It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:
In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.
In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.
In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.
Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.
In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct.
In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping.
"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."
In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.
However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register.
Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."
Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.
Liz, a mother of two who qualified at Cambridge in 2004 and now works part time doing ECC shifts at the Cromwell Veterinary Group and shelter medicine at Wood Green, said: "I’m an average GP vet-mum who found a happy work-life balance after a decade in practice. Fed up with bemoaning the state of the profession, I started looking into solutions. And there are many; a growing wave of initiatives by both veterinary organisations and individuals to address the issues facing the profession and move us to a brighter future. But all of this reading took time, and I wanted to help friends and colleagues access appropriate resources quickly and efficiently.
"So, I’ve created www.vetsnet.net; a website to curate, collate and summarise a wide range of resources covering everything from support for employers/employees/students, financial advice, mental wellbeing, career breaks, advice for mums, and a vet sports page to celebrate and highlight sporting endeavours and encourage us to get active. The site is free access and not-for-profit. If you have a resource you’d like me to add, or if you are able to promote or support the site in any way, please contact: liz.barton@vetsnet.net”
The second biggest financial worry was the cost of dog food (18%), followed by pet insurance (16%).
The news came as Dogs Trust announced that it has had 50,000 requests this year from owners asking the charity to take in their dog, a new record in the charity's history.
The outlook for 2023 doesn't look any more optimistic; the poll also found that 62% of people who don’t currently own a dog think the rising cost of living would prevent them from getting one in 2023, whilst 36% said it ‘definitely would’ and 25% said it ‘probably would’.
In the meantime 21% said they would give their dog fewer presents this year, whilst 13% said they won’t give their dogs a present at all this Christmas, despite giving presents in previous years.
Maybe that's a good thing. After all why were they wasting money in the first place: the dog doesn't know it's Christmas, or appreciate a present.
Perhaps more significantly, fewer dog owners will be going away for a Christmas break this year: 9% said they’d be staying home because they can't afford a dog sitter.
Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust, said: “Although it was inevitable that we would reach 50,000 calls from owners no longer able to care for their dogs, it’s still a shock and a stark signifier of the animal welfare crisis the UK now finds itself in.
“Through our December poll, dog owners have told us they’re going to struggle this Christmas, and many more are really worried about what 2023 is going to bring."
George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The RCVS Disclipinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct a Brighton-based veterinary surgeon who failed to maintain a proper boundary between her professional and personal relationships with a client.
The eight charges considered at the seven-day hearing involved Marie-Louise Schlemm's treatment of Ratszy, a 16-year old Jack Russell with chronic renal failure, and her relationship with the dog's owner, Ms B, who suffers from mental illness, during May 2010. At that time, Ms Schlemm was employed by Coastway Veterinary Group in Brighton to work for its out-of-hours veterinary services, Vetcall, to which Ratszy had been referred by the PDSA.
The College alleged that Ms Schlemm deliberately misled Ms B as to the condition and prognosis of Ratszy, removed the dog without Ms B's consent, and behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in her dealings with Ms B. Other allegations were that that she had suggested Ms B tell the PDSA a fabricated story in order that she might see the dog again; made an offer that Ms B and Ratszy could come and stay with her at her home; required Ms B to attend a supermarket car park at 12.30am to collect Ratszy; and took money from Ms B other than for the purposes of legitimate veterinary treatment.
The Committee found both Ms Schlemm and Ms B to be truthful and honest witnesses, and that Ms B's recollection was given to the best of her ability. However, where recollections differed, it relied on contemporaneously prepared clinical records to find that Ms Schlemm did not mislead Ms B to the effect that the dog was not dying. Although recognising that Ms Schlemm's actions were misguided the Committee found that the dog was not taken without consent.
Furthermore, the Committee said in making the offer that Ms B and Ratszy might come and stay with her, Ms Schlemm was wholly misguided and had blurred the distinction between personal and professional activities. By this time, she was aware Ms B suffered from mental illness and so should have allowed the mental health services to take control of the situation. Similarly, she should not have required Ms B to meet in a car park to collect Ratszy, behaviour the Committee described as bizarre and which had compromised Ratszy's welfare. Although the Committee gave Ms Schlemm the benefit of the doubt as to whether money taken was, in fact, to pay for alternative therapy for Ms B, she did not deal with the matter openly and it was a clear breach of trust to both Ms B and Vetcall.
In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Schlemm now had a genuine insight into her lack of judgement in her relationship with Ms B, had reflected on the decision of the Committee and fully accepted the "utter stupidity" of her actions. She had also attended courses on teamwork and managing client relationships, and had established good working relationships in a new practice.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "While the Committee has accepted that Ms Schlemm was motivated by good intentions towards Ms B and Ratszy, she breached the trust of both of Ms B and Vetcall in the way in which she behaved [and] acted in a misguided way in dealing with a vulnerable client, who was suffering from mental illness. In light of the serious nature of its findings, the Committee does not consider it appropriate to take no further action. The Committee has concluded that Ms Schlemm should be severely reprimanded for her conduct and given a warning as to her future conduct [and] reminds the profession of the importance of maintaining a proper boundary between the professional and personal relationships of client and veterinary surgeon."
