The ten-programme series stars Cat Henstridge MRCVS, a Midlands-based locum, Cheryl Lucas MRCVS, a Vets4Pets JVP from Essex, Bristol-based James Greenwood MRCVS and Rory Cowlam MRCVS from London.
The documentary follows a wide selection of patients and conditions, from routine stuff like lump removal from a dog and dental work on a cat, through to more obscure things like an obstructed python and surgery on a goldfish.
Cat said: "I am hoping the profession will like it. It definitely features the realistic side of the job!"
To watch the show on iPlayer, visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/shows/the-pets-factor
Harrison Family Vets opened its first practice earlier this month in Woodley, Reading, in a £350,000 investment that created eight jobs.
The plan is for the next practice to open later this summer in the Midlands, before the group expands north towards the end of the year. The group is now searching for further properties across the north and south of England, with plans to open 75 practices by the end of the decade.
Tim joined his dad's practice in 1995 as General Manager. He later co-founded Vets4Pets in 2001 before joining Mars Inc. to head the overseas growth of Banfield, then the world’s largest veterinary practice. He then rejoined the family business to grow it further, until it was acquired by IVC Evidensia in 2018.
Alongside Tim is operations director, Kristie Faulkner who also worked at White Cross Vets until it was acquired by IVC, whereupon she became regional operations manager, overseeing more than 200 of the IVC's practices across the South East of England.
Between 2012 and 2018, White Cross Vets was repeatedly named as one of the UK’s best employers and a truly extraordinary place to work. The company secured a place in the prestigious ‘Top 100 Sunday Times Best Small Companies to Work For’ league table for seven consecutive years, as well as being the inaugural SPVS Wellbeing Award Winners.
Tim said: “The whole ethos at Harrison Family Vets is about fostering a culture within our team that sets us apart and differentiates our practice from all others. Every individual’s strengths and personality traits will contribute to what we do, in a family-orientated environment. Our culture is about looking after people. Focus on attracting the very best people and then look after them as much as possible. A successful practice with a fabulous reputation amongst the profession and amongst clients is what automatically follows.
“Our state-of-the-art clinics boast extensive facilities including on-site laboratories, full x-ray suites, operating theatres, ultrasonography and separate dog and cat wards that have been carefully designed with mood lighting, aromas and music to offer a calming atmosphere.
We’ve also worked hard to create a customer experience that’s more akin to an Apple store, than a traditional veterinary practice. We don’t have a reception desk and instead, our front of house team have the autonomy to freely interact with our clients and their pets.
Our waiting areas feature bespoke pods, which give clients their own space and offer pets privacy, thus shielding them from the stresses of facing other pets in a traditional waiting room. Each pod also has its own tablet where clients can update their details, sign up to our Total Wellness Plan or even order fresh and healthy dog food from Butternut Box.
“Everyone wants to know why we want to start another veterinary group now. For Kristie and I the timing is perfect as there is a clear void to fill. The people-focused independent practice is becoming a thing of the past and is what the profession is yearning for. This will attract the very best team members which in turn will provide a superior client and pet experience.
"Creating a successful business and building a fantastic team is incredibly exciting and we genuinely believe Harrison Family Vets can become the most innovative, forward-looking and caring practice, as well as the employer of choice for vets and nurses, in the UK.”
VetSurgeon.org wishes Tim and Kristie all the very best luck in the world with their new venture, although one suspects that they won't need to rely on luck. White Cross under his direction was consistently doing extraordinary things to foster what seemed to be a remarkably good working environment. If they can come close to repeating the formula, or improving on it, they must be on to a winner.
The main change to the guidance was from:
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care should have a 24/7 facility to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
to
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care must be able, on a 24/7 basis, to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, equines, farmed aquatic animals and game.
Where a veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service, they must make arrangements for another veterinary service provider to do so on their behalf, details of which must be provided to the client in writing in advance of providing veterinary services.
The new guidance elaborates on the details which must be given to clients:
Veterinary surgeons should provide clients with full details of this arrangement, including relevant telephone numbers, location details, when the service is available and the nature of service provided.
The amended guidelines maintain that the prescription of antimicrobials and controlled drugs requires a physical examination in all but exceptional circumstances, but clarify that for antimicrobials, this applies to all except production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
The guidance for limited service providers, such as vaccination and neutering clinics, has been amended with the requirement that if they engage the services of another provider to provide 24-hour emergency cover, this arrangement must be confirmed in writing with the client before veterinary services are offered.
Council voted unanimously for a review of the guidance to be conducted 12 months from the implementation date, with the caveat that the Standards Committee would continue to monitor any impacts on an ongoing basis.
The full details of the amendments can be found in the papers for the March 2023 RCVS Council meeting at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/
Linda Belton MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, said: “I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals within the professions who helped provide the crucial content and context for the case study scenarios, as well as feedback to make sure they were realistic and applicable in practice.
"Thank you also to all those who have fed into the further improvements that have been made to the guidance and I would like to reassure those with concerns that the guidance is robust, we have considered how it will be enforced and we will continue to review the guidance.”
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, added: “Ahead of it coming into force, we will also be publishing resources about the guidance, including the case studies that we are currently finalising, and some FAQs.
"We hope these will help to further explain the context behind the guidance changes, and help to counter any misunderstanding about the impact of the guidance and what it will actually mean for practising professionals on a day-to-day basis.”
For further information about the guidance and the consultation process that led to its development visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
The Veterinary Record has published new research which shows that one in seven vets is likely to be burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.
