The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.
The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:
The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.
At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.
Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.
In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.
Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.
In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.
During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.
In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.
In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.
The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.
The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.
The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.
In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.
Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."
The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.
Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2015 RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council elections.
Turnouts in both elections rose this year, with 4,838 veterinary surgeons (18.1%) and 1,379 veterinary nurses (11%) voting, which compares to 4,137 (16.1%) and 1,157 (10%) in 2014. The College says these represent the highest numbers of vets and VNs ever to vote in RCVS elections, noting however that there are more vets and veterinary nurses on the Registers. Average turnouts over the past ten years are 17.4% (4051 veterinary voters) and 9% (833 VN voters).
Current members Niall Connell and Lynne Hill were returned to two of the six available seats on RCVS Council, with 2,575 votes and 1,889 votes respectively (the four other current members of Council eligible for re-election will all be retiring this year). Peter Robinson (2,308 votes) was elected again, having previously served on Council in 2013/14.
Joining Council for the first time will be Timothy Greet (2,550 votes), Joanna Dyer (2,383 votes) and Katherine Richards (1,905 votes).
Disappointing news, however, for the RMB brigade this year: Tom Lonsdale scored 374 votes, down 13.5% on 2014, despite the increasing number of voters.
The two available places on VN Council were taken by new member Lucy Bellwood (914 votes) and existing member and Vice-Chair, Elizabeth Cox (630 votes).
Turnouts in both elections rose this year, with 4,838 veterinary surgeons (18.1%) and 1,379 veterinary nurses (11%) voting, which compares to 4,137 (16.1%) and 1,157 (10%) in 2014. These represent the highest numbers of vets and VNs ever to vote in RCVS elections, although there are increasing numbers of vets and veterinary nurses on the Registers. Average turnouts over the past ten years are 17.4% (4051 veterinary voters) and 9% (833 VN voters).
RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey, said: "My sincere thanks to all those who stood for election this year and to all those who voted, and many congratulations to the successful candidates. Once again we have an excellent mix of people joining Council, who will be able to bring a diverse range of skills and experience to Council discussions and activities. I very much look forward to welcoming them to Council at our AGM in July."
Chair of VN Council Kathy Kissick, said: "It's encouraging that voter numbers have risen slightly in this year's election, especially in such an auspicious year where the introduction of the new Royal Charter for the RCVS means that we are now formally regulated by the College and recognised as true professionals in our own right. My congratulations to both Lucy and Liz on their success."
In addition to their usual written biographies and manifesto statements, all candidates produced a 'Quiz the candidates' video this year, where they answered questions put to them directly by fellow members of the professions. Still available to watch via the RCVS website and YouTube channel, the 11 RCVS Council candidate videos have been viewed 2,967 times, and the three VN Council candidate videos 509 times.
Once again veterinary surgeons and VNs could cast their votes by post or online, with the former remaining the more popular method. A higher proportion of veterinary surgeons (30%) voted online than did veterinary nurses (23%).
The 2015 RCVS and VN Council elections were run on behalf of the RCVS by Electoral Reform Services.
The RCVS has launched a new online form to allow veterinary surgeons to change their Register title to 'Dr'.
You can make the change by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) where you can access the form. Usernames and passwords for the My Account area were sent to all veterinary surgeons in February as part of the annual renewal process.
The College says an email confirmation is sent once the form is completed and changes should take effect immediately in the My Account area. However, it may take up to 24 hours before the title appears on an individual's Register entry.
The use of 'Doctor' as a courtesy title was approved by RCVS Council at its March meeting, following a public consultation which garnered more than 11,000 responses.
Use of the title is optional and veterinary surgeons who choose to use 'Doctor' or 'Dr' should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'. This ensures that they do not mislead the public by suggesting or implying that they hold a human medical qualification or a PhD.
Freda Andrews, the Director of Education at the RCVS, has announced her retirement from the position on 2nd April after nearly 16 years at the College.
Freda joined the RCVS as Head of Education in September 1999 and became Director of Education in 2013, with strategic responsibility for both veterinary and veterinary nursing education.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: "We will miss Freda for her professionalism, her encyclopaedic knowledge of all things related to veterinary education and her attention to detail, but she leaves behind a team that is stronger-than-ever and a considerable legacy for the profession as a whole.