The research, which was carried out by analysing data from 455,557 dogs which presented at veterinary practices participating in the College’s VetCompass programme, investigated the frequency, severity and duration of anal sac disorder, conjunctivitis, dental disease, dermatitis, obesity, lipoma, osteoarthritis and otitis externa.
The main findings were:
The most common conditions were dental disorder (9.6%), overweight/obese (5.7%) and anal sac disorder (4.5%)
The conditions that lasted the longest were dental disorders (76% of year), osteoarthritis (82%), and overweight/obese (70%)
Scoring out of 21, with higher scores for greater severity, the most severe conditions were osteoarthritis (13/21), otitis externa (11/21) and dermatitis (10/21).
The researchers say that by considering frequency, duration and severity together, the study showed that the conditions with the highest welfare impact overall are dental disease, osteoarthritis and obesity.
It is hoped these results can help vets to target conditions that have the greatest impact on dogs they treat. The evidence also shows owners the value of addressing these important conditions to improve their animal’s welfare. The study also provides evidence for other stakeholders on which conditions merit further research prioritisation.
Dave Brodbelt, Professor of Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine at the RVC and senior researcher on the study, said: "First opinion veterinary professionals see dogs presenting to them with a range of conditions everyday and understand what are the common diseases that they treat. Yet there is a need for clear evidence based welfare assessment of the major conditions of dogs. This work adds to our understanding by allowing the transparent comparison of commonly seen disorders in primary practice and highlights conditions with greatest welfare impact."
Dr Dan O’Neill, Senior lecturer in epidemiology at the RVC and co-author said: "During my 20 years as a first opinion vet, owners constantly asked me to advise them about the most important conditions that they should try to prevent in their dogs. At that time, I could not answer this as it was unknown to science. We now have this answer; and we can now advise owners to focus on dental health, monitoring for joint disease and to pay special attention to their dogs body condition score. Finally, we have the key to prioritising long-term health in dogs overall. This is a huge step forward to improving dog welfare; huge thanks to Dogs Trust for having the vision to support this work."
The study is freely available open access.
Reference
MSD says the new chip is compliant with ISO standards, has proven temperature accuracy1 and as yet is the only microchip on the market that combines identification and temperature monitoring.
The HomeAgain Thermochip has been designed to work for the lifetime of the pet, and it's being launched alongside the HomeAgain Pet Recovery Database, which is free of charge.
Michael Morrow BSc BVSc MRCVS, Director of St Vincents Veterinary Surgery in Wokingham, has been involved in trials of the new chip. He said: ''The launch of HomeAgain Thermochip is a real game-changer in the market.
“We have been trialling the Thermochip for some time and it’s now our default option to measure temperature.
"It’s incredibly useful in everyday practice, particularly when it comes to fractious cats or extremely nervous dogs, and it improves efficiency in consultations.
"We also use the Thermochip extensively during anaesthetic and post operative monitoring – with minimal handling.
“Reassuringly, we’ve never had any issues with the microchip reader or with the chip migrating to other parts of an animal’s body so it’s very reliable.”
In addition to the benefit of being able to measure temperature in a non-invasive way, MSD points to recent studies which suggest that a pet’s ‘normal’ temperature is not a specific number, rather a range of values that depend on numerous factors such as the time of day, the site of measurement, sex, breed, size, age, activity and stress levels2.
The HomeAgain Thermochip makes it easier to take multiple temperature readings easily over time, thereby establishing a pet’s individual temperature range.
For animal identification, the microchip works in much the same way as other microchips.
Once the owner registers their pet’s microchip with a recovery database, their animal – in theory – can be traced if lost.
The reality is often different, because owners' contact details are frequently out of date, making it difficult to reunite pets.
MSD says it aims to have the most comprehensive reunification platform, with a database which:
For more information, visit: homeagain.co.uk
Mr Garcia had pleaded guilty of harassment at Nottingham Magistrates Court last September and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The magistrates also imposed a restraining order and ordered Mr Garcia to pay compensation and costs as well as a surcharge to fund victim services.
The harassment conviction related to incidents between 30 September 2016 and 27 December 2016 in which Mr Garcia engaged in conduct that amounted to harassment towards a woman including sending offensive text messages, visiting her place of work, attempting to contact her through social media, going to her home address and driving past her home address.
