The RCVS Council has announced its agreement with wholesale reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
The changes agreed by Council included almost halving the number of Council members and formalising lay and veterinary membership.
Under the proposals approved by Council it would be reduced to 24 members – comprising 13 elected veterinary surgeons (constituting a majority of Council), six appointed laypeople, three members appointed on behalf of the UK veterinary schools and two veterinary nurses. There would also be the option to appoint an additional member on behalf of any allied professions that RCVS Council may choose to regulate as associates of the College.
Professor Stuart Reid, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS and Chair of the Governance Panel that developed the recommendations, said: "I am delighted that Council so fully supported our proposals for a new structure. The new composition will ensure that both veterinary nurses and laypeople have a guaranteed place at the Council table, as well as maintaining a majority of elected veterinary surgeons and important input from the veterinary schools.
"The proposal recognises the unique nature of the RCVS and will allow us to expedite our decision-making process, making us more fleet of foot and better able to respond to the needs of the profession and the public. It has also been constructed to allow Council to evolve its position, ensuring it remains relevant into the future. If all goes well we hope that the changes could come into force as soon as March 2017."
Liz Cox, the Chair of VN Council, particularly welcomed the changes in respect of veterinary nursing representation on RCVS Council, adding: "It is an historic decision for veterinary nurses and one that has been long awaited. It is only right that those who work so closely alongside veterinary surgeons in practice should have a direct input into regulation that affects us all."
Council’s approval of the recommendations was the culmination of two years of debate and consultation with the profession and other stakeholders. This included a formal consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year which garnered 52 responses – including from the British Veterinary Association - most of which were supportive. Different options for reform had, in turn, been developed by a Governance Panel, chaired by Professor Reid, which was set up by Council in March 2015 to consider various options.
Defra will now run a short informal consultation to provide those who responded to the initial consultation the opportunity to comment on the proposed reforms. If no issues are raised Defra officials will seek approval from the Government to proceed with a legislative reform order (LRO) to make the necessary changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
This LRO will be scrutinised by parliamentary committee and voted on in both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Once this has been passed there will be a three-year transitional period, agreed by Council members, during which Council’s numbers would be gradually reduced.
The RCVS has announced that the Registrar, Gordon Hockey, has decided to leave the College after 16 years' service.
Gordon served first as Assistant Registrar / Head of Professional Conduct, and, since 2012, as Registrar / Director of Legal Services.
Dr Bradley Viner, RCVS President, said: "We wish to thank Gordon for all his hard work and wish him every success in the future.
"He has been a key figure at the RCVS for many years, and has brought about much positive change in the organisation, particularly with respect to reform of our disciplinary processes and the introduction of our new Charter, in February 2015."
RCVS Knowledge has announced the official launch of Veterinary Evidence – a new resource designed to unite practitioners interested in promoting and using the principles of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) within practice.
Veterinary Evidence – which is supported by the RCVS – represents RCVS Knowledge’s wider mission statement of providing the veterinary community with practice relevant, evidence-based information resources. Papers and publications are now available for use, completely open-access.
Veterinary Evidence aims to become the go-to portal for evidence-based veterinary information, promoting and publishing peer-reviewed papers alongside discussion of EBVM through opinion, clinical and methodological articles.
The site will host a wide range of material – from randomised controlled trials to case studies, Knowledge Summaries and interviews. The content is designed to educate readers in research techniques, responding to the desire amongst many veterinary professionals to become involved in effective practice-based research – including critical appraisal and clinical audit.
Jacqui Molyneux, Chair of the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees said: "As a practising veterinary surgeon I, along with many others, recognise the emerging importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine and I believe it will become more and more important as time goes on. We all wish to do the best for our patients but how do we find out what the current ‘best’ is? That’s where this portal will become so useful; collecting and publishing articles that directly help practising vets and nurses to answer that question."
Bradley Viner, the President of the RCVS and a Trustee of RCVS Knowledge, said: "The College was very happy to support our charity partners at RCVS Knowledge in launching this excellent new resource which will be relevant to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses in clinical practice. Furthermore, clinical governance is now firmly established as an important principle in the Code of Professional Conducts for both professions and so, by encouraging practitioners to undergo a continuing process of reflection, analysis and improvement, Veterinary Evidence will also be helping them fulfil their professional responsibilities."
Access the full site at: www.veterinaryevidence.org
Ceredigion veterinary surgeon Robert Alun Merfyn Evans has been suspended from the Register for six months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he admitted to misconduct relating to tuberculin testing for cattle he owned and failing to register the births and deaths of cattle.
Mr Evans appeared before the Committee on the 11th February, when he admitted the two heads of charge of misconduct against him.