"Under her watch the Education Department has seen a significant number of achievements. This includes the introduction of the Professional Development Phase which has helped veterinary graduates develop their confidence and competence during the first few years of practice and the accreditation of the University of Nottingham's School of Veterinary Medicine and Science - the first new UK vet school in 50 years."
Freda's responsibilities as Director of Education will now be split between Christine Warman, Head of Education, and Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing.
Freda said: "I have really enjoyed working with such a fascinating profession and I think that through working very closely with our colleagues in the vet schools, as well as with practising vets, veterinary education has made some significant advances. For example, there is more focus now on communication and professional skills and greater alignment of accreditation standards internationally, to name but two things.
"I am sad to leave but I know that the future of veterinary and veterinary nursing education has been left in the very safe hands of Christine and Julie and their respective teams."
The RCVS has announced that more than 500 veterinary surgeons have successfully applied to join the first ever cohort of Advanced Practitioners – a status which recognises those who have advanced qualifications and experience in a designated area.
637 veterinary surgeons applied for the status – which forms a middle tier of accreditation between those holding the initial veterinary degree and RCVS Specialists – of whom 546 have, so far, been added to the List of Advanced Practitioners.
The College hopes that the List will provide a clear indication to both the public and profession of those veterinary surgeons who have demonstrated knowledge, experience and engagement with continuing professional development (CPD) above-and-beyond RCVS requirements in a particular field of clinical practice.
For those added to the List, ‘Advanced Practitioner’ will now appear after their names in the Check the Register search tool (www.rcvs.org.uk/checkregister). Advanced Practitioners also appear on the RCVS Find a Vet entry for those practices listed on the search tool and animal owners will be able to specifically search for those holding the status.
Dr Kit Sturgess is a member of RCVS Council who chaired the panel that assessed all the applications. He said: “We are very pleased to welcome this first cohort of Advanced Practitioners and it is fair to say that both the number of applicants and number of those who successfully made it on to the List exceeded all our expectations.
“The status brings together a wide variety of similar postgraduate qualifications under one heading and, in doing so, brings much needed clarity to both the profession and the public. For example, practices will now be able to more clearly indicate the levels of skills and experience possessed by staff to their clients.
“Being an Advanced Practitioner will also bring benefits to those holding the status by helping them focus their CPD in a particular area as well as forging a potential pathway towards Specialist status.”
Successful applicants will now have five years until they need to apply to be re-accredited for the status. During this time they will be expected to carry out at least 250 hours of CPD, with 125 hours in the area of their designated field. The first annual retention fee for the List (£80) is due on 1 July 2015.
A new application period for Advanced Practitioner status will be announced later this year. Those who were previously unsuccessful in their applications are able to re-apply.
For details of the eligibility criteria for Advanced Practitioner as well as the requirements for re-accreditation, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/advanced or contact the RCVS Education Department on education@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0791.
The RCVS President and Principal of the RVC, Professor Stuart Reid, has announced that he is to run the London Marathon on 26 April, in aid of the RVC Animal Care Trust, the Veterinary Benevolent Fund (VBF) and Mind.
The RVC Animal Care Trust will use the funds to assist the student bodies at all of the UK veterinary schools. The VBF, through Vetlife, the Vet Helpline and the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme, offers specific assistance to members of the veterinary team. Mind has been working with the profession and the veterinary schools at all levels in developing approaches to mental health and wellbeing.
Stuart said: "As President of the RCVS and Principal of the RVC I feel that I am in a privileged position and I would like to take every opportunity to help break down the stigma associated with mental health and wellbeing, and to raise what I can to assist these three excellent charities in dealing with what is, sadly, a major issue for us.
"Most of all, I am doing it for the nine people I know personally who are no longer with us, and the many more who have found, and will find, help in time."
If you'd like to help Stuart meet his sponsorship target of £10,000, you can sponsor him at: uk.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartReid.
Veterinary nursing dominated the event held by the RCVS to celebrate the launch of its new Royal Charter at the House of Commons last week.
Over 200 guests attended the occasion, which was sponsored by the MPs Neil Parish (Conservative), Angela Smith (Labour) and David Heath (Liberal Democrats).
The new Charter, which came into effect on 17 February, sets out the objects of the College and underpins many of its core functions such as the Practice Standards Scheme. However, the main focus of the event was the impact the Charter has had on veterinary nursing. Specifically how it recognises veterinary nursing as a profession and empowers the VN Council to set standards for training and CPD.