The study was conducted by a team of Dutch researchers led by Nicole Mastenbroek (pictured right) from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Utrecht University.
They noted that veterinary surgeons' psychological wellbeing has been the subject of several studies in different countries in recent years, with some evidence suggesting that male vets are less prone to distress, anxiety, and depression. They wanted to gauge the level of burn-out and engagement with work among vets that had graduated within the past decade, and to assess whether gender or years since graduation are influential factors.
The researchers say they based their approach on the job demands-resources (JD-R) questionnaire, which balances out negative (burn-out) and positive (engagement) aspects of wellbeing associated with work. However, they tailored it specifically for veterinary surgeons, on the grounds that every profession has unique risk factors for burn-out.
The questionnaire was emailed to 1,790 vets who had qualified in The Netherlands between 1999 and 2009, with the final analysis based on the responses of 860, almost three quarters (73%) of whom were women.
Levels of exhaustion and cynicism - both of which are associated with burn-out - were significantly lower than those in a random sample of the Dutch working population. But so too was the level of work engagement.
The responses showed that one in seven respondents (14%) was burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.
The researchers say that if the criteria for burn-out that are normally used for the Dutch workforce are applied, then the responses would indicate that 27% of the survey respondents were burnt-out.
Women also seemed to reach burn-out faster. Almost one in five (18%) of the female respondents was burnt-out within five years of graduating.
Male vets tended to be less exhausted and more engaged with work than their female peers. Job demands associated with exhaustion were work/home life balance and workload, while job resources linked to engagement included opportunities for professional development and "skills discretion" - the ability to use and develop skills on the job.
Researchers says that behavioural traits explained more of the variance in levels of work engagement between male and female vets than in levels of exhaustion.
Self-belief in one's abilities (self-efficacy) and a proactive stance are linked to work engagement in the JD-R approach. But women vets rated themselves as less effective, optimistic, proactive and assertive than did their male peers.
British Veterinary Association President Robin Hargreaves said: "These findings are worrying but sadly not surprising. We know that a burn out and other manifestations of poor mental wellbeing in veterinary professionals of both sexes are a well-recognised problem in the UK and they are a constant concern to BVA.
"The suggestion of an increased susceptibility to burn out amongst female vets adds to that concern with the increasing proportion of women in the profession."
The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.
In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.
In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:
Chapter 8 (para 8.9)
There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.
In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found.
Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)
Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.
The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.
The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines.
BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”
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.
Leading equine veterinary surgeon Ian Wright has been setting a legal precedent this week, as the Court of Appeal ruled that his ex-wife could not expect him to continue to fund her lifestyle and that she should earn her own living.
Ian, an RCVS Specialist in Equine Surgery and a partner at the Newmarket Equine Hospital, divorced his wife Tracey in 2008 after 11 years of marriage. As part of the settlement, Mrs Wright was given a £450,000 house and Mr Wright was ordered to pay £75,000 per annum, which included £33,200 spousal maintenance.
Last year, Mr Wright, 59, went to the High Court to ask for a reduction in maintenance, arguing that it was unfair to expect him to continue to fund his ex-wife indefinitely, even after he retired at 65, when she made no effort to find a job and support herself.
The case was heard by Judge Lynn Roberts, who agreed there was no reason why Mrs Wright had not worked in the six years since her divorce and said she had been: "evasive on the subject of her own earning capacity".
Mrs Wright challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal this week, where Lord Justice Pitchford rejected her fight to have her future maintenance reinstated, saying: "There is a general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part time work and make a financial contribution" and: "The time had come to recognize that, at the time of his retirement, the husband should not be paying spousal maintenance".
Speaking to The Times, Mei-Ling McNab, a partner at Brachers law, said: "This landmark decision provides some much needed clarity and will be a game-changer for future big-ticket divorce cases. The ruling confirms that mothers with children aged over seven should have financial responsibility to support themselves."
Instead, eligible clients are being invited to join PDSA Pet Care, a new scheme costing £4.50 per month which entitles them to veterinary consultation, one primary vaccination course or booster each year (including a health check), a 20% discount on qualifying treatments in private practice, access to a nurse-led 24/7 triage service and preferential rates on PDSA pet insurance.
The PDSA says that pet owners and practices registered to the current Pet Practice service have been informed directly about the changes, which are being introduced over the next 12 months, as the current service is gradually phased out.
PDSA Director of Veterinary Services, Richard Hooker, said: "Following the review it was clear that the PDSA Pet Practice model was no longer financially sustainable for the charity in its existing form. However, it was important to many practices and PDSA to identify how we can best continue to offer some help to pet owners who live outside the catchment area of our Pet Hospital network and who have a need for affordable veterinary care and advice.
"We are grateful to all those in the profession who contributed to the development of the new scheme. It provides a more sustainable way in which to support households on low incomes across the UK. We are hopeful that practices will look to work with us to support pets and owners in their local communities by participating in the replacement scheme.
"We are mindful that any changes to our service can have an impact on some pet owners and our colleagues in the profession. This is why we have consulted on these moves and put measures in place to support those most affected."
Clients currently using the Pet Practice service who have a pet with a lifelong chronic condition will continue to receive some financial support towards the cost of their pet’s ongoing care and treatment via the PDSA Chronic Voucher scheme, which offers £25 per month towards the ongoing care of their pet for its lifetime.
The charity says it is also looking at a number of specific locations, where existing clients and their pets could supported by its Pet Hospital network when the current Pet Practice service closes.
