Norbrook has announced the re-launch of its range of intramammary tubes for lactating and dry cows, to promote holistic herd health and responsible use of antimicrobials.

The company’s range, which includes products across a number of antibiotic classes, primarily targets clinical cases of mastitis in lactating cows, and removal or prevention of infection around the dry period.

Chris Geddes MRCVS, Marketing Manager at Norbrook, says the re-launch is focused on modernising the range and making it clearer for practice staff and farmers to avoid confusion between lactating cow and dry cow products: “We have a wide range of 11 products containing a variety of antimicrobials: for example Duofast is the only lactating cow product to contain trimethoprim and sulfadiazine. We are working with vets to promote responsible use by farmers, for example through the use of our teat sealant Noroseal for Selective Dry Cow Therapy."

The full range includes Duofast, Lactaclox, Cefimam LC, Combiclav, Noroclav and Multiject for the lactating cow; Cefimam DC, Noroclox, Bovaclox and Bovaclox DC Xtra for the dry cow; and teat sealant Noroseal.

Norbrook has also produced a best practice guide to mastitis control, available for vets in English and Polish, which can be shared with farmers.

Chris added: "We recognise the need to reduce overall use of antimicrobials, especially for disease prevention – as well as using non-antimicrobial products such as teat sealants. These practices, together with the recent focus on using older classes of antimicrobials, mean that as an industry we need to adopt a holistic and targeted approach to herd health management.

"We believe that by providing additional information to aid with prevention of disease, and re-launching our intramammary range to make it clearer when products should be used, we can help to achieve that."

Norbrook says the full range of products is in stock, but some wholesalers may hold components of the old range as the new range is phased in.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has postponed sanction against Oxfordshire-based veterinary surgeon, Susan Catherine Mulvey, provided she complies with a number of undertakings.

Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.

At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.

Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.

Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.

Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.

The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.

The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.

The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College. 

The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.

The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession. 

In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.

The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:

1. To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month

2. Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.

3. To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.

4. To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).

5. To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.

6. To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.

7. To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor. 

Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.

"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."

Liz Law-Bartle MRCVS has written a new guide for veterinary surgeons: How to survive an RCVS hearing. 

In writing the guide, Liz has drawn upon her own experience of the disciplinary process to offer practical advice to others who find themselves in the same situation. 

Liz found herself on the receiving end of a complaint by a pet owner after an elderly dog she had operated on died that night at her practice. It took two years for the complaint to progress to a DC hearing. They were two years which she described as absolute hell. Not just because of the threat of losing her livelihood, but also because of the vilification on social media. 

Her booklet explains the whole process, from the first notice from the College to moving on after the hearing, with practical advice as to how you can make the experience, well, if not a positive one, at least not quite as hellish as it might otherwise be. 

You can download the booklet from Liz’s website, here: https://howtosurviveanrcvshearing.wordpress.com/

Veterinary Prescriber has launched a new e-learning module about the storage of veterinary medicines, something which can be crucial to maintaining their efficacy and safety.

Andrea Tarr, Veterinary Prescriber’s founder and director said: "There is a lot of confusion about the various rules and regulations around medicine storage. This module makes sense of it all. It is an essential read for anyone who deals with veterinary medicines, particularly those preparing for a VMD or RCVS PSS medicines inspection."

Veterinary Prescriber’s reviews are presented as e-learning modules. All the modules are the result of a thorough literature search and collaboration between practising specialists, general practitioners and the publication's editorial team.

Veterinary Prescriber is supported by subscriptions which cost £9.95 per month (cancel anytime) for individuals or £25 per month (for a 12-month contract) for practices. The latter includes 12 months free access to https://cpd.veterinaryprescriber.org for your practice's vet nurses, vet receptionists and SQPs.

To subscribe visit: https://www.veterinaryprescriber.org/subscribe

For further information, contact: carlrussell@veterinaryprescriber.org telephone 07932 044904.

The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of six months for issuing two false horse passports, having found him to have been “consciously dishonest”.

At a hearing which concluded on 15 July, Andrew Dominic Illing, Director of the Chapelfield Veterinary Partnership, Norwich, admitted charges of backdating the passports of two different horses on 1 May 2008, to indicate that they had been vaccinated on 24 April 2008 against equine influenza and equine influenza and tetanus, when he knew that the vaccinations had not been carried out on that date.

The Committee heard that, whilst on a routine visit to a local livery yard on 30 April 2008, a junior veterinary surgeon at the practice, Ms Charlotte Alice Mayers, had been pressured to backdate the equine passports of two horses, owned by Mrs Scriven and Mrs Kippen respectively, because their booster vaccinations had been carried out beyond the 12-month window prescribed by the Horse Racing Authority. Ms Mayers had declined to do so and had brought the passports back to the practice to seek the advice of its Director, Mr Illing.

Ms Mayers explained to Mr Illing, both in a note and in discussion with him, that the boosters had been administered outwith the prescribed period and that she had told the owners that she was not willing to backdate the passports, one of which she had already signed. The DC heard that Mr Illing had told Ms Mayers “not to worry about it” and that he would deal with the situation. It did not surface until the livery yard manager later made a complaint, that Mr Illing had in fact signed the second passport and backdated both to 24 April.

In mitigation, Mr Illing said that he had been under considerable stress at the time, as he had been dealing with a protracted and difficult disciplinary meeting concerning a senior veterinary colleague. As a consequence of this, the Committee heard from Mr Illing’s practice partner that Mr Illing was required to take on more work than he was already performing, which was already 10-15% more than the other three vets in the practice. In addition, Mr Illing had been in a degree of pain at the time, following a knee injury. The Committee also heard evidence from a veterinary surgeon who testified to Mr Illing’s good character; and received many written testimonials.

In reaching its decision, the Committee held the view that: “the public must be able to trust certificates which are signed by members of this profession. If the public cannot trust the authenticity of such certificates, the Committee considers that public confidence in the profession would be undermined, and undermined in a very significant way.” It also cited the obligations of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in terms of the integrity of veterinary certification, and the ‘12 Principles of Certification’, as agreed by the RCVS, the British Veterinary Association and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Committee considered many factors when making its final decision. It did not accept that stress overbore Mr Illing’s normal way of dealing with certification, particularly where he had had a period of overnight reflection before taking the action that he did. However, it felt that the most troubling feature in his decision to backdate the certificates was that, in advising Ms Mayers on a difficult ethical issue, Mr Illing had “set a disgraceful example and wholly failed to provide her with the support to which she was entitled”. Furthermore, in backdating a certificate that Ms Mayers had already signed, he was putting her integrity at risk.

Alison Bruce, chairing the Committee, commented: “It is only by upholding the importance of each and every certificate issued by a member of the veterinary profession that public confidence in such certificates can be maintained.” She went on to say: “Without significant mitigating circumstances, false certification will result in removal from the Register. In Mr Illing’s case, having regard to all the evidence, both the oral and written testimonials, and taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances detailed above, the Committee has decided to suspend Mr Illing’s name from the Register for a period of six months.”

Ceva Animal Health has extended its Meloxidyl dogs and cats’ range with the launch of a new 5ml Meloxidyl oral suspension for cats.

The company says the new bottle size will provide more prescription options for veterinary practices currently stocking 15ml bottles and is a perfect post-surgery size to send patients home with. The bottles are also clear brown in colour; designed to make it easier for cat owners to see how much liquid is left in each bottle.

Meloxidyl oral suspension for cats contains meloxicam for the alleviation of pain and inflammation. It is licensed for the treatment of musculo-skeletal disorders and the alleviation of post-operative pain.

Rob McLintock, business unit manager at Ceva Animal Health said: "The new 5ml Meloxidyl oral suspension for cats’ bottle will provide veterinary practices with more prescription options for the management and alleviation of pain and inflammation in cats."

To support the launch of the new 5ml Meloxidyl presentation, Ceva is running a competition to win one of five BSAVA Manuals of Anaesthesia and Analgesia by answering one question: ‘How many millilitres are in the new Meloxidyl cat bottle’? 