At the outset of the disciplinary hearing Mr Garcia admitted the College's charge against him and that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Following cross-examination of Mr Garcia on the facts of the case and having considered representation from his counsel, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Garcia’s conduct leading to conviction and the conviction itself rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Mehmuda Mian, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It was a serious conviction as demonstrated by the sentence imposed and by the nature of the harassment. It brought distress on [the victim] and will have damaged the reputation of the veterinary profession. The respondent was right to accept that this was the case."
Turning to the sanction for Mr Garcia the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in his case including the distress caused to the victim as some of the text messages could be interpreted as threats to harm; the fact that Mr Garcia had continued to contact the victim after receiving a warning from the police; the fact he visited her place of work; that there was a sexual element to some of the messages he sent to the victim; and that the pattern of behaviour was sustained over three months and only ended with his arrest. It also considered that his behaviour was contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance’s advice on professional and appropriate use of social media.
The Committee also considered mitigating factors such as the fact that, during the period of his conduct, there was a family illness and bereavement; that he admitted the charges before the magistrates and the Committee; that ‘social ineptitude’ was a factor and that he did not recognise the rejection he received from the victim; testimonials as to his capabilities as a veterinary surgeon; and insight into his behaviour as well as taking steps to avoid its repetition.
Ms Mian concluded: "The Committee has determined to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of five months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the conviction and the concerns expressed by the Committee in this determination. It will send a message to the respondent and to the profession that conduct such as this is unacceptable. It will afford an opportunity to the respondent to reflect further on his behaviour."
Mr Garcia will have 28 days from the end of the hearing to appeal against the Committee’s decision.
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At the June 2017 meeting of RCVS Council, members decided to look into two models by which paraprofessionals working in the veterinary, animal health or related fields, might be regulated by the College under powers granted by the RCVS’s Royal Charter in 2015.
The first was an accreditation model, which would involve the RCVS accrediting an organisation which would regulate the profession in question. The second was an associate/ full regulation model, in which individual paraprofessionals would receive a similar level of regulation to that already received by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
At its January 2019 meeting, RCVS Council agreed to proceed with both proposed models of paraprofessional regulation, with the suitability of each model being considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the profession applying for recognition.
Paraprofessions whose work will need to be underpinned by Schedule 3 reform would need to apply for the associate model, as the RCVS would be required to be directly responsible for the register of any individuals undertaking such minor acts of veterinary surgery.
Two paraprofessional groups that have already expressed an interest in being regulated by the College, namely meat inspectors and animal behaviourists, will now be invited to apply for associate or accredited status.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "This is a very significant decision by Council to open up a pathway to related paraprofessions to apply to become regulated by the College.
"It is difficult to give a time-frame at this stage as to when these particular professions will be brought on board, as we will have to go through a process of developing a number of new regulatory structures including registration, education and investigation and disciplinary, as well as the appropriate governing bodies for each of the professions.
"However, we are very pleased that the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) and the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) have expressed an interested in being regulated by the College and we look forward to working with them to make this happen."
David Montgomery, President of the ABTC, said: "The ABTC enthusiastically welcomes the news that the RCVS is expanding its influence to include paraprofessionals. We look forward to exploring the opportunity to demonstrate the professional status of ABTC-registered Animal Trainers and Behaviourists by coming under the regulatory umbrella of the RCVS for the benefit of animal welfare."
Ian Robinson, a Trustee of the AMI, said: "The Association of Meat Inspectors welcome the news that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons intends to invite paraprofessionals to be regulated under the ambit of the RCVS. We believe it will offer enhanced security, opportunity and status, and we look forward to further dialogue to explore the various models in due course."
The College says it is also in touch with a number of other paraprofessional groups, including those representing animal musculoskeletal practitioners and equine dental technicians, about the future of paraprofessional regulation. However, before such professions could become associates, there would need to be reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in order to remedy some of the deficiencies of the current legislative regime and make sure that these groups have appropriate legal underpinning for their work. This, says the College, complements ongoing discussions on changes to the legislative framework to bolster the role of veterinary nurses.
On particular issue that the College says the new proposals are designed to remedy is that of equine dental procedures being carried out by well-trained but nevertheless unregulated paraprofessionals. Neil Townsend, Chair of the British Equine Veterinary Association’s (BEVA) Allied Professional Committee, said: "Change to the current situation, where legislative enforcement is impossible, horse owners are confused, and horse welfare is compromised, is long overdue. BEVA is really pleased that the RCVS has listened and is supporting a proposal for regulation of all equine dental procedures. We hope that Government will act."
RCVS President Amanda Boag, said: "This is a real milestone in the history of the RCVS and represents quite possibly the biggest change to our regulatory role since the introduction of the Register of veterinary nurses in 2007, and should Schedule 3 reform be achieved it would be the most significant change since the role of veterinary nurses was first recognised in law in 1991. It is particularly befitting for our 175th anniversary year, as it demonstrates we are an organisation that can evolve to meet the changes occurring in the wider veterinary and animal health sector and use our regulatory experience and expertise to ensure that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded in different, but related fields of endeavour."