The first head of charge related to the fact that, between 24 June and 29 June 2013, he deliberately failed to bring to attention of Wyn Lewis MRCVS, an Official Veterinarian (OV) and fellow director of Mr Evans’ practice in Cardigan, the cattle on his farm requiring intradermal comparative tuberculin tests; that he tested certain of the cattle himself despite not being the OV for those tests and having a conflict of interest; and that he provided inaccurate and incomplete information to his practice for the completion of a report on the testing to be sent to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). This misconduct was then repeated the following year between 19 June and 1 August 2014.
The second head of charge against Mr Evans related to breaches of the Cattle Identification (Wales) Regulations 2007 between 4 July 2005 and 20 June 2014, namely the fact that he failed to register the birth of five calves and the death of nine cows. These were accepted as being specimen charges reflecting a much larger total number of breaches over the whole nine year period.
Mr Evans’ misconduct first came to light when a late return was sent to the AHVLA in August 2014 regarding the TB testing of 51 live animals on his farm in June 2014. When the report was scrutinised the AHVLA noticed that 26 animals shown on the return as dead were still registered, while 20 animals that were tested were not registered. When the AHVLA investigated, Mr Evans immediately admitted that he had misled Mr Lewis on two occasions and carried out his own testing despite not being the OV.
The Committee heard that he did this because he did not want it to be found out that he had unregistered cattle on his farm. Regarding the unregistered cattle, the Committee heard that this stemmed from a mistake made by Mr Evans in 2005 or 2006 whereby he mislaid a batch of around nine bovine passport application forms sent to him to register the birth of calves on his farm, a legal requirement for the purposes of animal health, disease control and safeguarding the food chain.
As a result of poor IT skills and being profoundly deaf, Mr Evans felt unable to seek support online or by telephone, was too embarrassed to tell others and, furthermore, felt that it was impossible to correct his mistake without being in breach of the law. So, for a period of nine or 10 years, he failed to register the birth of calves on his farm. His failure to register the deaths of cattle, was also caused by administrative failings. His breaches of the cattle registration regulations were subject to criminal proceedings and on 14 October 2015 he plead guilty at Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire Magistrates Court to 14 offences for which he was given a conditional discharge for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.
The Committee considered that a suspension from the Register would be in line with the seriousness of the charges against Mr Evans. Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee agrees that the lengthy period over which these offences took place, his betrayal of his colleague, and the undermining of the reputation of the profession and of the system of disease control, taken together with his dishonesty, make it impossible to impose a lesser sanction than suspension.
"The Committee finds that the respondent, who is a man of good character, has fully accepted his guilt, and has real insight into the seriousness of his conduct. He cooperated fully with the investigations and with the County Council who prosecuted him in the Magistrates [Court], and with the College. He made an open and frank admission about his misconduct from the outset.
"The course of conduct on which he embarked and which has led to these charges was the result of a simple mistake at a time of considerable stress to him. He was not guilty of deliberate misconduct at the outset but… what started as an innocent mistake took on a life of its own and led him to deliberate and dishonest misconduct because he did not know how to get himself out of the predicament he was in."
Professor Barr also said that there was no financial gain in Mr Evans’ actions and that animal welfare had not been compromised as the cattle were well cared for and in good health and that Mr Evans’ actions in carrying out the tuberculin tests on the unregistered cattle himself demonstrated that he was concerned about identifying any disease in his herd.
He added: “In all the circumstances the Committee has decided a proportionate sanction is that the respondent’s registration should be suspended for a period of six months.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The RCVS has announced the names of the candidates standing in the Council elections this year and is, once again, inviting veterinary surgeons to put questions to them directly in this year’s 'Quiz the candidates'.
There are eight candidates (well, seven really, if you exclude the 'Donald Trump' candidate) contesting six places in the RCVS Council, including four existing Council members eligible for re-election and four new candidates. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates’ details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons eligible to vote during the week commencing 14 March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 29 April 2016.
To submit a question to the candidates, email it (NB only one per person) to vetvote16@rcvs.org.uk, post it on the College’s Facebook page (www.facebook.com/thercvs) or on twitter using the hashtag #vetvote16, by midday on Monday, 29 February.
Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 17 March.
RCVS Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "Last year, all election candidates produced videos for the first time and, with over 3,500 views in total, it seemed a popular way for voters to find out more about the individuals who were standing.
"Providing a way for all vets and vet nurses to put their own questions to the candidates is now an integral part of the elections, and one which we hope will continue to encourage people to get involved and have their say."
Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The RCVS has announced that the Codes of Professional Conduct for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses have been updated to state that you should not refer to yourselves or others as 'veterinary nurses' unless registered.
In fact, the change occurred back in June last year, but was only announced via RCVS News and as a one-liner within the 'Overview of decisions made at RCVS Council'.
The announcement raises the pretty fundamental question of what ARE veterinary surgeons and RVNs to call their unqualified colleagues, if not veterinary nurses? How indeed are those unqualified staff working in veterinary practice to describe their job title to their friends, down at the pub?
VetSurgeon.org sought to clarify the situation with the College, and the first point to make is that the new part of the CoPCs refers only to the use of the words 'veterinary nurse' when used in conjunction. The words 'nurse' or 'nursing' are not protected at all.
