a veterinary surgeon who has been found to have committed very serious acts of dishonesty refuses to genuinely accept that that is the case.
“Dr Dyson says that she accepts the original Disciplinary Committee’s finding that she acted dishonestly, but that acceptance carries little weight in light of what she said in her application and has said in her evidence to this Committee, because it involves a theoretical or objective concept of dishonesty which has no bearing upon her actual state of mind at the time of the actions in question.
“By not being truly accountable for her dishonest actions, Dr Dyson has thus far been unable to demonstrate anything other than limited insight into her disgraceful conduct.
“In such circumstances, the Committee considered there would be a real and continuing risk to the reputation of the profession and to public confidence in the profession if Dr Dyson were restored to the Register.
"Conduct of this kind is of a particularly egregious nature for a member of this profession and particularly so of one so eminent in her field and looked up to by so many.
"The Committee was of the view that if a veterinary surgeon, who has committed such serious offences and shown so little insight were nonetheless now allowed to practise, the public’s trust in the profession was liable to be seriously undermined.”
The Clinical Supervisor course is designed to help veterinary surgeons to guide their students in developing the professional behaviours and Day One Skills they need to join the Register.
The course is also designed to complement any existing training that a vet who is a Clinical Supervisor has received from the college or university for which they are supervising the SVN.
RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing Julie Dugmore said: “This course will help you undertake your role as a coach and assessor, ensuring your student has achieved the RCVS requirements by the time they have completed the practical elements of their training.
“It comprises modules that include the role and functions of a Clinical Supervisor, the types of professional behaviours SVNs need to develop and understanding of the Day One Skills in which they need to become competent.
"In addition, it will enhance the training Clinical Supervisors will receive from the relevant educational institution by promoting understanding of the RCVS requirements.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/vndayonecompetences
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.