Richard Hooker added: "The changes to the Pet Practice service are part of a much wider review of PDSA charitable services carried out this year. We have also made changes to our Pet Hospital service: reducing the number of eligible pets that owners can register for free treatment, from three to one, and withdrawing our Pet Treatment Fund.
"These important steps ensure that our available funds are targeted as effectively as possible, achieving our charitable aims of preventing illness, educating pet owners and treating sick animals.
"As a charity we receive no Government funding and rely on the generosity of our supporters and clients to run our services, which cost more than £60 million each year to fund."
A vet from Texas hit the headlines this weekend after allegedly killing a feral cat with a bow and arrow and then posting photographs and bragging about it on Facebook.
According to various news reports, Kristen Lindsey DVM's post quickly went viral, and one of two Facebook pages set up in response - Justice for Cat Murdered By Kristen Lindsey - has already attracted over 35,000 likes. There are also petitions to revoke her license on thepetitionsite.com and change.org which have each gathered around 18,000 signatures thus far.
Sky News reports that Ms Lindsey was quickly fired by her employer, the Washington Animal Clinic, which issued a statement on Facebook.
The veterinary clinic's website and Facebook page are both currently unavailable.
The effect of changing diet on gastric ulceration in exercising horses and ponies following cessation of omeprazole treatment was conducted by Nanna Luthersson (Hestedoktoren, a private practice in Denmark) and Coby Bolger (Horse1 Spain), with colleagues from the University of Madrid and Glasgow, in collaboration with Spillers and the Waltham Equine Studies Group.
The study evaluated the effect of dietary change in combination with omeprazole treatment and after the cessation of treatment.
The 32 horses in this part of the trial had been diagnosed with significant equine squamous gastric disease (ESGD) and were in hard work.
On a random basis one of each pair was assigned to a specified low starch, fibre-based diet consisting of their own forage alongside a restricted starch, high fibre, high energy cube (Spillers HDF Power Cubes, which are commonly used in racing yards) and a high oil, low starch, chopped alfalfa based feed (Winergy Equilibrium Growth) and the other stayed on their original diet. All animals were scoped before, after the recommended course of omeprazole treatment and then six weeks after the omeprazole finished.
The horses in the no diet change group improved significantly with the omeprazole but when the treatment was stopped many regressed. Overall, by the end of the trial they were not significantly different to when they had started.
However, the horses in the dietary change group overall showed significantly improved ESGD scores, not only following the omeprazole treatment but also after the treatment had stopped. This showed that a change in diet was able to help maintain the beneficial effect of omeprazole even after the omeprazole was removed.
The study achieved an award in 2016 for research in horse welfare from the Fundación para la Promoción del Deporte Ecuestre, Spain.
Clare Barfoot RNutr, the research and development manager at Spillers, said: "This exciting work confirms what we suspected; that whilst appropriate dietary change can provide additional support to medical treatment for EGUS most importantly it can help maintain better gastric health post medical treatment."
Last year the British Equestrian Trade Association, in consultation with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, introduced a new feed approval mark to help owners identify feeds suitable for horses and ponies prone to equine gastric ulcer syndrome (EGUS).
Currently six feeds in the UK carry the BETA Equine Gastric Ulceration Syndrome (EGUS) Certification Mark including Winergy Equilibrium Growth and Spillers Alfalfa Pro Fibre.
The Disciplinary Committee considered four charges against Dr Strokowska. The first was that, whilst registered in the 'Practising Outside the United Kingdom' category of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons maintained by the RCVS, she practised as a veterinary surgeon in the counties of Somerset, Shropshire, London, Lancashire and Norfolk between July 2016 and August 2017 when she was not registered as UK-practising. The charges were that her conduct in relation to this was dishonest and misleading to her employer and/or clients.
The second charge was that, between October 2016 and July 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs of and comments about animals being treated at the practices where she worked, without the consent of the owners or the practices.
The third charge was that, between January 2017 and March 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs, videos and comments about animals being treated at Goddards Veterinary Hospital in Wanstead, without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon.
The fourth charge was that, between July 2017 and September 2017, Dr Strokowska made representations to the practice principal of Barn Lodge, in Lancashire, and/or a student vet working at the practice that she had gained consent for photographs and social media posts when she had not, and that her conduct was dishonest and misleading.
At the outset of the hearing, the Dr Strokowska admitted to having practised as a veterinary surgeon in the UK when she was registered as practising outside the UK, but disputed that she had been dishonest or misleading with regards to this.
She also admitted to the entirety of the second charge and part of the third, but, under the latter charge, denied that she had, without consent, taken a video of an animal being operated on by a veterinary colleague.
Finally, she admitted to dishonest and misleading conduct with regard to part of the fourth charge, but denied that, in July 2017, she informed the practice principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs at Barn Lodge and post these on social media, when she had not been so told.
The Disciplinary Committee went on to consider the facts of the case for each of the charges that remained in issue.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee accepted that she did not have her registration status with the RCVS in her mind while she was working in the UK during the period in question. Accordingly, the Committee did not find her to have been dishonest.
With regards to the third charge the Committee considered the issue of whether the video in question had been posted "without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon". After examining the relevant evidence (which included the video in question) the Committee determined that the evidence did not support the facts charged and thus that charge three was not proved.