The College says that it is not within its remit to instruct veterinary surgeons or registered nurses as to how they should address unqualified staff, but suggested: 'Care Assistant' or 'Auxilliary'.
However, Ben Myring, RCVS Senior Policy and Public Affairs Officer said: "There is nothing to stop someone calling themselves a 'nursing assistant' or a 'head nurse'".
The Codes of Professional Conduct obviously apply only to those who are regulated by it. The title 'veterinary nurse' in unprotected in law and can therefore be used by anyone else.
So, the immediate implications seem to be as follows:
Do you have any other suggestions as to how unqualified nursing staff should be styled? Post them below.
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."
The BVA and RCVS have announced the formation of the Vet Futures Action Group to take forward the ambitions and recommendations in the Vet Futures report ‘Taking charge of our future: A vision for the veterinary profession for 2030’ launched in November 2015.
The call for applications attracted more than 80 candidates with many more expressing an interest in helping to take the project forward.
The Action Group will be tasked with working collectively to turn the report’s 34 recommendations into clear actions with buy-in from across the veterinary profession and a timetable for activity.
The Action Group is made up of the BVA and RCVS Presidents and Junior Vice-Presidents, seven veterinary surgeons, a veterinary nurse, and a co-opted veterinary student:
The members of the Group joining the BVA and RCVS officers were selected by the Vet Futures Project Board for their mix of experience and expertise across the Vet Futures ambitions and themes (Animal health and welfare; Veterinary professionals’ wider roles in society; The health and wellbeing of veterinary professionals; Diverse and rewarding veterinary careers; Sustainable businesses and user-focused services; and Leadership), as well as in veterinary education, veterinary regulation, and veterinary nursing.
BVA President Sean Wensley said: "The Group has a very important task ahead and we are confident that we have an excellent group of people with the right balance of skills, experience and expertise to take forward the Vet Futures recommendations and turn them into concrete actions.
"We have had an incredibly positive response from the profession to the launch of the report and we hope organisations and individuals will now step up to work with the Action Group and take ownership of the activity for the good of the whole profession."
RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "We were overwhelmed by the response from the professions with ten applications for every place, and many more offers of support. The Project Board was particularly impressed by the high quality of the applications and the breadth of experience demonstrated by the candidates from all parts of the profession.
"It was incredibly difficult to select the members of the Group from such a strong field but we are pleased that we have captured the variety within the profession as well as the enthusiasm to drive the project forward. We sincerely hope everyone who expressed an interest will remain engaged with the project as it progresses this year."
RCVS Council member and Chief Veterinary Officer Professor Nigel Gibbens has been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the New Year’s Honours list for 2016.
Professor Gibbens (pictured right), who was appointed by the Privy Council to RCVS Council in 2008, has been recognised for his services to the veterinary profession and animal welfare.
Over on the other side of the world, Professor Norman Williamson, Chair of the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), has been appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, following an application supported by the RCVS.
Professor Williamson has been working with the College as part of the veterinary education accreditation process, taking part in university visitations both in the UK and abroad.
Bradley Viner, President of the RCVS, said: "Many congratulations to Professor Nigel Gibbens for his appointment as a CBE. As CVO, Nigel has made great strides in shaping and influencing animal health and welfare policy throughout the United Kingdom and strengthening the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the College and the profession at large.
"As an organisation we were also very happy to write in support of the application for Professor Williamson to become an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit and it is gladdening to see that his contribution to international cooperation in veterinary education has been recognised."
Photograph courtesy RCVS
The BVA and the RCVS are inviting applications from veterinary surgeons to join the new Vet Futures Action Group, set up to drive forward the ambitions identified in the Vet Futures report launched at BVA Congress at the London Vet Show on 20 November.
The Vet Futures report, Taking charge of our future: A vision for the veterinary profession for 2030, was the culmination of a year-long joint project by BVA and RCVS designed to help the veterinary profession prepare for, and shape, its own future. The Action Group is a vital next step in the Vet Futures project, ensuring the delivery of the report’s six ambitions and 34 recommendations.
BVA and RCVS are seeking seven veterinary surgeons and one veterinary nurse to join the Action Group to ensure there is buy-in from across the professions and to drive forward workstreams of activity. The group will be co-chaired by the BVA and RCVS Presidents, and both Junior Vice-Presidents will sit on the group. Action Group members will be independent and will not represent, or be required to report back to, any particular organisation.
Veterinary surgeons or nurses keen to apply for an Action Group role should have experience of working as an active member of a group or committee and the ability to deliver, engage and inspire others. The veterinary surgeon members should have specific expertise, knowledge and experience in relation to at least one of the Vet Futures ambitions or the cross-cutting issue of veterinary education. The ambitions cover:
Successful applicants must be able to attend three all-day meetings in London (9 February, 17 March and 12 May) and an all-day Vet Futures Summit (20 June), with a time commitment totalling approximately seven days between February and June 2016. The group will be supported by BVA and RCVS staff. For the full Vet Futures Action Group role profile and terms of reference, please visit: www.vetfutures.org.uk.