The full approved paper regarding the review of the minor procedures regime and paraprofessional regulation can be found on the RCVS website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/policy/veterinary-legislation-review/
Sylvie, a four-month-old Maine Coon, was referred to NDSR with a loud heart murmur. Scans revealed she was suffering from a severe obstruction on the right side of her heart which was steadily becoming worse.
Her condition, double chambered right ventricle, is very rare and, until now, could only be corrected by open heart surgery. However, NDSR specialist cardiologist João Loureiro believed this would be too much of a risk for frail Sylvie, so he opted for a cutting balloon angioplasty which had never been applied to cats before because their hearts are so small.
He and fellow cardiology specialist Joel Silva carried out the procedure, which involved inserting two balloons on a wire into a vein in Sylvie’s neck and on to her heart. The first had four cutting blades, which were manipulated to score the obstruction before the second was gently inflated in order to relieve it. After the wire and balloons had been removed, the incision in Sylvie’s neck required just two stitches and within 48 hours she was well enough to return home.
A subsequent scan showed the level of obstruction had been reduced from severe to mild and her owner, Dr Bob Baxter, described her as “much more lively”.
João, who has a special interest in the treatment of congenital heart disease in small animals, said the decision to perform the interventional ballooning was made because of the risks of open heart surgery and the recent development of veterinary applications of the cutting balloon technique.
João said: "As Sylvie’s condition was so rare, wider application of the technique is limited in terms of the number of cats which could benefit from it. However, it is extremely relevant to those individuals who are affected and could be of use in the treatment of other, more common, conditions."
Joel said: "Cutting balloon angioplasty is routinely used in human medicine for treating narrowed and stiffened blood vessels and has recently been adapted to treat a heart condition in dogs but we believe this may be the first time it has been used to treat this condition in a cat."
Neptra contains florfenicol, an antibiotic which Bayer says is ideal for dealing with the Staphylococcus pseudintermedius found in the majority of otitis externa cases, together with terbinafine hydrochloride, which is effective against Malassezia pachydermatis, and mometasone furoate, a corticosteroid that provides anti-inflammatory activity to improve patient comfort.
A single, 1ml dose in each affected ear treats dogs of all breeds and in trials, continuous clinical improvement was seen until day 28.
Neptra was approved for use in the USA back in 2015, where it has apparently gone down a bit of a storm, becoming the number one product for otitis externa in the country, with over 4.7 million doses prescribed since 2017.
Dr Ken Kwochka, DVM, DACVD, President of the World Association for Veterinary Dermatology (pictured right) said: "This solution is trusted by thousands of vets across the USA, it’s now time for UK vets to benefit from the convenience and confidence Neptra offers. Neptra is the ideal and easier way to treat the majority of otitis externa cases you see and can (and should) be used first-line."
Donna Tomlinson, Senior Brand Manager at Bayer said: "It’s not every day that you’re able to launch a solution that has the potential of Neptra to change treatment practices for the better and improve outcomes for dogs. Across the UK and Europe, our brilliant team at Bayer have put months of effort into this launch and developed an exciting marketing support package. Our veterinary business managers are already out on the road, ready to talk to you all about it."
Neptra is available now to order as one SKU via your regular wholesaler or speak to your Bayer veterinary business manager.
Practice support materials are also available via www.vetcentre.bayer.co.uk.
RSA Insurance Group, which underwrites pet insurance on behalf of MORE TH>N, Tesco Bank, M&S, John Lewis, Argos and Homebase, has clarified recently announced changes to its policy conditions concerning cases which need to be referred for specialist treatment.
In a letter dated 22nd May, which was sent to practices in the Midlands and the NW, the company said:
"With effect from the 25th May 2015, if you need to refer a pet under any of the above Brands to a specialist or referral vet, and the visit is not in response to an emergency, then our customer / your Client can contact us on the relevant number below before any appointment is made. We will then agree which of our preferred specialist or referral practices our customer should go to, dependant (sic) on the individual circumstance relating to the claim. If our customer does not get in touch with us or we have not agreed to the visit, then this could result in our customer suffering a financial impact. This amount will be in addition to the policy excess."
Speaking to VetSurgeon.org, Keith Maxwell, Head of Pet Claims at RSA said: "What we're saying to the primary practices is that we want to speak to our customers before they go to a referral vet. We want to engage with our customers to let them know that we have referral vets who we are starting to work with across those specific regions. We are not saying to customers that you have to use those referral vets and if you don't, we won't provide cover."
This appeared to contradict a statement that a member of VetSurgeon.org had received from John Lewis earlier which said: “If you decided to go to a specialist that wasn’t approved by us, we wouldn’t cover the costs." Keith said: "That is not correct."