Professor Stuart Reid, RCVS President said: “There is one more piece of this jigsaw that is missing. We would like to increase further the confidence of the public in veterinary nurses with formal statutory protection of the title veterinary nurse. It is simply unacceptable that unqualified individuals should be able to use the same title as a well-qualified, properly regulated professional.”
Kathy Kissick, a registered veterinary nurse and Chair of VN Council, commended the hard work it had taken to get a new Charter, adding: “I am so very proud to stand here as a registered veterinary nurse and an associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Registered veterinary nurses should wear their badges with pride.”
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO, closed the event by outlining how the College was fulfilling its strategy to become a first-rate regulator citing the streamlining of the complaints process, the new alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial and the Mind Matters Initiative as just some of the ways in which the College is making a positive contribution to the welfare of animals, the public and the profession.
Picture shows (Left to right) RCVS President, Professor Stuart Reid, Neil Parish (Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton), Angela Smith (Labour MP for Penistone), Kathy Kissick RVN (Chair of VN Council) and RCVS CEO Nick Stace.
As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.
The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.
The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.
RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.
"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."
Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.
RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."
Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.
The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).
Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.
The RCVS has announced the candidates standing in the RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections this year and is inviting veterinary surgeons and nurses to put their questions to them directly for a video reply.
There are eleven candidates standing for election to RCVS Council in 2015. Overall there are six men and five women, which include two existing Council members eligible for re-election and nine new candidates. They are:
Three veterinary nurses are standing in this year's VN Council elections, including one existing VN Council member eligible for re-election. They are:
Ballot papers and candidates' details are due to be posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote during the week commencing 16th March, and all votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday, 24 April 2015.
Once again the College is inviting members of both professions to 'Quiz the candidates' by putting their questions directly to all those standing for election. Each candidate will then be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video or audio recording of their answers. All recordings will be published on the RCVS website on Thursday 19 March.
Vets and nurses should email their question (NB one per person) to vetvote15@rcvs.org.uk or VNvote15@rcvs.org.uk, or post it on twitter using the hashtags #vetvote15 or #VNvote15, respectively, by midday on Monday 9 March.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "It's important that members of the veterinary professions choose who they want to sit on their governing Councils, so we always try to make the elections as interesting and engaging as possible.
"This year, we hope the provision of short videos, to accompany the usual written information, will encourage people to find out a little more about all those standing for election, and then use their vote."
The RCVS has announced that this year, for the first time, it will accept debit card payments from veterinary surgeons who are renewing their registration.
The annual renewal fee should be paid by 31 March. Those who have not paid by 30 April will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May will be removed from the Register.
Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, said: "Following feedback from the profession, this year, thanks to a change in our registration regulations, we are able to accept debit card payments which we hope will make the renewal process much easier and more convenient for our members. Furthermore, members will also no longer be charged if they choose to pay their fee by credit card."
Veterinary surgeons will also need to confirm their registration details (including their correspondence and registration addresses), confirm that they have met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Another change is that vets will now have the choice of either home or work as their registered address (in the past, only work addresses were allowed).
The annual renewal can be completed by returning the form that has been sent by post or by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the security details that have been sent to all MsRCVS.
Any members who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the 'My Account' area should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk as soon as possible.
Those with queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team on 020 7202 0733 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS's new Royal Charter has come into effect today, meaning that the whole of the veterinary nursing profession in the UK is now regulated.
The new Charter received the Great Seal of the Realm and was collected from the House of Lords by RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey and Policy Consultant Jeff Gill (pictured right). It had previously been approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November 2014.
Under the changes instituted in the new Charter, there are no longer listed veterinary nurses and all those formerly on the List have effectively been moved to the Register and become RVNs.
As a result they will now be expected to undertake the minimum requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period, will need to follow the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses,and will be subject to the College’s disciplinary system in cases of serious professional misconduct. Any veterinary nurse removed or suspended from the Register will not be entitled to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery.
Gordon said: “This is a proud day for us and an important day for the profession as a whole. We worked very hard to get to this point and I would like to thank all those who helped us along the way including RCVS and VN Council members, College staff and the members of the profession and representative organisations, in particular the BVA and BVNA, that responded to our consultation on the proposed Charter last year.
“This Charter clarifies the role of the College and its aims and objectives while also modernising many of our regulatory functions. This represents another significant step towards the College becoming a first rate regulator.
“Critically, this Charter fulfils one of our long-term ambitions to create a coherent regulatory system for veterinary nurses and to recognise them as true professionals, dedicated to their vocation, their development and proper conduct.”
During this year’s renewal period for veterinary nurses (in the autumn), those formerly on the List will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration. The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses remains unchanged.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for former listed veterinary nurses can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
The RCVS has announced a total of £1 million funding to address mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary profession over the next five years.
The RCVS Operational Board has agreed £100K of funding for the first year of the Mind Matters initiative, with a view to a similar amount per year for the subsequent four years.
Additionally, the College says it intends to contribute approximately £500K over the next five years to the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme (VSHSP). This is a continuation of previous funding, effectively doubling the College's contribution. The VSHSP, independently run by the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, offers a confidential service that aims to combat problems with alcohol, drugs, eating disorders and other addictive and mental health issues. Neil Smith, Mind Matters' Chair said: "I am delighted that we have £500K of new funding over the next five years to dedicate to improving the mental health and wellbeing of the veterinary team, together with the increase to our support for the VSHSP. It shows the College's commitment in this vital area, and is a substantial amount that will really help change lives."
The funding will be reviewed annually as part of the RCVS budgeting process.
Mind Matters activities will fall into five streams:
Mind Matters is supported by a taskforce comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Warwick Seymour-Hamilton, a former veterinary surgeon who practised in Kent, has had his third application for restoration to the Register refused by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee this week.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was struck off in 1994 following an inspection of his premises, equipment and facilities in Orpington, which were found to be in such poor condition that it constituted a risk to the health and welfare of animals brought to the practice and brought the profession into disrepute.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton had made two previous restoration applications in July 1995 and June 2010. Both of these were refused on the grounds of poor preparation for re-entering practice life as, in both cases, he had made no attempt to engage in continuing professional development or visit and observe other veterinary practices.
Representing himself at this week's hearing, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that, since the 2010 hearing, he had further developed an interest in herbal medicine and, after visiting a number of veterinary practices in continental Europe, had attended the College of Naturopathic Medicine in Dublin, gaining a qualification in herbal and naturopathic medicine. He told the Committee that he currently worked as a herbalist and naturopath with human patients but wanted to widen his work and research to include animal patients.
The Committee was concerned by his answers to a number of questions, Mr Seymour-Hamilton having described the hearing as an 'exploratory meeting' and indicating a lack of knowledge in a number of areas to do with veterinary practice and its regulation. The Committee felt that this demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding as to its function and terms of reference.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee expresses its surprise and concern at the lack of preparation for this hearing by the applicant, given that these issues have arisen at his previous restoration hearings, and that the result of a positive finding in favour of him would be his ability to practise unfettered as a veterinary surgeon forthwith."
In particular the Committee highlighted Mr Seymour-Hamilton's lack of understanding of the regulatory framework for veterinary practice as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, the requirements of continuing professional development and what 'fitness to practise' meant, beyond the practical issues of his physical and mental capacity.
Professor Burrows added: "Based on all of the evidence available to the Committee it is very clear that he has failed to satisfy... that he is fit to be restored to the Register and this application is therefore dismissed."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS is encouraging vets to nominate members of their nursing team for this year's VN Golden Jubilee Award, which recognises exceptional contribution to veterinary nursing.
The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training course and recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the profession, animal welfare and/or patient care. Nominees can be registered veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.
Nomination forms need to be submitted by 5pm on Friday 24 April. The principal nominator must be a registered veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon, although the two supporting proposers can be lay people.
Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: "One of the main priorities of VN Council in the coming years is to raise levels of awareness of registered veterinary nurses, and awards which recognise the importance of VNs in the context of the veterinary team and animal welfare are crucial to enhancing the profession's profile.
"Therefore I would encourage veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to think about those VNs who go above and beyond the call of duty for their cause and who would be excellent ambassadors for the profession and nominate them for the Golden Jubilee Award."
Last year's winner was Hayley Walters who was recognised for her contribution to animal welfare through her teaching, clinical and international outreach work. Previous recipients were Jean Turner in 2011 and Sue Badger in 2012. No award was made in 2013.
The nomination form for the VN Golden Jubilee Award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee
The winner will be chosen by a panel of VN Council members and will receive the Award at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting and Awards Day - on Friday 10 July 2015.
For further information about making a nomination for the award contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0713.
The RCVS has announced the launch of its final consultation in the latest review of the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS), and is seeking feedback on the proposed detail of the revised Scheme.
The College says that in particular, it needs feedback about the new system of Awards for RCVS-accredited practices.
Following the College's commitment to review the PSS every five years, this is the second such review since the voluntary practice accreditation system was launched in 2005. After gaining extensive feedback from PSS members and the wider profession through previous consultations and focus groups, and the collaborative approach taken by members of the Practice Standards Group, there have been a number of significant redevelopments to the Scheme, which are due to be rolled out later this year.
The revised Scheme will no longer just consider facilities and equipment at a particular site, but will focus on all areas of the practice, emphasising the outcomes and behaviours that impact on the veterinary care of animals. Whilst the existing accreditation categories of Core Standards, General Practice and Veterinary Hospital will remain, the revised Scheme will provide a pathway for practices to improve and more easily demonstrate where they excel.
Jacqui Molyneux, Chairman of the Practice Standards Group said: "One of the most significant additions to the Scheme is that practices will be able to apply to be inspected for additional Awards in specific areas. If successful, they would then be able to promote themselves as 'Good' or 'Outstanding' in these areas to their clients.
"The main aim of this consultation is to seek feedback on the Awards, and to check we have set the Awards criteria appropriately, so I would urge the profession to have a look at the proposed framework, and to send us their views."
The consultation, which is available to complete via the RCVS website, also seeks feedback on the guidance that's provided to help practices meet the Scheme requirements, along with a small number of questions about specific areas. The requirements themselves remain largely unchanged, so are not subject to review.
The modules, requirements, guidance and Awards framework for small animal, equine and farm animal practices are detailed in three separate documents that are available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/pssconsult2015. This page also contains further details about the consultation and instructions on how to submit feedback.
The consultation is open until 5pm on Monday, 23 March 2015.
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion about whether VAT on vet fees for pets should be dropped.
The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Stuart Winter, the Sunday Express small animal columnist and a campaigner to end VAT on pet fees.
Stuart argues that owning a pet is not a luxury to be taxed when they need medical intervention, because owning a companion improves the health and wellbeing of its owner.
He writes that removing VAT on veterinary fees for domestic animals, or at least reducing it to five pence in the pound, would improve the nation's animal welfare. It would allow low-income families to seek medical attention earlier, he argues, while allowing more owners to afford and take out pet insurance.
He says that shifting Government thinking on the subject might be a Herculean task, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't campaign for its removal. "No Chancellor delights in losing revenue. Treating, curing and caring for sick and injured animals is nothing more than a service and services are ripe to be harvested.
"It is time for a counter argument. Pet ownership is not a luxury. It is more than a privilege. Is it not a human right? Welcoming animals into our lives makes our lives more fulfilled and more civilised."
To tie in with the discussion, Vet Futures is inviting vets to take part in a poll which asks: "Would you agree that VAT should no longer be levelled on vet fees?"
The College is encouraging members of the veterinary team and the public to take part in the poll so that it can generate debate on the issue of VAT and better understand the full consequences if it was removed.
January's poll asked members of the profession if they could recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague. Reassuringly, just over half (58%) of the 65 respondents said they would be able to recognise the signs, although that leaves 40% who would not feel comfortable in their ability to do so.
To read Stuart Winter's blog, contribute to the discussion and vote in the poll, visit www.vetfutures.org.uk
Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.
Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.
On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.
On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.
After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.
Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.
Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.
Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.
Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.
The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.
The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.
Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.
However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.
In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.
The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.
Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."
She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."
The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.
The RCVS has extended its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial until October 2015 and broadened its remit, allowing more cases to be considered.
The idea of the ADR is to provide an alternative form of resolution for the many concerns raised with the RCVS which do not meet the College's threshold for serious professional misconduct and are, therefore, not taken through its disciplinary process.
The trial, which was originally due to end in May 2015, aims to gather evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme.
As well as the time-frame being extended, the trial will now also be widened to include concerns raised about the treatment of horses and other equines - in addition to those raised about small animals.
The RCVS has also lowered the maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services, a not-for-profit complaints resolution service which is administering the trial, to £3,000 for small animal cases. The maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services in relation to equine cases remains at £10,000.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "The trial got off to a slower start than we expected and so we have decided to extend its length and breadth to allow more time and scope to gather the evidence and testimonies which we need to assess the trial.
"It's important to stress again that the trial is free, voluntary, as both parties must agree to take part, and that the recommendations made by the Ombudsman Services are not binding - it is up to either party as to whether they accept them."
The results of the trial will now be reported to the November 2015 meeting of RCVS Council. For further information about the ADR trial please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion exploring the issue of mental health problems.
The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Rosie Allister, Chair of the Vet Helpline and a Director of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
Rosie, who is also a researcher at the University of Edinburgh specialising in veterinary wellbeing, writes that members of the profession should be more willing to open up about their own mental health problems and intervene by talking and listening to colleagues who may be suffering from mental ill-health. She said: "Looking to the future, we need to better understand who is most at risk, how to reach out to them, and how we can start to change our culture so that it is OK to ask for help."
Her blog also proposes that, due to the caring nature of the occupation and high client expectations, members of the profession routinely put work and animal welfare ahead of their own needs and that, in order for there to be wider cultural change, individuals need to change their own attitudes towards asking for help. This includes the discussion of 'taboo subjects' such as suicide: "Perhaps all of us have to start trying to change our culture to one that is more accepting and supportive and looks out for those in need even when they aren't able to reach out themselves."
As part of the discussion, Vet Futures is running a poll which asks: "Could you recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague?"
To read Rosie's blog and take part in the poll, visit and take part in the poll, visit: http://goo.gl/EmLhhF
The RCVS is to launch a consultation in the New Year on proposals to allow all RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title 'Dr'/'Doctor', and is seeking the views of all members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, and the general public.
The proposals were raised by RCVS President Stuart Reid at RCVS Day in July 2014, with the aims of aligning the UK with international practice, providing greater clarity for the profession and offering reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard.
In his speech in July, Stuart highlighted that most international veterinary surgeons use the title and that, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment. He went on to outline that, of the three main clinical degrees in the UK, ie medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, only veterinary surgeons do not use the courtesy title 'Doctor'.
Stuart added: "given the fact that all continental EU graduates carry the title 'Doctor', there is now a greater chance of confusion for the lay public than previously.
"This is now an opportunity to provide, for those UK veterinary surgeons who wish it, the legitimate use of a title that offers a level of parity with fellow medical professionals."
The key objective of the consultation is to gauge whether the public and the profession are in favour of the proposal, not in favour of it, or don't mind either way. If agreed, the use of the title would be optional, although the College would regulate its use through the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Background information and draft guidance on using the title is available to read on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/doctortitle, from where respondents can follow a link to answer the consultation questions.
The consultation will open officially on Tuesday, 6 January for six weeks (deadline for responses is 5pm on Monday, 16 February) although it is already available to view via the RCVS website, to allow more time for responses over the Christmas and New Year break.
Do you think vets should be called 'Dr'? Discuss here.
The RCVS has launched Mind Matters, a new initiative to help address mental health and wellbeing issues within the veterinary profession.
Neil Smith, RCVS Vice-President and Chair of the Mind Matters Initiative said: "Mental Health is a significant issue for the veterinary profession. Most of us have experience of colleagues or ourselves having problems. The Mind Matters Initiative is a pan-profession project, and I am very pleased that there is active engagement from across the various veterinary associations and stakeholders."
"The RCVS already contributes through our Health Protocol and support of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund. The Mind Matters Initiative seeks to work more proactively by increasing the accessibility and acceptance of support, encouraging a culture that is better equipped to talk and deal with stress and related mental health issues, and, ultimately, by helping to reduce such triggers within the profession."
The first Mind Matters Initiative action is providing funding to ensure that callers to Vet Helpline, a completely confidential support service which is part of the Veterinary Benevolent Fund and run by volunteers, are put directly through to a person, rather than having to leave a message.
Rosie Allister, Chair of Vet Helpline said: "We are able to offer confidential, non-judgemental support to many vets, VNs, vet students and members of their families who call us in distress, but we know there are more who are put off by the prospect of leaving a message.
"It takes real courage to reach out for help when you're struggling, and we know it can be especially tough for vets. Although we respond to calls quickly, callers need to speak to someone immediately, and not a message system, when they are in crisis. Through the Mind Matters Initiative funding we are able to put in place a service that connects a caller directly to a human being, which could make a real difference for people who call."
The new Vet Helpline system will be in place on 22 December, in time for Christmas, which can be a difficult time for many people. The Vet Helpline number is 07659 811 118 and there is also a confidential email service, accessible viawww.vetlife.org.uk.
The Mind Matters Initiative will be sustained over an initial three-year period, and will include five streams of activity:
The Mind Matters Initiative is supported by a group comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society and the Association of Veterinary Students.
The RCVS has announced that its new Royal Charter, which recognises veterinary nursing as a profession, is due to come into effect early next year once it has been signed by Her Majesty the Queen and received the Great Seal of the Realm.
The Charter, which was approved at a meeting of the Privy Council on 5 November, sets out and clarifies the objects of the RCVS and modernises its regulatory functions.
The Charter will also confirm the role of the College as the regulator of veterinary nurses and give registered veterinary nurses the formal status of associates of the College.
In addition, the Charter will also underpin other activities of the College such as the Practice Standards Scheme.
One of the key changes is that those qualified veterinary nurses who are currently on the List will automatically become registered veterinary nurses. This means that they will be required to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, will be held accountable for their actions through the RCVS disciplinary process and will be expected to keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date by undertaking at least 45 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) over a three-year period.
In addition, the Charter will give formal recognition for VN Council to set the standards for professional conduct and education for veterinary nurses.
Kathy Kissick RVN, the current chair of VN Council, said: “A Charter which recognises veterinary nursing as a fully regulated profession is something that many veterinary nurses, as well as the British Veterinary Nursing Association, have been wanting for some time so I commend this development.
“This can only be a good thing for the profession, the industry as a whole and animal welfare because it makes sure that registered veterinary nurses are fully accountable for their professional conduct and are committed to lifelong learning and developing their knowledge and skills.
“Furthermore, the new Royal Charter is a significant step towards attaining formal, statutory protection of title, which would make it an offence for anyone who is not suitably qualified and registered to call themselves a veterinary nurse.”
From next autumn those former listed veterinary nurses who have become registered veterinary nurses will be expected to confirm that they are undertaking CPD and will also need to disclose any criminal convictions, cautions or adverse findings when they renew their registration.
A detailed set of frequently asked questions for listed veterinary nurses who will become registered veterinary nurses once the Charter is implemented can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rvn.
Although the date for signing and sealing the Charter has not yet been confirmed, once it comes into effect the College will be contacting all listed veterinary nurses by letter to outline the changes as well as putting an announcement on www.rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS has announced that it is to host an open day on Monday 15 December for those members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions who are interested in joining the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), Disciplinary Committee (DC) or Veterinary Nurse Preliminary Investigation Committee (VN PIC).
In January 2015 the College will be looking to recruit veterinary members for PIC and DC following a legislative reform order last year to reconstitute them separately from RCVS Council. This means that the committees must be made up of veterinary and lay members who are not on Council and members will be appointed on the advice of an independent selection committee.
The RCVS will be seeking to recruit four veterinary surgeons for DC as well as three veterinary surgeons for PIC. At the same time the College will be recruiting two registered veterinary nurses and a veterinary surgeon for VN PIC. Applications are particularly sought from practising or recently retired clinicians.
The Open Day (at Belgravia House from 9.30am to 4pm) will provide the opportunity for those who are interested in applying to hear from current members of each committee about what being a committee member is really like and the type of cases dealt with. Recruitment consultants will also be on hand to explain the hiring process and attendees will have the opportunity to put questions to Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Those who are interested in attending the Open Day should contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761 to register an interest or request an agenda.
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.
The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.
The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.
Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."
The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.
Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."
The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia
Ed's comment: The new guidance seems like common sense to me. A couple of things stand out as useful reminders, though. The first is to anonymise details of the cases you discuss on vetsurgeon.org, or get your clients' prior permission to discuss their animal in a professional forum. The other is the fact that being disparaging about a colleague online is as much of a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct as if you do it offline. So don't!