The deadline for applications is 12 noon, 31 December 2015.
The RCVS has brought out a new publication to help members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions understand their legal and professional obligations regarding controlled drugs.
Controlled Drugs Guidance is a consolidation of existing advice and guidance on controlled drugs from a number of organisations including the RCVS itself, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and the Home Office. The guide also gives details of the existing legislation concerning controlled drugs, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated regulations.
The guidance provides advice on a variety of topics to reflect the common queries the RCVS Advice Team receives, such as storage, destruction and disposal; keys and keyholders for controlled drugs cabinets; controlled drugs in vehicles; and veterinary nurses administering controlled drugs.
The publication also deals with specific controlled drugs such as ketamine which, on 30 November 2015, was rescheduled to a Schedule 2 controlled drug, meaning that it is now subject to the same strict storage, prescription, dispending, destruction and record-keeping requirements as other medicines in this Schedule.
Laura McClintock, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: “We hope that this publication will help members of the profession navigate the often complex legislative and professional requirements regarding controlled drugs, as well as imparting best practice advice on how they should be stored and disposed and so on.
"This publication has also been endorsed by our colleagues in the Home Office, VMD and BSAVA and, because this is an area that is subject to regular change, we will make sure to keep it up-to-date as and when the regulations change."
The publication is available to download from the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS has announced that it will be holding a free lunchtime webinar next week about its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial and its outcomes.
The webinar, titled ‘Who ADRs wins’, takes place at 1pm on Monday 7 December via The Webinar Vet and will be presented by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and RCVS Council member Niall Connell who was part of the Advisory Panel to the ADR trial.
The trial, which has been administered by Ombudsman Services, began in November 2014 in order to develop a system that addresses the many concerns received by the RCVS about the conduct of veterinary surgeons which it cannot deal with under its statutory powers.
During the webinar, Gordon and Niall will explain the roles of Ombudsman Services and the Advisory Panel, as well as examine the outcomes of some of the concerns handled by the trial.
They will also discuss the future of the ADR scheme. Following the presentation, listeners will have the opportunity to put their questions to the speakers.
Visit www.thewebinarvet.com/the-rcvs-alternative-dispute-resolution-scheme to register for the webinar. A recording of the webinar will be made available shortly after the event.
The RCVS is inviting nominations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are eligible to stand for RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council, respectively, in next year’s elections.
The College says next year’s elections will not be affected by the current Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation on the College’s governance arrangements and so, as always, six seats will be contested for RCVS Council, while two places are available on VN Council. Successful candidates are expected to serve four-year terms and will take up their places at RCVS Day in July 2016.
The nomination period for both RCVS and VN Councils runs until 5pm on Sunday 31 January 2016. In order to stand, candidates for either Council will need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate will also need to have two nominators. For RCVS Council candidates, these should be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members; for VN Council candidates, the nominators must be registered veterinary nurses who are not currently on VN Council.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are looking for committed and motivated veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are dedicated to their respective professions and who, through the Councils and their various committees and subcommittees, wish to have direct input in decisions relating to how the College sets and advances standards of education and professional conduct. If this sounds like you then please find out more about standing as a candidate."
Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, added: "I would strongly encourage all those want to have a say and play a leadership role in veterinary nursing to stand up and be counted and put themselves forward as a candidate. It is a very exciting time to join VN Council as the new Royal Charter has formalised the Council’s powers to regulate education and our professional standards, meaning that the decisions you make can have a very real impact on the profession."
The election period will start around mid-March and run until 5pm on Friday 29 April 2016. Ballot papers will be sent to all registered veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are eligible to vote and, during the election period, the College will be sourcing questions from the professions to put to the candidates.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil16. The equivalent documents for VN Council candidates are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil16.
Prospective candidates for either Councils are also invited a ‘Meet the RCVS Day’ at the College’s offices in Belgravia House on Tuesday 15 December 2015, where they will have the opportunity to find out more about the role of the College and RCVS and VN Councils.
RCVS President Dr Bradley Viner and Chair of VN Council Liz Cox will also be on hand to answer questions about the duties and responsibilities of members of the respective Councils. Those interested in attending should contact Emma Lockley, Events Officer, on e.lockley@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773. Reasonable expenses for travel will be reimbursed.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
Lindsay Newell, a Derbyshire veterinary nurse, has been struck off by The Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS, after she was found guilty of the unlawful possession of veterinary medicines and failing to give regard to welfare in respect of six animals.
The hearing for Ms Newell, who did not attend and was not represented, concluded on 18th November 2015. It related to two main charges against her. The first was that, on 29 November 2012, she was found in possession of a number of veterinary medicines without lawful permission.