Clarifying the financial impact referred to in the company's letter to veterinary practices, Keith said: "In terms of any sort of financial impact on the customer, if we think about the level of benefit that a customer will have under their insurance policy, they will have a maximum cash benefit. If a customer goes to one specific referral vet and the cost of treatment is extremely high, and they have a choice of going to a referral vet that we have been interacting with to get a like for like treatment, the cost will be lower, the financial impact on the customer will be that the overall benefit available to them will be eroded at a faster rate."
He added: "The other thing I would say is that certain customers under our policies will have a policy excess which will be on a percentage basis. Now if you think about a higher cost treatment which will incur a percentage excess, it will be a higher amount the customer will have to pay, as opposed to going to a referral vet where they can get the exact same high quality treatment, but the overall cost will be lower; they will pay a lower excess. So we are not saying we are going to penalise a customer. There are other financial consequences i.e. eroding benefit or having to pay a greater amount of excess."
Whilst RSA appears not to be removing the freedom of choice over referrals, there remains the potential for a conflict of interest when a primary practitioner recommends treatment at a centre they believe to be the most suitable for the case, and the client then rings the insurer only to be advised to use an alternative, primarily for reasons of cost. Keith said: "What I would say is that we are at the start of a journey. We've selected a small part of the country. We are very much in a 'test and learn' phase. As we have selected referral vets, we have gone through obviously quite a lengthy process of engaging with referral vets, looking at specialism, looking at their accreditation, looking at their capability, their skill, equipment within their practices, what their areas of specialism are, so we are building up this view. It does come down to we want to learn from this. We want to engage with our customers. We want to offer our customers choice. We want to make sure that our customers will not be receiving an inferior service or inferior treatment or level of specialism in any specific way."
VetSurgeon.org asked how RSA has selected its preferred referral practices, and how others can join its network. Keith said: "When we started this journey, we made contact with a significant number of referral vets across the country. Some referral vets just said point blank 'No, we don't want to talk to you'. Others said 'Yes, we'd like to come and have some discussions'. So we took those forward and then we took the referral vets through a benchmarking process based on a full list of criteria, and within RSA we have veterinary expertise helping us along that journey, so we're not just doing this on our own. We are very much an open door to interacting and liaising with referral vets."
Keith concluded by saying: "We are focused on our customers here. We are focused on making sure that pet insurance is sustainable in the long term, both for our customers and for vets across the country."
The RVN Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has removed an Armagh-based nurse from the Register after finding that she'd entered the details of four injections into clinical records when she had no reasonable basis for doing so.
During the four-day hearing, the Committee considered two alternative charges against Ms Tracy Nicholl (nee Wilson) relating to her actions on 3 February 2011, whilst employed by O'Reilly & Fee veterinary surgery, Armagh.
Ms Nicholl was alleged by the College to have administered Dolethal, a pink liquid containing pentabarbitone and used for euthanasia, to a dog called Butch without being directed to do so. It was also alleged that she had made dishonest entries into the dog's clinical records, or had administered drugs without a veterinary surgeon's prescription.
Ms Nicholl was alleged to have administered the Dolethal via a fluid bag and giving set on the morning of 3 February, which she denied. The Committee found that, although a veterinary surgeon believed that she saw pink fluid in the line, uncertainties in the surrounding circumstances made the Committee unable to be sure the line contained pink liquid. Expert and forensic evidence revealed Butch had received Dolethal, but not the route of administration or the timing. Therefore the Committee could not be sure Ms Nicholl administered the Dolethal and dismissed this charge.
However, the Committee found that Ms Nicholl did enter on Butch's clinical records that four drugs had been injected, when she had neither administered them nor been told that the drugs had been administered. Although she denied making the entries in evidence submitted to the hearing, in evidence from an interview with the College on 11 July 2011 she had admitted this and her initials were on the record entries.
The Committee noted these injections would be chargeable, and was satisfied the public would regard making these incorrect entries as dishonest. As Ms Nicholl was a highly experienced, senior nurse who also lectured to veterinary nursing students, the Committee was sure she knew she was acting dishonestly. Further, she had breached her responsibilities to clients by failing to maintain accurate case records, and the entries raised potential animal welfare issues. In mitigation, her actions affected no animal's actual welfare, and there was no evidence that Ms Nicholl had made any financial gain or repeated her conduct.
Ms Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "In addition to the fact that the charge involved dishonesty, there were a number of other aggravating features. The Respondent has not demonstrated any recognition of the seriousness of the record entry allegation, specifically the importance of keeping proper records ... It is in the wider public interest and to protect the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession that the Respondent's name should be removed from the Register."
Ms Nicholl is the first Registered Veterinary Nurse to be struck off since the introduction of the title.
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.
A 15-minute consultation with Online Vets on the IVC-owned www.myfamilypet.co.uk website costs £16, compared to the three other players in this marketplace: Pawsquad, Vet AI and Firstvet, which all charge £20.
The other significant difference is that Online Vets is backed by IVC's extensive network of 800+ bricks and mortar practices, so they have somewhere to refer cases that need treatment and they undertake to deduct the online consultation fee from the final bill if that happens.
Douglas Veitch MRCVS, Head of Online Vets (the affable-looking chap pictured right) said: "In human healthcare, an online doctor can prescribe medication to their patients. However under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) legislation, vets cannot do that. This impacts the wallets of our clients, as it will often mean they pay twice; once for the online consultation and then for the subsequent consultation in practice. That’s why we have launched our Online Vets service as the digital vet team can refer into one of our 800+ practices and ensure the initial online fee is deducted from the bill."
That sounds like a bit of a pop at the RCVS being responsible for legislation that impacts clients' wallets, so it might be worth reflecting whether the GMC would allow doctors to prescribe medication online if their patients were all deaf, mute and had a mental age of less than one, which I assume is the intellectual capacity of the average dog.
That's by the by. It is this ability to offset Online Vets' consultation fee against any treatment needed offline that forms the basis of IVC's claim to save pet owners nearly £100 per annum on veterinary bills.
Of the other online service providers, only one (Vet AI) undertakes to refund the fee if offline treatment is then required. Online Vets says pets typically need 5 consultations per annum, and if they all need a subsequent consultation (and presuming none use Vet AI), £20 x 5 would therefore be down the drain, or, as the French would say, hors de la fenêtre.
I think that claim is a bit punchy myself. It would be interesting to see the research that shows pets need 5 consultations per annum. My dog rarely sees the vet more than once in a year. And even if it did, I'll bet at least a couple of those consultations could be handled online.
But really, isn't this a bit of a red herring? The truth is that all these services are still in their infancy, and online consultations still make up only a tiny fraction of the overall number of veterinary interactions. So whether you'll actually save a few quid using Online Vets vs one of the others is probably not the point.
The really big savings for pet owners will surely come when bricks and mortar veterinary practices, IVC included, offer online consultations between clients and their normal vet, who can already prescribe medications remotely if the animal has been seen recently enough. That'll save me a lot more than £20 a visit.
In the meantime, if I was using one of these services to consult about my dog (and I might), the bigger deal for me would be to have the reassurance of knowing the advice was backed by a bricks and mortar practice, which is why I find it curious that the only mention of IVC (and all its resources) on the www.myfamilypet.co.uk website is, er, in the cookie policy.
Kruuse has announced that it has become the exclusive distributor for VideoMed GmbH and its range of veterinary endoscopes and documentation systems.
VideoMed produces a range of equine and small animal endoscopes, gastroscopes and laryngoscopes that multifunction with a flexible documentation console. This provides a mobile capability to file, frame and forward digital and dicom images for review and referral diagnosis.
According to Kruuse, VideoMed products are synonymous with the very highest quality of design, function and reliability that have been developed through years of close working relationship with veterinary professionals. An after care and repair service is also provided by the company for its own and a range of other scopes.
Kruuse says the Overground scope gives a mobile, high resolution, recordable image that clearly determines functional and morphological abnormalities of the larynx, pharynx and upper respiratory system (see image right).
Andrew Groom, Managing Director, Kruuse UK Ltd., said: "This exciting agreement will further enhance our equine and small animal presence within the veterinary industry to bring even more leading edge technology to our customers."
For more information, visit www.kruuse.com and http://www.videomed-gmbh.de/
Picture courtesy of:Neil Townsend MSc BVSc Cert ES (Soft Tissue) DipECVS MRCVSClinician in Equine Soft Tissue SurgeryPhilip Leverhulme Equine Hospital
The company says that so far, it has had no cases of flu reported in horses vaccinated with Equip F or Equip FT in the UK. However, it cautions that in the present flu outbreak it is not clear if any of the current influenza vaccines will provide complete clinical protection against the mutated strain.
In addition, Zoetis highlights that:
Equip F and Equip FT are both indicated for reduction in clinical signs caused by Equine Influenza, including Florida Clade 1 strains.
Cross protection has been demonstrated by virulent challenge for representative strains of Florida Clade 1 (Paillot et al 20081, Bryant et al 20102) and Clade 2 (Paillot et al 20153).
Vaccination with Equip F stimulated a flu specific cell-mediated immune response to a Clade 1 strain which was detectable for up to one year after the third vaccination in primary course (Paillot et al 20153).
Zoetis says it is confident that the Equip range continues to be effective against its licensed indications.
If you have further questions about the vaccines, ring 0845 300 8034 and choose option 1 to speak to Zoetis' technical team.
References
The response offers further evidence concerning the CMA’s potential concerns, and says that voluntary measures relating to transparency of fees and ownership could be introduced before the conclusion of a market investigation.
The BVA has formed a working group to develop guidance on transparency, client choice and the value of veterinary care to support companion animal practices.
British Veterinary Association President Anna Judson, said: “We’re keen to see healthy competition and consumer choice and we recognise that some of the areas identified by the CMA would benefit from further scrutiny.
"We are already taking steps to support vet practices by developing guidance for the profession in relation to transparency of fees, transparency of ownership, prescribing and dispensing of veterinary medicines, and contextualised care.
“However, we are extremely disappointed to see the suggestion in the CMA’s report, as well as in subsequent media reporting, that veterinary professionals might prey on owners’ desire to do the best for their pets by using these circumstances as a “strategy” to promote more sophisticated or expensive treatment.
"Vets enter this high-pressure profession out of genuine care for animals and will always prioritise their health and welfare."
“We also have significant concerns about the suggestion that practices might be mandated to provide information to clients about quality or outcome-related measures.
"We do not see primary concerns about the quality of veterinary treatment and we believe such a requirement would not meaningfully support consumer choice.
"Instead, it would be extremely challenging to deliver and could significantly exacerbate many of the complex issues faced by our members, who are already under significant pressure.
There will be a panel discussion about the CMA investigation at BVA Live this year.
https://bvalive.vetshow.com
COMMENT
There are lots of good points made in this latest response to the CMA, if no more than a nod to the real issue here: which is the often eye-watering cost of modern veterinary care.
But it is hugely disappointing to see the BVA (and others) berating the CMA and the media for suggesting that vets might prey on owners' desire to do the best for their pet, rather than asking WHY people think that, and how can the profession regain trust.
That, surely, is the starting point here: for the profession to stop feeling sorry for itself, and instead think how it can change to meet the needs of its customers and dispel their perception of being taken for a ride.
The CMA investigation is a bit of a red herring: the price of veterinary care is not going to be significantly changed by displaying the prices for a few standard procedures on practice websites, with greater transparency over practice ownership or with slightly cheaper prescriptions, all of which is just tinkering.
The biggest influence on the size of the client's bill is not marketplace competition, it's the vet's recommendation.
Paul Manktelow, Chief Vet at the Blue Cross has already hit the nail square on the head when he called on the profession to practise pragmatic medicine.
The BVA now alludes to this with talk in its response of 'contextualised care' - a concept which allows practitioners to offer pragmatic medicine (aka what people can afford, rather than 'gold standard'), without the judgement that it is inherently associated with.
The benefits of 'contextualised care' are well explained by Ruth Serlin at VDS Training here.
That's great, but will it be enough?
Perhaps not, because whilst someone might be happy to walk out of the car showroom with a Dacia Sandero knowing they cannot afford a Bentley, they may be less happy to accept the Dacia level of care for their beloved pet, when they watched 'Supervet' only the night before.
If that's true, then pragmatic medicine will have to be combined with all sorts of other measures, such as reviewing and reducing the cost of regulation, questioning the value of diagnostics and changing to a less 'referall' (sic) culture.
The new division has been granted a ManSA license by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).
Glesni Owen, Head of Veterinary Sales, said: “Veterinary professionals across the world increasingly prescribing CBD products to their patients for a variety of health conditions including osteoarthritis, epilepsy, pain management and a variety of other behavioural issues.
“Research into the use of CBD is advancing daily which provides veterinary professionals with an increased knowledge base to help clients make informed decisions about treating their pets.”
Pets Choice have been working closely with veterinary professionals in the United States where CBD therapy is far more widely prescribed, collating and sharing the latest supporting evidence and guidance for vets here in the UK to feel comfortable discussing it with their clients.
Glesni said: “We have developed a CPD-accredited educational webinar and also recorded a podcast with the Vet Times, interviewing highly-respected US-based veterinarian Jeffrey Powers, who has extensive experience prescribing CBD to his patients.”
https://petschoice-2.wistia.com/medias/cn1g7dr2rc
For further information, contact specials@petschoice.co.uk or 01934 831000.
The VetSurgeon Expert Forums were originally designed to overcome the weaknesses inherent in other social media platforms like Facebook, such as the lack of accountability, transparency and provenance for the clinical information and opinions being shared.
However it is hoped that the new resource will prove to be especially helpful to general practitioners who find themselves working in isolation because of the coronavirus pandemic.
For them, advice from some of the leading experts in the country could prove a real lifeline.
To use the new Expert Help forums, login and visit VetSurgeon.org/experts (under ‘Forums’ in the main navigation). Alternatively, navigate to the relevant area under ‘Interests’ and go from there.
Type your question in brief, then add any further detail in the box beneath.
Your question is then emailed to a number of experts in the relevant field, who’ll reply when they are able.
All questions are added to a knowledgebank which other members of the profession can read and refer to, but only you, the question author and the experts can reply.
This means you can be assured of a friendly, helpful and knowledgeable reply and it won’t get drowned in a sea of ‘me too’ posts.
Importantly, you can see the provenance for all advice given in the Expert Forums: click the name of the expert to read their full professional profile and qualifications.