With regards to the fourth charge, Strokowska denied that her conduct in relation to informing the principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs and post these on social media was dishonest or misleading, on the basis that she believed she had permission to take and post photographs on social media. The Committee was not able to be sure as to how she sought this consent and the response provided and so the charge was found not proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that it was the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that her registration status was appropriate at the time she was doing locum work in the UK. However she had provided her RCVS registration number to all the practises she had worked for and in the view of the committee there was no intention to deceive anyone. In the judgement of the Committee, her conduct was not sufficiently grave so as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
The Committee, in its judgement, concluded that her conduct in relation to the second charge did fall far short of the behaviour to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that all members of the profession are obliged to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct, and the supporting guidance, in relation to the use of the internet and social media.
Unauthorised posting of photographs of animals being treated by a veterinary surgeon on social media may well cause distress to the owners, and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole, and to the reputation of individual practices.
The aspect of the third charge admitted by the respondent involved posting a photograph with accompanying text of a dog without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered that this was, indeed, a matter of professional discourtesy, but did not consider that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The respondent admitted the fourth charge and admitted that her conduct was dishonest and misleading. The Committee, in its judgement, considered that by choosing to lie in response to a genuine professional enquiry about her conduct, her behaviour fell far short of that to be expected from a member of the veterinary profession, and constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose.
In mitigation the Committee considered that the postings were an attempt to promote the health and welfare of animals; the lack of risk of harm or actual harm to an animal or human; no apparent financial gain from her actions; her youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct; her open and frank admissions at an early stage; her subsequent efforts to avoid repetition; the lapse of time since the incident; and her demonstration of insight into the effects of her postings on some owners.
The Committee considered the available sanctions in order starting with no further action. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate where the serious professional misconduct found in this case involved dishonesty, even given the mitigating factors relating to that as outlined above, nor in view of the repeated nature of the social media posts without owner consent.
The Committee determined that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.
Dr Strokowska was reprimanded for her serious professional misconduct in relation to her admitted failure to obtain necessary consent for posts on social media and her dishonesty in communication.
She was warned that she should in future be fully aware of, and comply with, the provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, in particular as it relates to the use of social media, including the need to ensure that she has obtained all the necessary consents from all relevant parties.
ITV's Tonight programme broadcast last night portrayed a veterinary profession in which overcharging is commonplace.
Researchers for the programme took three healthy animals (a cat, a dog and a rabbit) to a number of different vets, telling them that the animals were off their food. The advice they were given varied. In the case of the rabbit from no treatment necessary, to dental work under general anaesthetic.
TV vet Marc Abraham then looked at each animal and told viewers that the correct advice in each case would have been the least expensive.
The programme also highlighted the substantial savings that pet owners can make by buying drugs online, and questioned whether the penalty meted out to a vet that had committed malpractice was sufficient (the vet had been struck off for 14 months, where presenter Jonathan Maitland argued it should have been for life).
Veterinary business consultant Mark Moran said: "So often, vets rely to a large degree on what owners are telling them, and the degree to which they insist the animal is ill, or off its food, will affect the advice and treatment given. Marc Abraham had the luxury of being presented three animals that he knew to be perfectly fit and well."
However he agreed wholeheartedly with the response from RCVS President Jill Nute this morning, that the thing both vets and pet owners need to learn from the programme is "the importance of communicating with each other".
Mark said: "It's a question of managing people's expectations. There'll always be a variance in the advice being given, but being up-front and open will help mitigate the risk of being accused of overcharging".
Click here to watch the programme. Click here to read the reactions to Marc Abrahams' blog
The patient-side test identifies urinary tract infection (UTI) and the best antibiotics to treat the condition, with the results produced in minutes.
Test and Treat says the new test means that vets will no longer have to treat empirically while a urine sample is sent to an external laboratory. Nor will you have to risk delaying treatment until the results are received.
In addition, the company says that the test will help support the responsible use of antibiotics, which is particularly important given that Enterococci strains identified in canine urinary infections have been found to be resistant to three or more antimicrobials1.
U-treat is a two-part test. The first part of the test detects the presence of a urinary infection. The second part of the test looks at antibiotic susceptibility, showing the best choice of antibiotic and identifying those that won't work due to antimicrobial resistance.
Using the principles of bioluminescence, U-Treat removes host cell ATP before lysing bacterial cell walls to release bacterial ATP, which is then detected using a luminometer. The initial detection of infection test takes five minutes and the susceptibility test takes 30 minutes.
Clinical evaluation of the test in cats and dogs was carried out at University of Tennessee in conjunction with Prof. David Bemis of Cornell University. The company says U-Treat demonstrated high levels of sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (92%), compared to lab tests.
The test is currently validated for use in dogs and cats and is being investigated for use in horses. While the test will launch first in the veterinary world, it also has scope to cross over into human medicine where there is potential to use it in general practice, paediatric and geriatric care.
Ron Turner, CEO and Scientific Director of Test and Treat said: "We've already sent our first orders to the US and have being talking at veterinary conferences about the technology - so we know vets are keen to get access to this new diagnostic test. Fast, reliable and accurate results mean that it's easier to put together a rational treatment plan that they can be very confident will work because they have the evidence."
Test and Treat is based near Newmarket in Suffolk and orders for the test are now being taken from veterinary practices in the UK. Full training will be given and the desk-top equipment (incubator, luminometer and reader) required to run the test can be supplied.
The company, which has attracted government enterprise funding, is also interested in hearing from veterinary surgeons who might be interested in investing in the technology and helping to expand its use.
To place an order, contact James Turner, General Manager on 01638 501974, email: jamest@tandtreat.com or visit http://www.tandtreat.com.
Reference
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.
Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ...
I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog
Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as wellOn the Destiny of Species, p.17
...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.On the Destiny of Species, p.18
I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.On the Destiny of Species, p.112
On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.
So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?
Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.
Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.
But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.
First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:
Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons
The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.
The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:
.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals
Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:
My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles
Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:
peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....
All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:
I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching
The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:
'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119
Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?
Yes. They are.
Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.
Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:
Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.
If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:
'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376
OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.
I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.
Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:
2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.
Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:
If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.
Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.
Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died". It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is
.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears
In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.
There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.
I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.
One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.
To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:
.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]
The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.
To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:
http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/
Eurovet has launched Comfortan, the first EU-authorised methadone in the UK, available as an injectable solution for use in dogs.
Eurovet says that whilst methadone may seem an unfamiliar analgesic choice for some vets in practice, that is about to change very quickly.
Ruth Vernon Technical Services Manager at Eurovet says that prior to the launch of Comfortan, reports show that usage of methadone to manage pain in animals is much higher than previously thought: "We have become aware that many practices are using methadone routinely for orthopaedic procedures and that several specialists use it in preference to any other analgesic where rapid onset of action and profound analgesia is important. This opioid provides vets with an animal analgesic with very rapid onset of action: exerting an effect in just 10 minutes of intravenous administration and 15 minutes of intramuscular administration. Comfortan is licensed both as an analgesic and as a premed in combination with a neuroleptic drug. As a full opioid agonist, Comfortan results in very effective pain relief, particularly when used for moderate to severe pain. Comfortan provides pain relief for approximately four hours and can be re-dosed to achieve the desired level and duration of pain relief."Ruth is anticipating high demand for Comfortan from launch: "Comfortan enables many more patients to be given methadone immediately to control their acute pain without their vets having to go through lengthy protocols involved in using products off-licence, so we think that more vets are about to become convinced of the benefits. Comfortan is licensed for veterinary use and it offers the convenience of a 10 ml vial with a shelf life of 28 days. Those who have not used methadone before, or indeed anyone with a query about storage or monitoring, can source all the information and advice they need by contacting us at Eurovet Animal Health."
For further information contact Eurovet Animal Health on 01223 257933, e-mail: office@eurovet-ah.co.uk, or visit: http://www.eurovet-ah.co.uk/
The group reports that over 150 veterinary professionals have registered on its website and pledged their support.
The campaigners say they've been astonished with the response and believe the dozens of practices that have received legal letters and signed up so far could just be the tip of the iceberg.
Since the story first came to light, VetSurgeon.org understands IVC has sent follow-up letters to a number of practices saying it has decided to offer a stay of execution and extend the deadline to comply until the 31st December 2025, before it considers taking further legal action.
However, the campaigners estimate that to rebrand so many ‘Pet Health Clubs’ will cost £250,000 and £350,000 in total, so they have now appointed an intellectual property lawyer to provide specialist advice on whether such a common term can be protected with a word mark.
Alex Green of Broadway Vets said: “Initially we set up We Are Spartacus to bring all the affected practices together to support each other, and while we’ve done this, we’ve also brought the wider veterinary community together who want to stand up to IVC Evidensia and the ridiculous word mark.
“Lots of practices have had a ‘Pet Health Club’ for more than 10 years and the majority of those that have come forward were using the term long before IVC registered its word mark in 2019, so it’s clearly an issue that people feel very passionate about, especially when it’s likely to cost each practice a significant amount of money and time to rebrand.
“We’ve been overwhelmed by the number of people who have registered to support us, especially those that aren’t affected but who want to stand shoulder to shoulder with us against such an unnecessary and underhand way of doing business.
"However, there are still several practices that are affected that we haven’t heard from, and we’d urge them to come and join us now.
“We’re also keen to hear from those that received initial letters and haven’t yet had a follow-up offering a stay of execution until the end of the year.
"Whilst we’re delighted that IVC has extended their deadline, it does not resolve the fact that their threats are unacceptable when every practice in the country provides animal, or ‘pet’, healthcare, or ‘health’, in a community-based service, or ‘club’.
“They don’t need to fight or worry about this on their own and we’re stronger as a collective, especially when it comes to pooling resources and expertise.
"We’ve already appointed a specialist IP lawyer to advise us, and the view is that given the extensive prior use of ‘Pet Health Club,’ it would be crazy to allow this to escalate to court when it can be amicably resolved.
“It’s also come to light that IVC has even registered ‘It’s not what we do, it’s why we do it’ which does rather sum it all up.
Spartacus just wants to know why IVC is doing what it’s doing.”
www.wearespartacus.co.uk
The company says that Prid Delta with grip tail retains the unique properties of Prid Delta, but now comes with a new and easy-to-use grip tail which makes it easier to extract from the cow.
In addition, research and development has enabled Ceva to produce a smaller applicator with a bevelled tip, making it more suitable for use in heifers. Lastly, Ceva says the applicator is more robust, leading to a reliable application and a better user experience.
Carol Atkinson from Ceva said: "Prid Delta with grip tail combines the well-liked features that already existed in Prid, higher progesterone release and the comfort that comes from the triangular shape, with a new and improved tail for easy removal of the product."
According to the company, Prid Delta with grip tail contains 12% more progesterone than a T-shaped device and its larger surface area (29% greater) results in higher progesterone levels in the cow.
Prid Delta with grip tail will be available in wholesalers from 1st August 2017.
In addition, there will be a webinar: Reproductive Management Strategies for High-Producing Dairy Herds, presented by Dr Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D. Professor of Dairy Science and Extension Specialist in Dairy Cattle Reproduction Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin on 27th July at 1:00pm. The webinar, which is being hosted by www.thewebinarvet.com, will cover resynchronisation strategies and synchronisation strategies in heifers.
Ceva is also launching a new app to help veterinary surgeons and farmers improve farm performance and sustainability through better fertility management.
The app will be made available to Prid users only. Further information is available from your Ceva territory manager. If you are a Prid user and would like access to the new app you can also email Ceva: reprodaction-group@ceva.com.
Mrs Mullen faced four charges against her.
The first was that she failed to provide information to her clients about her practice OOH provision.
She was also charged with discharging a Labrador, called Cleo, that was unfit to be discharged following spay surgery, with an inadequate abdominal dressing and inadequate information given to the dog's owners regarding complications from surgery, the risk of post-operative haemorrhage and arrangements for out-of-hours care, as well as failing to make adequate clinical records.
The third charge alleged that she had failed to obtain informed consent for anaesthesia/ surgery performed on an English Bulldog, called Boycie, from his owners, failed to ensure the dog had adequate monitoring whilst recovering from anaesthesia, failed to offer an adequate range of overnight care for the dog, left the dog alone overnight when it was not in a fit condition to be left, failed to provide information to its owners on post-operative care at home and out-of-hours emergency arrangements, and failed to make adequate clinical records relating to its treatment.
Finally, she was charged with failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) or equivalent arrangements in place or failing to provide details of it, failing to respond to requests regarding her continuing professional development records and failing to respond adequately to reasonable requests from the College for details and documents regarding her treatment of the two dogs.
Mrs Mullen indicated to the RCVS before the hearing that she would not be engaging with the disciplinary process.
The Disciplinary Committee therefore granted the RCVS permission to proceed in her absence on the basis that Mrs Mullen had made it clear that her absence from proceedings was deliberate and voluntary, that there was no indication she would attend any future hearing if it was adjourned and that the charges were of sufficient seriousness that it was in the interests of animal welfare to proceed with them.
The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the animals’ owners, an expert veterinary witness and College staff.
In the evidence, the Committee heard that the Labrador had died while undergoing treatment at another veterinary practice from complications arising from blood loss following Mrs Mullen’s surgery.
The Committee also heard that the English Bulldog had suffered brain damage and had lost its sight due to post-operative hypoxia, although it had otherwise recovered.
Having heard all the evidence, the Committee found all the charges against Mrs Mullen proven.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it considered the aggravating factors, including that there was actual injury to animals, that the misconduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, that the conduct directly contravened advice issued by the RCVS, and the blatant disregard of the RCVS’s regulatory role.
It also considered that Mrs Mullen had previously been suspended from the Register by the Disciplinary Committee for two months in April 2017 for failing to have Professional Indemnity Insurance arrangements in place.
It considered that there were no mitigating factors in the case and accordingly found serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
The Committee then considered what the most appropriate sanction would be.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Animal welfare lies at the heart of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] treatment of Cleo and Boycie constitutes a breach of this fundamental tenet of the profession.
"Other serious findings of disgraceful conduct against [Mrs Mullen] are her failure to provide informed consent, failure to provide details about out-of-hours cover, failure to have in place Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), continuing professional development (CPD), and failure to respond to the College’s request for information.”
The Committee considered that the conduct was so serious that the only means of protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the profession was to direct the Registrar to remove Mrs Mullen’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Judith added: “The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen] has displayed a persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her actions or their consequences.
"The Committee considers that [Mrs Mullen’s] conduct raises serious clinical concerns, shows disregard of obligations in relation to out-of-hours care, indicates deficiencies in making decisions, demonstrates an obstructive attitude to her regulator and creates a potential risk to patients.
"She has not engaged with the regulator, she has not demonstrated insight into her misconduct, has learned nothing from her previous suspension in relation to PII, and has done nothing to remediate her disgraceful conduct.
"There is no evidence that [Mrs Mullen} has complied with any of her obligations in relation to CPD."
“In the view of the Committee, if [Mrs Mullen] were permitted to remain on the Register, there would be a serious risk of harm to animals. She has demonstrated a reckless disregard for the obligations of a registered veterinary surgeon.”
Mrs Mullen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
When the Newmarket-based veterinary and scientific research charity launched the test, it was believed that one in twenty Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen puppies would grow up to be affected by POAG.
Three years later, through responsible breeders using the DNA test, the AHT says there have been NO affected puppies in the UK reported to The Kennel Club.
The AHT says the test results demonstrate how appropriate DNA testing can lead to the immediate disappearance of a recessive disease, improving the health and wellbeing of countless dogs and their families.
One breeder who has seen first-hand the benefits of this DNA test is Viv Phillips, who said: "As the breeder who first announced I had a dog affected by POAG I was delighted to work with the AHT and Prof Peter Bedford for 18 years in the research into this disease. I know how tough it is to not be able to avoid your dog going blind at a relatively young age. When the AHT discovered the DNA mutation in November 2014 which was subsequently launched at Crufts in 2015 it was the most wonderful result.
"I tested the PBGVs I still had, including their older parents, and was able to ascertain that puppies I had bred were either at no risk of going blind or sadly carried the gene and therefore treatment could be started to prolong their eyesight. Since this time I have bred 12 puppies and I am delighted that I know they will not be affected as a result of using the DNA test.
"Worldwide approximately 1800 Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen have been tested, and in the UK no puppies have been recorded as affected in the last three years. It is not a numerically large breed and if we can continue to spread the word worldwide and convince breeders to test their breeding stock, we can - with the help of the AHT - look forward to eliminating this awful disease completely."
Dr Cathryn Mellersh, Head of Canine Genetics at the AHT, said: "Years of work went into developing this DNA test which makes it even more rewarding to see it used so well to stop these lovely dogs from going blind. Glaucoma is a very debilitating and painful disease and some dogs have to their eyes removed as a result.
"We are studying glaucoma, and many other blinding diseases, in lots of dog breeds. These mutations can also affect cross bred as well as purebred dogs, so as the popularity of cross bred dogs continues to rise, DNA health testing is more important than ever to make sure you’re breeding, or buying, puppies that are going to have the very best start in life. Great things can be achieved through genetic research and as humans suffer many of the same diseases as dogs, there is always the possibility that our research is going to help human medicine as well. Unfortunately research is expensive and we always need more funding to be able to continue to maintain and expand our research of inherited diseases, including more complex diseases, such as epilepsy."
According to the authors, Miniature Schnauzers positively shone in their averageness in this study, because they were not commonly affected by any specific breed-related health problems.
In other words, the illnesses suffered by Miniature Schnauzers are just the common or garden things like dental disease, obesity, anal sac impaction, vomiting and ear infection, which can affect all dogs.
The study, which the authors say was the largest ever study of the breed, analysed 3,857 Miniature Schnauzers from a population of over 450,000 dogs across the UK. Its findings were that:
The average lifespan of Miniature Schnauzers was 11.7 years, which is similar to the average of 12.0 years for dogs overall.
The average adult bodyweight of Miniature Schnauzers was 10kg. Males on average were heavier than female breeds (11kg vs 9kg).
The most common disorder affecting the breed was dental disease (affecting 17.4% Miniature Schnauzers). This is similar to that of other similarly-sized breeds such as the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (15.2%) and Border Terrier (17.6%).
Female Miniature Schnauzers are more likely to have dental disease, obesity/overweight and heart murmur. However, males are more prone to diarrhoea and claw injury.
The most common causes of death were neoplasia (14.7%), collapse (13.3%), mass-associated disorder (10.7%) and brain disorder (10.7%).
Dr Dan O’Neill, Senior Lecturer in Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and Vet Compass researcher, said: "To do their best for their dogs, owners need to know what aspects of their dog’s health are the most important to protect. Thankfully, we now have the data to identify these: owners of Miniature Schnauzers and also dogs overall should pay special attention to dental care, weight management, anal sac issues and making sure their dogs eat a healthy diet."
"Based on VetCompass Programme data, the Miniature Schnauzer is currently Britain’s most average dog from the breeds that we have studied to date. Extreme breeds such as flat-faced, long-backed or teacup-sized dogs may currently be in vogue but we need to move away from extremes and towards the healthier middle-ground."
Dr Alex Gough of Independent Vet Care and co-author added: "Although a number of diseases were identified in the current study that affect Miniature Schnauzers, the commons ones did not occur more frequently in this breed than in others studied. Many popular breeds are prone to life-threatening and distressing conditions related to their breeding. Our study suggests that the Miniature Schnauzer should be considered as a relatively healthy breed, which can help owners make a decision when acquiring a new dog."
Bill Lambert, Senior Health and Welfare Manager at the Kennel Club, said: "The Kennel Club currently recognises 221 different breeds and registering these breeds with the Kennel Club provides opportunities for data to be collected so that it can contribute to high quality and large scale research, such as this study by the Royal Veterinary College.
'It is vitally important that this type of research is carried out so that breed specific information is gathered and can be made available to owners to help ensure their dogs are kept as fit and healthy as possible.
'The Miniature Schnauzer is a popular breed in the UK so being the ‘most average dog’ in terms of health, and having no breed specific health problems, is actually a good quality and is very welcome news.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon formerly practising in Southampton for failing to make animal welfare his primary concern.
At a hearing this week, adjourned from September 2010, the Disciplinary Committee heard charges against Michael Albring, formerly of VetCall practice, Bitterne, Southampton. Mr Albring was said to have failed to make a home visit to attend Bear, a Newfoundland dog belonging to Mrs Thacker, when he knew, or ought to have known, that there were clinical or welfare grounds making a home visit necessary.
The hearing was held in Mr Albring's absence; the Committee considered that, having postponed the case last year at his request, Mr Albring had had ample time to prepare his case and submit any mitigations, and sufficient opportunity to attend. Additional adjournment would further delay the matter's resolution and not be in the wider interests of justice, or public confidence in either the RCVS disciplinary system or the veterinary profession.
On the evening of 19 December 2009, Mr Albring had been the veterinary surgeon on duty at VetCall, a practice that provides the out of-hours emergency cover for several local veterinary practices, including the one where Bear was registered. When Mrs Thacker's daughter, Ms Davidson, telephoned VetCall to request a home visit as the dog had collapsed, she was told that it was against practice policy for the practice to be left unmanned so this would not be possible. This was despite a written policy which accepted and made provision for the rare occasions when a home visit would be necessary. Phoning again later, the information about practice policy was repeated and Ms Davidson directed to a local animal ambulance service, which attended.
The ambulance driver found that the dog could not be transported in the ambulance and telephoned VetCall to say a home visit was needed. This was refused by Mr Albring even, the Committee noted, when the ambulance driver offered to collect Mr Albring, drive him to Ms Davidson's home 10-15 minutes away, assist with the euthanasia, and return him to the clinic. In the interim, Ms Davidson had also sought help from a separate practice and, subsequent to Mr Albring's refusal to visit, their on-duty veterinary surgeon attended and euthanased Bear.
The Committee found that Mr Albring's refusal to visit, once it was clear Bear could not be transported, and he knew that a home visit was necessary on welfare grounds, resulted in Bear spending longer than necessary in pain and distress. This was not a case where the pressure of work or the welfare needs of other animals prevented Mr Albring from attending, and it was also relevant that Mr Albring was specifically employed to work out of hours in an emergency clinic. Serious, too, was his failure to reply promptly to communications from the RCVS, or show insight into the seriousness of his conduct.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated case, and there were no previous findings against Mr Albring. He was in sole charge of an emergency clinic covering 15-20 practices across Southampton and Portsmouth, which would make, in some circumstances, home visits difficult.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee is concerned that the actual policy pursued by the clinic regarding domiciliary visits was different to the written one.
"In effect, a no-visits policy existed at the VetCall clinic and this must have added to the pressure under which the Respondent [Mr Albring] was working.
"The Committee is mindful that the object of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain appropriate standards," she continued, noting that as animal welfare had knowingly been neglected and Mr Albring had demonstrated no insight, a warning or reprimand would not be enough. "A period of suspension would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards," she said.
The Committee directed that Mr Albring's name be suspended from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for ten months.
For the survey, veterinary surgeons and nurses were asked: "Thinking about the last time you (or your OOH provider on your behalf) were called by a pet owner out-of-hours within the last fortnight, was the call ...
a) Something which was clearly NOT an emergency (eg vaccination, nail clip, dematt, pet passport etc.)
b) A condition which should have been seen in normal working hours (either because it has been present for some time already with no deterioration or because - in your opinion - it could have waited till the morning).
c) A genuine emergency, which needed prompt attention to prevent the animal suffering.
475 members took part, 69% of which were vets and the remainder vet nurses.
Of the out-of-hours (OOH) calls they had taken:
28.2% were genuine emergencies, which needed prompt attention to prevent the animal suffering.
64.8% were about a condition which should have been seen in normal working hours (either because it has been present for some time already with no deterioration or because it could have waited till the morning).
6.9% were about something which was clearly NOT an emergency (eg vaccination, nail clip, dematt, pet passport etc.)
So in total, 71.7% of the calls to veterinary surgeons OOH are unnecessary.
This raises a number of important questions, chiefly whether a profession struggling with a staffing crisis can afford to maintain the blanket requirement for all practices to make provision for OOH, particularly now that society places so much greater demands on the profession than it did when the rules were invented, demanding wormers in the middle of the night and then blackening the name of the vet on social media if they refuse. It happens.
Is it time to go the same way as some other countries and let the market meet the demand?
Or can anything else be done to relieve the pressure that OOH places on the profession? Ideas floating around include making all veterinary OOH telephone lines premium rate, charging at least enough to focus the caller's mind on whether it is actually necessary to renew their pet passport at 3:00am. Or perhaps a concerted effort by all parties to communicate the message that OOH is A&E. You shouldn't ring unless you really need to. But that message may not carry much weight when at the end of the day, it's the insurance company footing the bill.
Reducing the number of spurious calls doesn't, of course, help the staffing crisis. But it is surely pertinent to ask whether an obligation for 100% of general practices to make arrangements to service something which is 70% unnecessary is the most efficient way to operate.
Maybe the time has come for the profession to consider OOH and general practice as two very distinct things. Discuss.
The RCVS didn't want to comment.
The Statutory Membership Examination must be taken by all individuals educated outside of the UK whose veterinary qualification is not recognised by the RCVS. Passing the exam allows them to join the UK Register, and practice as a veterinary surgeon in the UK.
The exam has existed in its current format for over 30 years, and the review was implemented to ensure the examination remains fit for purpose, and sits in line with international best-practice and the College’s current Day-one Competences.
The College says the review was also designed to make sure it is using the most appropriate means of assessment methods, to best prepare candidates for success, and to ensure candidates can work in the UK to the best of their ability.
The written examination will now consist of two parts; a clinical Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) paper (in a single best answer clinical vignette format) and an open book examination, which will be used to ascertain the candidate’s knowledge of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
The Clinical, Practical Examination will now exist in the form of a multi-dimensional Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). This examination is set to measure a range of clinical, technical and professional skills including clinical reasoning, communication, professionalism, and ethical awareness. Following a tender process, Glasgow Veterinary School has been awarded the contract to host the OSCE examination for five years from 2019 to 2023.
RCVS Examinations Manager, Victoria Hedges, said: "The review of the Statutory Membership Examination has provided us with the opportunity to ensure that we continue to test the skills and knowledge needed to work effectively in a veterinary practice in the UK in a robust manner, and bring it in line with the final year examinations delivered at UK vet schools. In designing the examination, the RCVS has considered international best practice, in addition to approaches to regulatory examinations within both the veterinary and medical sectors."
A comprehensive handbook regarding this new examination will be available on the Statutory Membership Examination section of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam) shortly.
If you have any questions, please get in contact with Examinations Manager, Victoria Hedges: v.hedges@rcvs.org.uk
Suitable for both puppies and adult dogs, Eradia is presented in a bottle with an award-winning1 'All-In-One Smart Cap' which stops the person administering the product from coming into contact with the solution, is child proof and offers flexible dosing options.
Available in 30ml and 100ml bottles to cater for all dogs, Eradia can be administered either directly into the mouth or on to food.
Virbac says that Eradia has been shown to be accepted by 100% of dogs2, thereby alleviating any possible problems administering metronidazole.
For more information, contact your Virbac Territory Manager.
References