The Committee heard that the RSPCA and police officers had attended Ms Newell’s home on that day, where they found veterinary medicines, including controlled drugs, stored in an insecure cabinet within an insecure shed. It heard that during a police interview, she agreed that she was not allowed to possess some of the drugs and subsequently accepted a police caution, which the Committee took as an admission of the offence and therefore found the charge proved.
The second charge was that, between 1 and 29 November 2012 at the Burton Wildlife and Rescue Centre in Etwall, Derbyshire, she failed to give any or sufficient regards to the welfare of six animals in her care. These charges relate to an RSPCA investigation of the rescue centre on 29 November 2012 which found two animals dead and the rest of the animals emaciated and in poor physical condition.
The animals included a male lamb found dead in its pen, a ‘furry-faced’ lamb which died just over a week after the investigation took place, a female goat which died 12 hours after being taken to a veterinary practice for treatment and a pig which died during the investigation process, as well as an adult ewe and a pony which both survived. The charge against her also cited her failure to supply an adequate diet, obtain any or any adequate veterinary attention and explore and address the cause of the weight loss for these animals.
The Committee found all parts of the second charge proved and was satisfied that Ms Newell failed to give sufficient regard to animal welfare as is required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
In deciding its sanction, the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in this case. It found that, in respect of both charges, the misconduct was “sustained over a period of time rather than being a single and isolated incident” and that, in respect of the second charge, that there was “actual harm caused to animals, which resulted in the deaths of four out of the six animals.”
The Committee felt that this constituted reckless disregard for animal welfare rather than deliberate acts but, nevertheless, said that these animals unnecessarily suffered for a period of at least four weeks due to inadequate diet and that, as rescue animals that were already vulnerable, the expectation was that they would be given the appropriate level of care. It also found that Ms Newell had demonstrated limited insight into her behaviour. Furthermore, it considered that a Magistrates’ Court had also disqualified Ms Newell from keeping sheep, goats, pigs, and equines for a period of five years.
In mitigation it considered that Ms Newell did show some insight into her behaviour in relation to the first charge by making admissions during her police interview, as well as the fact that the animal sanctuary, which opened in 2008, had no complaints or cause for concern prior to 2012.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is of the opinion that removal of Ms Newell’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses is the only appropriate sanction based upon the severity of the facts found proved.”
The RCVS and the BVA have published the Vet Futures report: their vision for how the veterinary profession should look in 2030, coupled with 34 recommendations for change.
The report, which represents the culmination of a year of engagement, consultation and research with the veterinary profession, veterinary nurses, members of the wider veterinary team, key stakeholders, animal owners and the general public, says that in 2030 vets should be a leading force for animal health and welfare and valued for their wider roles in society. They should be confident, resilient, healthy and well supported, and benefit from exceptional leadership. And there should be a broad range of diverse and rewarding veterinary careers, as well as thriving, innovative and user-focused businesses.
While the focus of Vet Futures has been on veterinary surgeons, Vet Futures engaged with the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and British Veterinary Nursing Association, as well as individual veterinary nurses, and the College says that many of the ambitions should resonate with members of both professions. It goes on to recommend that the veterinary nursing profession should build on the work of Vet Futures to develop its own clear vision and ambitions.
The recommendations within the report include:
Other recommendations include developing an animal welfare strategy for the profession, increasing collaboration with medical professionals and environmental organisations, adopting a more strategic long-term outlook for research funding, and exploring how to encourage a more diverse profession.
RCVS President Bradley Viner said: "The Vet Futures report is the culmination of a year of research and engagement with thousands of members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, which has given us a very firm foundation on which to build our ambitions and recommendations. We are extremely grateful to every individual who has contributed in some way to the project, and helped us to seize the initiative.
"Over the years the veterinary profession has proved itself to be adaptable and able to face challenges head on, and we have no doubt that by working together we will realise our joint vision of a profession in charge of its future. Ultimately, we all want a profession that is confident in itself and one in which members are proud to call themselves veterinary surgeons."
Sean Wensley, BVA President, added: "Vet Futures has proved to be an exciting, engaging and truly ambitious project for the veterinary profession and it has created a fantastic level of debate and engagement.
"The report we are launching today is not the end of the story; it is the beginning of the next chapter. It is crucial that we maintain the momentum of the project so we will be inviting members of the veterinary professions to step forward and join a new Vet Futures Action Group to help us turn the recommendations into actions and drive forward activity."
The full report can be downloaded here.
The RCVS has launched the new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), which is now open for applications for both practice accreditations and the new system of PSS awards.
Speaking after today’s launch at the London Vet Show, which over 200 veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and practice managers attended, Practice Standards Group chair Jacqui Molyneux, said: "The new Scheme is all about offering a pathway to improvement for practices of all shapes and sizes that want to aspire to excellence, and then highlighting these achievements to the animal-owning public in a way that is clear and easy to understand.