There’s also a red ‘Claim CPD’ button at the top of the thread. Use that to claim your question as CPD, or just to keep a record of your questions and the answers (which you can later review in your profile).
Once you have had your answer(s), you must click ‘Verify Answer’ under any that you feel have answered your question. This adds the referral practitioner’s logo and gives them points on a leaderboard of most active and helpful experts. So it’s a nice way to say 'thank you' for their time and effort.
The expert forums are being rolled out, discipline by discipline, over the coming weeks.
Anaesthesia and Pain Management is now live, with experts like Jo Murrell from Highcroft Referrals, Dan Holden from County Vet Clinic, Gwen Covey-Crump, and Carl Bradbrook from Anderson Moores answering questions.
In Cardiology, we have the ever-helpful Dave Dickson from HeartVets and Roger Wilkinson joined by Chris Linney from Willows, Mike Holgate, Mark Patteson from HeartVets, and Nuala Summerfield from Virtual Veterinary Specialists.
In Dentistry, we have Peter Southerden from Eastcott, Norman Johnston from DentalVets, Evelyn Barbour-Hill, Bob Partridge from VetDentist and Rob Davis from Moreton Hall all there to lend a hand.
You'd be hard-pushed to find a more helpful, friendly or more knowledgable bunch of people, so do make the most of this new resource. Remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question, and posting it here adds it to a knowledgebank for everyone else and allows both you and the expert to claim CPD time.
Post your question here!
If you are an expert in one of the veterinary disciplines on VetSurgeon and would like to contribute to an expert forum, please first watch this explanatory video for referral practitioners and then contact: support@vetsurgeon.org.
Virbac says that this means that irrespective of previous vaccination history, only a single injection of the vaccine given 12-3 weeks prior to calving is required to boost cow serum and therefore colostrum antibody levels against rotavirus, coronavirus and E. coli (K99) - the major and most common viral and bacterial causes of diarrhoea in dairy and beef calves.
Dr. Rosie Reyneke, Farm Animal Technical Product Manager at Virbac said: "Bovigen Scour is the most recent single shot scour vaccine on the market, and now with the ease of use afforded by the new 1-shot protocol, will allow our customers to engage more deeply with farmers to develop the use of vaccination as a preventative means to improve the welfare of the UK’s dairy and beef calves."
Virbac says it has worked closely with the UK veterinary profession to ensure that the product performs well under UK conditions. Rosie added: "2018 marks 50 years of Virbac working in partnership with the veterinary profession around the world, and in following our traditions, we have engaged a number of prominent dairy and beef veterinary practices to test this, from John O’Groats in the north to Land’s End in the south. We wanted to be absolutely sure our vaccine meets the highest possible expectations of beef and dairy farmers across the UK”.
Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her.
The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.
Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.
However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.
Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.
“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.
“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.
“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”
She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”
Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Canadian company highlights research which showed that the biggest challenge UK veterinary clinics face is the volume of pets (57%), followed by being overbooked (50%) and unable to take on new patients1.
In addition, earlier research has shown that 37%2 of vets are “actively” thinking about quitting, with 80%3 of the UK profession leaving to get a better work-life balance.
Hence the company offers a service through which UK practices can divert non-urgent calls to Vetster, to relieve some of the pressure.
Vetster says the most common cases treated by its veterinary surgeons are dermatology, gastrointestinal, respiratory, urinary tract, ophthalmology and musculoskeletal issues.
By diverting these cases to UK-licensed vets online, Vetster says it aims to relieve the pressure on clinics so that they can better serve pets in need of surgery, immunisations, bloodwork and other clinical treatments.
Mark Bordo, CEO and coFounder of Vetster said: “We are experiencing a global crisis in pet care exacerbated by the pandemic.
“Veterinarians are facing tremendous pressure to provide services to millions of pet owners.
"Vetster’s virtual care platform connects pet owners with licensed UK veterinarians to provide support when their clinic is closed, to answer a non-urgent question, and to improve the health outcomes of their pet and help ensure owners can care for their animals.”
Veterinary surgeons in search of a better work life balance can also join Vetster to create a virtual care practice that provides teletriage and addresses non-urgent issues.
Mark added: “Veterinarians are able to incorporate a new modality of practice to improve their work-life-balance, serve pet owners outside of a clinic environment, and hopefully practice for longer avoiding burnout and stress associated with this much-needed profession.”
Vetster is not available as a white label service at this time, and VetSurgeon.org understands that when it is clear an online consultation requires hands-on care, the owner is referred to the local practice on the platform, which may or may not be their normal practice.
Vets interested in offering consultations through Vetster can visit: https://vetster.com/en-gb/for-vets
Veterinary practices that are interested in having Vetster provide OOH support to clients, can visit: https://vetster.com/en-ca/for-vet-clinics
The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.
On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.
Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.
Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.
In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."
The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.