To enter the competition, email analgesics-group@ceva.com. Include ‘Meloxidyl competition’ in the subject line and contact details and the answer to the question in the main body of the email.

For further information on Ceva’s analgesic product range, contact your local Ceva territory manager, email analgesics-group@ceva.com or call 01494 781510.

Norbrook Laboratories has launched a long-acting cattle bolus which it says will reduce the risk of Milk Fever. 

According to the company, Calcitrace D3 is the first and only long-acting bolus to offer slow and fast releasing calcium to provide sustained calcium levels for 48 to 72 hours. In addition, Calcitrace D3 provides Magnesium, Phosphate and Vitamin D3 making it the most comprehensive bolus available.   

Calcitrace D3 is smooth gelatin coated bolus with a rounded tip designed for easier administration. Norbrook says it is smaller than other boluses making it less likely to cause trauma on the orpharynx during administration.

Dr Barry McInerney, Norbrook's GB Veterinary Advisor said: "Milk Fever is a common metabolic disorder in dairy cattle which generally affects older, high producing cows and is caused by a rapid decrease in calcium concentrations in the blood just before calving. It is estimated that 3-10% of cows are affected by Milk Fever with a cost of more than £200 per incident so it is crucial that farmers and vets reduce the risk as effectively as possible.

"Norbrook's new Calcitrace D3 bolus which should be administered just before calving, provides higher calcium blood levels during the critical 12 - 48 hour post calving period and provides sustained increased levels for well beyond 48 hours. With the addition of Magnesium, Phosphate and Vitamin D3, Calcitrace D3 provides additional protection against Milk Fever."

Andrew Hillan MVB MRCVS, Director of Veterinary Sciences at Norbrook, led the development of Calcitrace D3. He said: "The launch of Calcitrace D3 is another illustration of the very high quality of technical expertise that exists within our research and development department and underlines Norbrook's commitment to developing high quality and innovative products. It comes from a strong and exciting pipeline of new products which we will bring to the market over the next couple of years."

Willows Veterinary Centre has recruited cardiologist João Almeida Neves and opened a new cardiology suite as part of a £1m extension to the referral centre.

João, who graduated from Portugal’s Oporto University in 2009, was recruited from the University of Liverpool, where he was a lecturer in Small Animal Cardiology. 

Willows Clinical Director Toby Gemmill said: "This is an exciting time for us. As part of our new extension, our state-of-the-art cardiology suite is now open and fully operational, while we have also appointed a hugely knowledgeable and experienced cardiologist to join the team. 

"It is further evidence of our continued commitment to invest in top talent and the best facilities so we can provide the highest standards of care and treatment."

João said: "I’m very pleased to have joined a centre of excellence like Willows and to be working in the fantastic new cardiology suite.

"I enjoy all aspects of medical and interventional cardiology but I have a particular interest in feline cardiomyopathies, cardiorenal syndrome and atrial fibrillation."

Animalcare has announced the launch of Clavubactin (amoxicillin/clavulanate) for dogs and cats, presented as 4-way split tablets in three strengths to ensure optimum dosing.
 
The three strengths (Clavubactin 50, 250 and 500) contain 50/12.5, 250/62.5 and 500/125mg of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid respectively. Clavubactin 50mg is licensed for cats and dogs. The 250 and 500mg formulation is licensed for dogs only.

According to the company, the increased combined level of active ingredients, compared to some other clavulanate-amoxicillin products on the market, achieves recommended target weight dosing (doses always kept at 12.5mg/kg), even with animals of greater weight, minimising the risk of underdosing.

The 4-way split tablets are designed to facilitate easy and accurate dosing of all sizes of dogs and cats, from 1kg bodyweight (¼ tablet Clavubactin 50) to 50kg (1 tablet Clavubactin 500) and above.

The tablets come in aluminium blister strips of ten tablets in five packaging presentations (Clavubactin 50 and 250 are available in 100 and 250 tablet packs and Clavubactin 500 in 100 tablets).

Animalcare Product Manager Tony Liepman said "Clavubactin allows for optimum target weight dosing and together with the accuracy enabled by SmartTabs easy 4-way split, this gives peace of mind to both vet and client."

The product is supported by dosage charts and dispensing envelopes (the latter is available on request).

For further information contact Animalcare on 01904 487687, speak to your regional Animalcare representative or visit www.animalcare.co.uk/contact-us.

The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has unanimously approved the introduction of a disciplinary system for registered veterinary nurses from 1 April 2011.

The RCVS established the non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses in 2007, and says that registration signals a commitment from veterinary nurses to account for their professional practice.

Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) commit to keep their skills up to date via mandatory continuing professional development and abide by the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses. The disciplinary mechanism is the final component of this regulatory framework. From 1 April 2011, an RVN can be removed or suspended from the Register if found guilty of serious professional misconduct, fraudulent registration or criminal offences affecting his or her fitness to practise.

The decision has been awaited for some time, as according to the College, there has been some dispute about whether an RVN could be removed from the statutory List of Veterinary Nurses (meaning veterinary surgeons would be barred from delegating to them tasks allowed under Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, such as medical treatment or minor surgery), as well as the non-statutory Register.

Following legal advice that it would not be appropriate to remove someone from a statutory list via a non-statutory regulatory system, RCVS Council and the Veterinary Nurses Council opted for removal from the Register only, with the caveat that any such removed VNs will be clearly identified on the List. In addition, veterinary surgeons will be advised, via the Guide to Professional Conduct, against delegating Schedule 3 tasks to them.

Council also confirmed that it would seek an amendment to Schedule 3 as soon as possible, to enable it to remove the names of nurses found guilty of serious professional misconduct or other charges from the List.

VN Council Chairman Liz Branscombe said: "The Veterinary Nurses Council is committed to moving towards statutory regulation for veterinary nurses. This non-statutory commitment to a disciplinary system is our chance to show government and the public that we are ready and willing to be regulated, which should stand us in good stead for the future."

The RVN disciplinary system will mirror that for veterinary surgeons, with the same complaints-handling, investigation and decision-making processes and sanctions.

Registered Veterinary Nurses will receive more detailed information about the system over the coming months.

As part of its recent policy statement in which the BVA outlined its vision for veterinary surgeons to lead the care provided by a variety of allied professionals, the association has made a series of recommendations for expanding the role of Registered Veterinary Nurses.

Firstly, the BVA recommends that more work needs to be done in order to clarify and communicate the duties that can already be delegated to Registered Veterinary Nurses under Schedule 3.

In addition, the Association says that:

• there should be an expanded role for RVNs in general anaesthesia, where the veterinary surgeon maintains overall responsibility

• consideration should be given to granting RVNs expanded rights to dispense POM-V flea and worming treatments

• consideration should be given to expanding the role of RVNs in the management of chronic cases, including repeat dispensing

• consideration should be given to the potential role for RVNs in dispensing contraceptives, anthelmintics and vaccines in a zoo setting

• it would be beneficial to incorporate the Suitably Qualified Person (SQP) role within RVN training

The BVA also recommends that there should be accessible, flexible and professionally recordable post-registration awards for RVNs from all academic backgrounds, and has reiterated its call for the protection of the title of 'Veterinary Nurse.'

BVNA Junior Vice President Jo Hinde RVN (pictured right) said: "BVNA strongly supports the vet-led approach as we believe working together as a team is the best way to improve both patient and staff welfare. We are delighted to be working on this project with BVA and are using our best efforts to continue to strive to strengthen the role of the RVN.

"We have always believed the VN title needs to be protected and this is increasingly important as the veterinary profession adapts to new challenges. It is vital that owners can be confident that their pet is being looked after by well-trained and RCVS-registered staff, as well as there being more clarity surrounding Schedule 3 procedures.

"The support for the advancement of the nursing role through post-registration qualifications is a welcome development and we believe this will help enable RVNs to follow their passion for a particular subject and allow them to significantly increase their knowledge in specific areas of interest. When following the vet-led model, this would result in a strong team of individuals with in-depth knowledge that can enhance their patients’ care."

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).