"Over half of all veterinary practice premises in the UK are already RCVS-accredited, which is fantastic for a voluntary scheme, but we’d really like to help more practices to get on board. I hope that the improvements and exciting new benefits that we’ve developed will make the Scheme even more rewarding for existing members, and encourage more people to join."
The College says that the main changes to the scheme have been based on feedback from the profession and input from the Practice Standards Group (PSG), with the dual aims of making it more accessible for those practices which aren’t yet PSS members, and even more rewarding for those who are already accredited.
Whilst retaining the existing accreditation levels across small animal, equine and farm animal practices (current RCVS-accredited practices will be automatically transferred to the new Scheme), a new modular structure helps to make the Scheme more flexible and ensure all types of veterinary practice – from ambulatory services to veterinary hospitals – can join. This structure also recognises the contributions of the whole practice team, helping to raise standards across the board.
Once accredited, practices can now apply for a range of optional awards that focus on outcomes and behaviours in specific areas, such as ‘In-patient Service’, ‘Team and Professional Responsibility’ and ‘Client Service’. Designated at either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’, these awards should help clients understand where a practice excels, and what skills and services are on offer, enabling them to make choices based on their needs and preferences.
The RCVS has also recruited and trained a new team of assessors, who will take more of an interest in listening to practice staff rather than just checking paperwork and equipment. It has also developed an online administration and support tool – nicknamed Stanley – to provide document storage, a calendar and a self-assessment function, to make the accreditation and awards application processes quicker and easier to manage.
As an introductory offer, the RCVS is now inviting applications from practices that would be willing to help with a final round of testing of the new Scheme, to be in with a chance to win one of 20 free assessment days, worth £350. The offer is open until Friday 4 December, and the first 20 practices drawn at random on 7 December will be allocated the free assessments.
Full details about the draw, the new Scheme and how to apply for accreditation and/or awards are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/newpss. The new promotional video shown above can also be viewed here.
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has launched a consultation on reforming the governance arrangements of the RCVS.
The consultation follows a period of discussions between the RCVS and Defra about how the College might best modernise Council.
The consultation gives the public and profession the opportunity to have their say on what reforms would best prepare the College for the future. It discusses the appropriate size and composition of Council, including the proportion of elected members, how veterinary schools should be represented, increasing lay membership, and ensuring appropriate veterinary nurse representation. It also examines how flexibility can be built into the reforms in case of future changes, such as the possibility of new categories of associate. Responses to the consultation will inform the College’s work with Defra to determine the precise details of any new governance arrangements.
The College says any reform should meet its unique requirements as a Royal College that regulates and the criteria already agreed by the College: Council’s decision-making role would be strengthened, for instance, by increasing the number of Council meetings per year. This would reduce or remove the need for a separate Operational Board in order that the CEO reports directly to Council.
Any reforms also need to ensure that Council has sufficient members to populate the College’s committees and Presidential team, and follow the government’s five principles of better regulation, by being proportionate, consistent, accountable, transparent and targeted.
RCVS President Bradley Viner (pictured top right) said “I am delighted that Defra is consulting on RCVS governance and the minister has the full backing of RCVS Council in so doing. This consultation is an opportunity to hear the voice of the profession and the public about an appropriate structure and oversight of the RCVS, reflecting the uniqueness of being a Royal College that regulates. Consulting on this important issue is in keeping with our desire to become first rate in what we do, building on other measures to modernise and improve the workings of the College.”
Locum David John Porter has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for rude and aggressive behaviour, deficient clinical standards and obstructing the Committee's investigation into the complaints against him.
Three charges were found against Mr Porter.
The first charge (charge A) concerned failure to communicate courteously and respectfully with colleagues. This charge related to four incidents as follows:
In finding him guilty of this charge the Committee referred to his “wholly unacceptable exchanges with other veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and ancillary practice staff members with whom he was working on the dates in question.”
The second charge for which he was found guilty (charge C) concerned what the Committee called “his seriously deficient clinical standards when treating animals under his care”, in particular that:
Within charge C he was cleared of two further parts of the charge – first, that he failed to discuss euthanasia with a client in relation to a kitten and failed to provide the client with sufficient advice and instructions regarding after-care; and, second, that he prescribed steroids to treat a kitten for muscle strain at a time when it was recovering from surgery.
The third charge for which he was found guilty (charge D) relates to Mr Porter’s failure, between 7 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, to respond adequately to communications from the RCVS. In particular that:
As to the conduct found proved in relation to charge D, the Committee set out its findings of fact and declared: “What Mr Porter chose to do was to attempt to obstruct the College in its attempts to investigate the complaints laid against him and, thereafter, its attempts to bring him before the Committee to answer the charges preferred against him. In short, he has directly questioned, and then disregarded and thwarted, the legitimate role of his professional regulatory body.”
The Committee’s reasons for taking a serious view of such conduct were expressed in the following words: “Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the expectation that all veterinary surgeons, as responsible professional persons, will co-operate fully and promptly to all proper enquiries made of them by the College. This is the wider public interest factor which means that deliberate attempts to thwart the College’s enquiries into complaints must, in our judgment, come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
During the course of the hearing, which began in June 2015 and was adjourned three times, Mr Porter was cleared of charge B against him which concerned alleged refusal to undertake out-of-hours work for the Clent Hills Veterinary Group having previously indicated he would undertake such work.
In making the decision on the sanction in this case, Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In reaching our conclusion as to the sanction which is merited in this case we have taken into account the totality of Mr Porter’s conduct and failings. We consider that the conduct pertaining to Charges D(i) and (ii), even when viewed separately, demand the imposition of a direction for the removal of Mr Porter’s name from the Register.
“When that conduct is considered in conjunction with the other misconduct found proved in relation to Charges C1 to C4, which identify his clinical failings, and Charges A1 to A4, which demonstrate unprofessional behaviour in the workplace, we unhesitatingly conclude that there is no other sanction that could be considered sufficient, other than that of erasure.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.
Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.
Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.
Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.
In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.
However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.
The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”
However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.
In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”
In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”
In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”
It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.
Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”
The RCVS is seeking applicants for an Appointment Group which will be responsible for deciding the membership for the governing body of the new RCVS Fellowship.
In June, RCVS Council approved proposals to develop a new style Fellowship to move it away from being an examination-based award to a formal learned society with routes to entry for those veterinary surgeons who can demonstrate meritorious contributions to clinical practice, to the profession or to learning. The Fellowship by thesis route has been discontinued as of 1 August 2015, although all applications received by this route prior to that date are being processed.
The new Fellowship will be governed and administered by a Fellowship Board with an additional Credentials Panel of up to 30 members to review new applications.
The College says it is now in the process of putting together an Appointment Group which will decide the membership of the Fellowship Board and the Credentials Panel. It is currently seeking to appoint a veterinary surgeon in the earlier stage of their career to the Group. The full details of the role, including details of the person specification, how to apply and information on expenses and remuneration can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus
The Group will be chaired by former RCVS President Lord Trees with other members being RCVS President Dr Bradley Viner and BVA President Sean Wensley as well as a lay observer. The first meeting of the Appointment Group is likely to take place before the end of the year and, once the Fellowship Board and Credentials Panel are established, the Group will be dissolved.
For an informal chat about the role before applying, contact Dr Simon Wallace, RCVS Education and Scientific Officer, on s.wallace@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0702.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended two veterinary surgeons from the Register after finding them guilty of lying to clients and the College about the circumstances of a castration procedure which led to the death of a dog.
The Committee suspended Mr Mpho Donald Lesolle and Mr Georgi Cheshmedzhiev from the Register for four and two months respectively, following surgery undertaken on Benson, a two-year-old male Labradoodle belonging to Mr and Mrs Grayson.
During the proceedings, the Committee heard that, on 6 August 2013, Mr and Mrs Grayson brought Benson to the Swinfen Veterinary Centre in Stafford, where Mr Lesolle is the practice principal and Mr Cheshmedzhiev was his assistant, for the operation which was undertaken by Mr Cheshmedzhiev. Mr Lesolle did not directly supervise the procedure telling the Committee that he was confident that his colleague could carry out the castration, having permitted him to do so on previous occasions.
The Committee heard that, after the operation, a nursing assistant, Ms Bell, had noticed that there was blood on the bedding and that Benson had a swollen scrotum. Mr Lesolle then performed a scrotal ablation on Benson, who was discharged later that day.
However, on the morning of 8 August 2013, Mrs Grayson discovered that Benson had died during the night. An independent post-mortem concluded that he had probably died of intra-abdominal bleeding which caused circulatory collapse. Mr and Mrs Grayson raised a concern with the RCVS in September 2013.
The charge against Mr Lesolle relates to his actions following the operations and during the investigation. The four parts of the charge were that he failed to be sufficiently open with Mr and Mrs Grayson on the circumstances of Benson’s surgery; that, in September 2013, he wrote to the College indicating that he had in fact performed the castration and failing to state that there had been two operations; that, on 23 January 2014, he informed Pam Mosedale, a Veterinary Investigator employed by the College, that he had carried out both procedures; and that, on the same day, he also encouraged his veterinary nursing assistant Ms Bell to be dishonest with the College’s investigators.
Mr Lesolle, who was present at the hearing, admitted all parts of the charge against him. He told the Committee that he decided to take responsibility for Mr Cheshmedzhiev’s operation out of a desire to protect his colleague whom he regarded as vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. He also accepted that he had encouraged Ms Bell to lie during her interview. He told the Committee that he had persisted with the deceit until 15 January 2015, when he gave a full account of what had occurred.
The three parts of the charge against Mr Cheshmedzhiev, who was not in attendance or represented at the hearing, were that in a letter to the College sent in September 2013, he indicated that he had not undertaken the castration procedure on Benson; that on 23 January 2014 he had denied carrying out the operation while being interviewed by Pam Mosedale; and that, on 19 June 2014, while being interviewed by a solicitor instructed by the College, he said that Mr Lesolle had carried out both procedures.
The Committee found the charge against Mr Lesolle amounted to serious professional misconduct, falling far short of what is expected of a professional. The Committee highlighted the protracted nature of his deceit and the fact that he encouraged another member of staff to participate in it. However, it did accept that his motivation was to protect Mr Cheshmedzhiev.
In deciding on the sanction for Mr Lesolle, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having taken the calculated decision to deceive the College as to what had occurred, he abused his position of responsibility to obtain support for his deceit by involving a junior employee, without any proper consideration of the effect of that decision upon her. Instead he continued with the deceit until he was presented with incontrovertible evidence that he had not carried out both procedures on the dog. In the Committee’s view he showed a wilful disregard for the College’s investigatory process.”
However, in mitigation, it also accepted that he was protecting a colleague and that there was no financial gain. It also considered his personal circumstances, the fact that he is sole principal of a small mixed practice which provides his sole source of income and that the rented accommodation also provides a home for his wife and two children. Taking all factors into account, the Committee imposed a sanction upon Mr Lesolle of four months’ suspension from the Register.
In regards to Mr Cheshmedzhiev, the Committee did not find the part of his charge relating to the letter sent in September 2013 to be proven but, in respect of the other two parts of his charge, found that his conduct fell far short of what is expected of a professional. It highlighted his willing participation in the deceit over a protracted period and his failure to take responsibility for his own involvement in the operation on Benson.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee said that the fact that Mr Cheshmedzhiev had lied to the College’s investigators on two occasions and did not admit that he had carried out the castration and apologise for his actions until February 2015, after he had returned to his native Bulgaria, was an aggravating factor.
Ian Green added: “The Committee accepts that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Mr Lesolle to provide a dishonest account of what had taken place to the College’s investigator Mrs Mosedale, and solicitor, Mr Hudson. It also accepts that he has been described by Mr Lesolle as a vulnerable person, lacking in self-confidence in his ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom.
“Nevertheless, Mr Cheshmedzhiev accepted the obligations contained in the Code of Professional Conduct when he registered as an MRCVS, which included an obligation to cooperate honestly with the College’s investigatory process. It has also noted that he has expressed a present intention not to work in or visit the United Kingdom again.”
Taking into account all factors, the Committee decided the appropriate sanction was to suspend him from the Register for two months.
The RCVS has asked 6,700 veterinary surgeons to submit their CPD records for 2012-2014 as part of its second annual CPD audit.
The news came at more or less the same time that VetSurgeon.org announced that it is developing a new feature to make it easy for veterinary surgeons to document time they spend on the website towards their CPD requirement.
Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, members of the profession must undertake at least 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period, averaging 35 hours per year.
Those being audited include 5,568 vets who failed to confirm whether or not they complied with the CPD requirement in this year’s annual renewal process; 488 vets who failed to respond to last year’s audit and did not confirm their compliance this year; 43 pre-2012 graduates who have not yet completed the Professional Development Phase; and 184 veterinary surgeons who specifically declared they were not compliant during this year’s annual renewal process.
In addition to these, a random sample of 400 veterinary surgeons who did declare they were compliant this year will be asked to share their records.
For last year’s audit, the College wrote to 3,975 veterinary surgeons, of whom 82% were found to be compliant. However, 910 veterinary surgeons did not respond to the request at all.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “The purpose of the exercise is not only to gauge levels of compliance, but also to gain a greater understanding of why some people are unable to meet the requirement. Therefore, we will be asking those who are still non-compliant to provide us with an explanation as to why, and to submit a learning and development plan outlining the steps they will take to become compliant.
“Since 2012, the Code of Professional Conduct has made it very clear that, as professionals, veterinary surgeons have an obligation to maintain and improve their skills and experience so as to provide a better service to their patients and clients.
“Last year’s audit proved that the majority of the profession do take CPD seriously and do engage with it over-and-above what is required, but a small minority do not. It is important to remind this small minority that persistent failure to comply with CPD requirements, or to respond to requests from the College, may result in them being reported to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.”
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, added: “This audit is also an opportunity to remind people that we are not prescriptive when it comes to CPD and that it is not the case that we only count attendance at courses as learning and development.
“Broadly, any activities that you undertake to further your competence and provide tangible learning that can be put to use in your professional life, can be classed as CPD. For example, this could include private reading, webinars, clinical audit activities, mentoring, work-based observation and many more activities besides.
“What we ask is that you record and document these activities, reflecting on what you learnt and how it will affect your practice.”
Veterinary surgeons who are being asked to submit their records can do so by allowing the RCVS to access their online Professional Development Record (PDR) or to send in their CPD record card via email or post. The deadline for responding is Friday 13 November.
Those who wish to sign up to the free, online PDR can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk. More information about what constitutes CPD and the Code of Professional Conduct requirements can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd.