The practice makes ecobricks by packing all sorts of plastic waste tightly into plastic bottles which can then be joined together using tyres, silicone, cob or cement and used for a wide range of purposes in gardens, play parks and for making all types of structures with.
The ecobrick initiative was launched by the Global Ecobrick Alliance, which describes itself as an Earth Enterprise focused on solving plastic pollution through the dissemination of the low-tech, educational, open source ecobrick technology. It also operates a website which lists a wide range of organisations throughout the world where newly-made ecobricks can be delivered to.
White Cross Vets operates 19 practices, with four in the local area in Gateacre, West Derby, St Helens and Widnes, and is now exploring how it can roll out the scheme across the group. Other green initiatives White Cross Vets is pioneering include rolling out energy efficient LED lighting across its practices and heavily promoting the Cycle to Work scheme.
Helen Morris, from White Cross Vets, said: "In our industry almost everything comes packed in unrecyclable plastics, from small syringe packets through to large delivery bags and the plastic on the backs of patient labels, which we print hundreds of every day.
"As a result, we decided to look at how we might be able to put it to good use, rather than simply putting it in the bin and came across ecobricks. By taking the time to fill the bottles with plastic, we can significantly reduce the waste we send to landfill, and cut the amount of plastic that ends up littering the planet and ultimately finds its way into the sea. We are now making them every week and the whole team gets involved, which is rewarding for everyone involved."
Medivet owns 245 veterinary practices in the UK and its rate of practice acquisition had tripled in the last 12 months.
CEO, Arnold Levy said: "The 25 strong Regional Directors Team is a key strategic line of management and support for all our existing practices, and they are central to the successful integration of our new practices into our hub and spoke model. Even though each of our Regional Directors is an experienced, qualified veterinary surgeon, it is vital that they have time, knowledge and understanding of the Medivet business and operation to confidently support their practices in line with our model, in the right way.
"With the support of the Leadership Team, we will be using these next few months to ensure this newly formed group have all the skills needed to do just that."
Arnold added: "We have taken this deliberate decision to ensure we can maintain the very highest standards of client and patient care. Where our management team and support structures are already in place we will continue with our new acquisitions program, and once our Regional Management operation is fully embedded, we will confidently continue to grow our business in a sustainable, people and patient-first way."
Two analyses of the pet insurance market have been published this week, which together suggest that veterinary practices may be starting to price themselves out of the market.
Both reports are titled Pet Insurance 2014. In the first, published by Key Note Ltd, authors highlight a 35.4% increase in gross claims incurred on cat and dog insurance policies between 2009 and 2013, which is more than 5 times the increase in the volume of claims over the same period. It is the degree to which the value of claims has outstripped the volume which the report describes as 'undeniably the greatest factor affecting the UK market for pet insurance.
At the same time, there has been a relatively modest growth in the percentage of adults that own a cat or dog (around 1.5 percentage points). Consequently, premiums increased by 38.9% between 2009 and 2013 as insurers responded to the growing cost of claims.
Meanwhile, the other Pet Insurance 2014 report, this time from YouGov, has shown that the main factors limiting the uptake of pet insurance are poor value for money and the high cost of premiums. In 2012, 31% of owners without insurance said it was not good value for money, and that was the main reason for not taking out cover. By 2014, that figure had risen to 39% of the uninsured and 26% said they just cannot afford premiums.
According to the YouGov report, the words that uninsured pet owners most associate with pet insurance are 'expensive' (68%) and 'waste of money' (30%). Even 57% of those with insurance deem it expensive.
YouGov also highlighted that the number of uninsured pet owners who say they can afford to pay for veterinary treatment out of their own pockets (without setting money aside each month) has increased 4 percentage points from 15% in 2012 to 19% in 2014. YouGov hypothesises that this may be down to the improving economic situation in the UK, but it could equally be explained as just the way hard-pushed people self-justify their decision to discontinue insurance.
James McCoy, Research Director, YouGov Reports said: "Although social grade is important to being able to afford to take out pet insurance, our research suggests that those at different ends of the financial spectrum share the opinion that cover is not necessarily always a sound financial option.
"More affluent pet owners find insurance poor value because they can afford to pay for treatment up front; for less affluent pet owners, while pet insurance is perceived as offering good value for money, the cost of premiums is prohibitive, leading some to save money instead."
Written by members of BSAVA Scientific Committee, together with specialists in internal medicine and neurology, the document explains that there are limited studies showing beneficial effects of CBD, and those that there are need to be interpreted with caution as they involved small sample sizes and used unlicensed products which may have contained other components which could have influenced the results.
The document also explains that legally, CBD products must be prescribed by a veterinary surgeons and not used instead of a medication with proven efficacy.
Caroline Kisielewicz, BSAVA Scientific Committee member and one of the authors of the document said: “Information regarding the effects of cannabinoids on animals is predominantly at the stage of pre-clinical testing of individual substances in mice, rats and guinea pigs. There are limited clinical studies looking at the effects of CBD in dogs, and no reported studies in cats.
"There are many reports describing possible beneficial effects and therapeutic potential in humans, and subsequently pet owners may ask their vet about using cannabinoids to treat veterinary patients. This document aims to provide a broad overview of the available evidence base and legal position in the UK for veterinary team members."
BSAVA President, Ian Ramsey added: "The development of this information is in direct response to an increased interest in the use of CBD to treat cats and dogs. Furthermore, the guidance supports BSAVA’s mission to promote excellence in small animal practice through community, education and science."
The BSAVA position on CBD can be accessed here: https://www.bsavalibrary.com/content/chapter/10.22233/9781910443514.chap8#html_fulltext.
The Kennel Club has launched Puppy Awareness Week to bring the horrors of puppy farming to the public consciousness and highlight the important steps that are needed when buying a puppy, such as choosing the right breed and finding a responsible breeder.
According to the organisation, 1 in 4 dog owners may have bought a puppy farmed dog. According to a survey it carried out this month, 44% of people don't even know what a puppy farm is, and 29% have bought a puppy from the Internet, a pet shop or a newspaper advert, all outlets which are often used for selling puppy farmed puppies. 60% admitted they did not see their puppy with its mother and more than half didn't see its breeding environment before they brought it home. 66% of owners were also never given the parents health certificates, and 8% were sold a puppy before it was 8 weeks old, which recent research has shown may lead to behavioural problems later in life.
The Kennel Club is concerned that the problem will get worse in the current economic climate, as 66% of people said they would buy a puppy at lower than the average price.
Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "Puppy farming is a cruel trade that treats dogs as commodities rather than living creatures. You wouldn't buy a commodity, such as a car, from a dodgy dealer offering no MOT or service documents, but people don't ask for the same assurances from a breeder when buying a dog.
"Our worry is that in the future even more people will be fooled by puppy farmers, who hide behind the internet, being drawn in by the knock down prices without being aware of the high cost that they will pay later. This will simply grow the abandoned dog population and result in even more suffering.
"It is absolutely vital that people go to a Kennel Club Assured Breeder or a rescue home and that they know what assurances and information they are entitled to when buying a puppy, or it will lead to hefty veterinary bills and heartache further down the line."
The Kennel Club is urging puppy buyers to go to a rescue home, or a Kennel Club Assured Breeder - the only scheme in the UK which sets standards for and monitors dog breeders. It has also called on the government to put in place standards, similar to those used by the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme, for all breeders.
The Kennel Club has issued the following advice to puppy buyers:
The Kennel Club has also created a petition to help end puppy farming and hopes to reach 100,000 signatures so that it may be addressed in the House of Commons. Dog lovers are invited to add their support by visiting http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/8557.
Puppy Awareness Week will culminate in Pup Aid, the boutique music festival, celebrity-judged fun dog show and family day out at Stanmer House in Brighton on 18th September, organised by TV vet Marc Abraham.
For further information, visit: www.thekennelclub.org.uk/paw.
Dechra says that Dexacortone, which is presented as a flavoured double-divisible tablet, is approximately 25 times more potent than short-acting substances such as hydrocortisone.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: “Dexamethasone works to suppress the inflammatory response and should be combined with treatment of the underlying disease.”
The chewable tablets have been developed with a chicken flavour to encourage greater acceptance by animals and have Dechra’s double divisible SmartTab format to help accurate and flexible dosing.
Dexacortone is available in blister packs.
Carol added: “The dose and duration of treatment should be determined by the veterinarian based upon the desired effect and on the nature and severity of each individual case and our SmartTab format makes Dexacortone tablets easily divisible. The tablet portions have a six day shelf life that also reduces the wastage of medicine.”
For more information visit www.dechra.co.uk
Vétoquinol has announced the return of Navilox powder (isoxsuprine hydrochloride), the only medication specifically licensed in the UK for use in cases of navicular disease in horses.
Navicular disease is a chronic degenerative condition of the navicular bone and associated structures. It is a syndrome with a complex pathogenesis which combines various underlying causes. Vétoquinol says it is a common cause of lameness in the middle aged riding horse.
Robert Simpson, Navilox Product Manager said: "Navilox has been sorely missed by equine vets in the UK which is why I am thrilled to be able to announce that it is available again."
To order Navilox powder, call Vétoquinol on 01280 825424 or contact your wholesaler directly.
Vetoquinol has announced the launch of Rubenal®, a new product for use in renal health management for dogs and cats.
Normal kidney function is dependent upon normal nephron and interstitial tissue structure. When the balance of renal health is tipped, this structure can change and fibrous tissue can accumulate.
Simon Boulton, Rubenal®'s product manager said: "Rubenal® is the first palatable veterinary formulation of Rheum officinale available for use in both dogs and cats. It can be used as an aid to the maintenance of the normal renal fibrotic architecture."
The company has also produced a new guide to the management of chronic renal failure in dogs and cats: Chronic Kidney Disease: Addressing quality of life and life expectancy.
Simon said: "Vetoquinol is dedicated to supporting renal health and the guide is designed to illustrate factors which can affect both quality and quantity of life, including hyperphosphataemia, hypertension, proteinuria, azotaemia and fibrosis in renal disease."
The booklet contains guidelines on the appropriate management of these factors including a wall chart reference guide.
For more information about Rubenal, or a free copy of the guide, please contact your Vetoquinol representative or telephone 0800 1698197.
Veterinary surgeons are being advised against taking a heavy handed approach to hyperthyroidism by key opinion leaders, including Professor Danielle Gunn-Moore, a Specialist in Feline Medicine at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies in Edinburgh.
Professor Gunn-Moore said: "Hyperthyroidism is not a condition that develops suddenly. It is a slowly progressive disease. The cat's body adapts to being hyperthyroid over a relatively long period of time. That is why it is best to return it to a euthyroid state in a controlled manner, rather than trying to crash the thyroxine concentration back down to normal as quickly as possible. Too fast a fall in thyroxine concentration can significantly exacerbate renal compromise and may cause serious harm.
"My recommendation is that you should start with a low dose of anti-thyroid medication and increase it if needed, after assessing the initial response to treatment. Any increase should be made in the smallest increments possible."
Dechra Veterinary Products - makers of Felimazole, the first medical treatment licensed in Europe for feline hyperthyroidism - is inviting vets to stand 700/701 at the BSAVA Congress to find out more about the latest thinking and new research which shows that treatment of hyperthyroid cats can result in iatrogenic hypothyroidism, that hyperthyroid cats are significantly more likely to develop azotaemia than euthyroid cats, and that hypothyroid cats that developed azotaemia have significantly shorter survival times.1
Further information on Felimazole is available by calling 01939 211 200 or visiting http://www.dechra.com/
References:1. Williams, T. et al (2010) JVIM 24: 1086-1092
Headed by Esteban Gonzalez-Gasch, a European Specialist in Small Animal Surgery, the new department enables the practice to undertake a wide range of complex small animal procedures.
Injuries and conditions treated include fracture fixation, including complex and simple fractures; cruciate disease, including tibial osteotomies and extracapsular repair; arthroscopy; arthrodesis of chronically painful joints; elbow dysplasia; lameness investigation in adults and juveniles; treatment of growth deformities including distraction osteogenesis; osteoarthritis and musculo-skeletal neoplasia.
Esteban, who joined Southfields earlier this year from the leading Spanish veterinary hospital Ars Veterinaria, in Barcelona, said: "These new facilities really do put Southfields at the cutting edge of 21st century veterinary science and practice in the UK."
Southfields is also carrying out a full refurbishment of its existing facilities and recruiting a number of additional specialist veterinary surgeons, nurses and support staff.
Southfields’ operations manager Daniel Hogan said: "This is a very exciting period for us. We are growing in every possible area and working more closely with referring practices to continue to develop our bespoke and exceptional service for patients and clients.
"Our aim is aspiring and simple: to create the very best referral centre possible by bringing together the expertise of the very best of veterinary professionals supported by the very latest in technological innovation."
As well as orthopaedics, the practice accepts referrals in soft tissue surgery, internal medicine, oncology, neurology, feline medicine and cardiology. For more information, go to www.southfields.co.uk.
The RCVS has extended its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial until October 2015 and broadened its remit, allowing more cases to be considered.
The idea of the ADR is to provide an alternative form of resolution for the many concerns raised with the RCVS which do not meet the College's threshold for serious professional misconduct and are, therefore, not taken through its disciplinary process.
The trial, which was originally due to end in May 2015, aims to gather evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme.
As well as the time-frame being extended, the trial will now also be widened to include concerns raised about the treatment of horses and other equines - in addition to those raised about small animals.
The RCVS has also lowered the maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services, a not-for-profit complaints resolution service which is administering the trial, to £3,000 for small animal cases. The maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services in relation to equine cases remains at £10,000.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "The trial got off to a slower start than we expected and so we have decided to extend its length and breadth to allow more time and scope to gather the evidence and testimonies which we need to assess the trial.
"It's important to stress again that the trial is free, voluntary, as both parties must agree to take part, and that the recommendations made by the Ombudsman Services are not binding - it is up to either party as to whether they accept them."
The results of the trial will now be reported to the November 2015 meeting of RCVS Council. For further information about the ADR trial please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/adr
Centaur Services' veterinary wholesale business has been acquired by AHN International. Centaur was founded in 1964 by a group of veterinary surgeons who wanted to increase their buying power and the range of products available to them. Over the next 44 years the business, which was owned by its veterinary surgeon shareholders, grew to a turnover of nearly £140m. The company has recently completed a 3 year programme of modernisation making it one of the most technologically advanced wholesalers in Europe. In September 2007, Centaur Services announced its intention to list its shares on the Alternative Investments Market (AIM). These plans were initially postponed and finally cancelled when the Centaur shareholders accepted the offer from AHN. Paul Gerring, Centaur Services' Managing Director said: "There has been considerable consolidation in the veterinary market over recent years, particularly amongst manufacturers, and this partnership with AHN provides us with an increased presence in the market. Like Centaur, AHN is a vet-focussed business with plans to be active in the veterinary supply market on a European and global basis. We see plenty of exciting opportunities out there". AHN International was established to form the first global coalition of leading animal health wholesalers and distributors. With nearly 700 employees worldwide, AHN International is committed to presenting the veterinary surgeons with an advanced level of product and services. Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, AHN International will actively build it's network of leading trading companies around the world through acquisitions and business associations.
Following the news on Friday that a Bulldog and Pekingese had failed their vet checks at Crufts, a further four animals have failed: Chervood Snowsun, a Clumber Spaniel; Secret Charm Avec Dibest, a Mastiff; Ithani, a Neapolitan Mastiff and Ch Buzz Lightyear At Dereheath, a Basset Hound. All were disqualified from winning Best of Breed, or representing their breed for the remainder of the competition.
The veterinary checks have been introduced by the Kennel Club to ensure that Best of Breed awards are not given to any dogs that show visible signs of problems due to conditions that affect their health or welfare.
Dog World magazine appears to have got hold of a copy of the Clumber Spaniel's Veterinary Health Check Record, and interviewed the owner:
The vet checks have, predictably, polarised opinion. The owners of the Bulldog Mellowmood One In A Million have already setup a facebook page: 'A group dedicated to honoring the win of Ch Mellowmoods One in a Million AKA Jenny who was wrongfully stripped of her Best of Breed win at Crufts based on a political move by the Kennel Club.'
Elsewhere, there has been a considerable amount of support for the vet checks:
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
For the research, the medical histories of 188 Basset Hounds and 270 Dachshunds presenting to CVS’ Dovecote Veterinary Hospital and Chestergates Veterinary Specialists, and the University of Ghent were retrospectively assessed.
Information included signalment, whether the dog had received a diagnosis of TL-IVDE, the duration of clinical signs, affected discs and anatomical region and the neurological grading at presentation and discharge.
Basset Hounds and Dachshunds are both chondrodystrophic breeds which are predisposed to IVDE.
However, the study found 77.4% of Dachshunds had presented with IVDE, compared to only 36.2% of Basset Hounds.
Dachshunds also presented earlier (66.5 months) compared to Basset Hounds (median 87.5 months).
Dachshunds had a lower proportion of midlumbar IVDE and were more frequently non-ambulatory at discharge than Basset Hounds.
In addition, Dachshunds were more likely to be paraplegic without sensation at presentation than Basset Hounds (16/154 Dachshunds compared to just one Basset).
The Basset Hound is the largest chondrodystrophic breed and the physical characteristics of this larger body conformation may have benefits, with previous studies suggesting the protective effects of being a larger dog2.
One hypothesis is whether breed conformation and anatomy – the relative height/weight ratio - influences the severity and occurrence of IVD and points to a link between the size of the patient and the space in the vertebral canal.
A smaller spinal cord versus vertebral canal ratio in the Basset Hound may indicate a less compressive lesion.
Sergio Gomes, Head of Neurology and specialist in veterinary neurology at Dovecote Veterinary Hospital, who led the study, said: “This is the first time that IVDE data for Basset Hounds has been directly compared with that for Dachshunds.
“We now need to look closely at the conformation and anatomy of the Basset Hound to see what learnings we can take.
"This could have positive future implications for Dachshund breeding programmes, so that longer term we can try to minimise this painful and common canine condition.”
References
The Association says that the total cost of claims, which was up 17% on the previous year, largely reflects the cost of veterinary treatment, drugs and diagnostic equipment, resulting in more expensive claims.
Three quarters of the claims were for dogs, and the most common high-value claim was for spinal surgery, costing £8,000 - £10,000.
One fifth of the claims were for cats and the remainder were for other pets.
Meanwhile, Go.Compare pet insurance has calculated that if all pet owners had been insured, the total cost of claims for veterinary treatment and other emergency fees could have reached over £11bn1.
Over the same period, the ABI says pet insurance premiums only rose by 1% to £327.
Ceva Animal Health has launched Amodip, described as the first ever cat-friendly amlodipine licensed for veterinary use for the treatment of hypertension in cats.
Amodip is a chicken-flavoured, two-way break chewable tablet; its 1.25mg tablet size is designed for accurate dosing of cats, with a two-way break for administering 0.625mg to smaller cats. Each box contains 100 tablets in blister packs.
Ceva says these features should make it easier for pet owners to be compliant with the recommended treatment protocol and ensure that each cat is getting the right dose, reducing the risk of side-effects.
Amodip will be supported by videos and literature on how to measure hypertension in practice easily and with less stress, written by the International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM).
For further information or to request copies of the ISFM hypertension materials, contact your local Ceva Animal Health territory manager or call 01494 781510.
Mr Makepeace faced five charges.
The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.
He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.
The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.
The fourth charge was that was a repetition of the second.
The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.
Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.
In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.
This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.
The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.
With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.
The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.
All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.
Aggravating factors taken into account were:
Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.
Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.
"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.
“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.
"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
There were two charges against Mr Staton, the first being that he failed to comply with eight requests from the RCVS sent by letter between November 2014 and August 2017 in relation to his continuing professional development (CPD) records.
The second charge was that between 1st January 2012 and 7th November 2017 he failed to have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements in place.
Mr Staton’s request to adjourn the hearing and agree undertakings was not opposed by the RCVS. The Committee had regard to advice of the Legal Assessor and submissions from both counsel for the RCVS and legal advisor for Mr Staton. In accepting Mr Staton’s request for adjournment and his undertakings no admissions have been made in respect of the charges against him.
In deciding whether to accept the adjournment and undertakings, the Committee was asked to consider a number of factors including Mr Staton’s age and health, his unblemished career of more than 50 years, the fact that he had closed his practice and retired from clinical practice on 31 March 2018 and that he had no intention of practising as a veterinary surgeon again. For those reasons the Committee felt it would be disproportionate to take Mr Staton through a full hearing.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to this decision the Committee considered the respondent’s application to adjourn this inquiry in the light of the evidence he adduced. It had regard to the interests of justice, the public interest in ensuring high standards are maintained by veterinary surgeons and the need to ensure the protection of animals and their welfare."
Should Mr Staton seek to apply to rejoin the Register then the proceedings will become active again and a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be scheduled.
Elanco Companion Animal Health has launched Trifexis, an oral tablet to provide dogs with three-in-one protection against fleas, intestinal nematodes and heartworm.
Trifexis contains two active ingredients: spinosad, which is active against fleas, and milbemycin oxime, which is active against intestinal nematodes and heartworm.
Pointing to a survey which found that two out of three owners prefer administering medication in tablet form, Elanco says it is offering the prescription-only product in a beef-flavoured tablet format that delivers vet practices with an exclusive solution many pet owners would choose.2
Matthew Rowe, senior brand manager at Elanco Companion Animal Health said: "By combining spinosad with milbemycin oxime, Trifexis provides the fast speed of flea kill already experienced with Comfortis (killing 100% of fleas within four hours), but now with the added protection against the hidden danger of intestinal nematodes and heartworm disease; of specific concern for owners whose dogs travel to or from heartworm endemic areas."
Prof. Patrick Bourdeau, Dip ECVD-Dip EVPC, of the Veterinary School of Nantes (Oniris), France, added: "Until now, the treatment of intestinal nematodes has often been overlooked. Recent independent research shows that in Europe a majority of dogs (70%) are treated against fleas; whereas the year-round (and potentially zoonotic) threat of intestinal nematodes is commonly overlooked, with only 49% of dogs being treated.2 The benefit of Trifexis is that it aids treatment compliance against these important yet overlooked worms by providing a tablet format, combined with flea control."
In addition, Elanco highlights the fact that the tablet format satisfies a need for those owners who prefer the cleanliness and assured efficacy of tablet administration, have young children or pets in the home, dogs that swim or are bathed frequently or dogs with skin sensitivity or dermatological issues.
For further information about Elanco's new Trifexis three-in-one oral tablet treatment, contact your local Elanco Companion Animal Health key account manager or telephone 01256 353131.
The charge against Dr Irvine was that in July 2017, he failed to discuss with the owners alternative treatment options to dental surgery under general anaesthetic, or the risks of dental surgery under general anaesthetic, and failed to obtain informed consent from the owners for the surgery.
Dr Vasilev was also originally charged with failing to discuss alternative treatment options or the risks of the surgery and failing to obtain informed consent. However, at the outset of the hearing, as a result of new information which came to light, the RCVS opted to offer no evidence in relation to these charges. Mr Vasilev was separately charged with failing to maintain clear, accurate and detailed clinical records in relation to his treatment of the dog.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Irvine denied all aspects of the charge against him; while Dr Vasilev admitted all aspects of the remaining charge.
The Committee heard how Rupert's dental surgery under general anaesthetic was recommended by Mr Irvine on 10th July and performed by Dr Vasilev on 11th July 2017. After the surgery, Rupert was discharged, but vomited in his sleep that same night. He was brought back to the practice on 12th July, where Dr Vasilev administered antiemetic and antibiotic medication.
However, Rupert continued to vomit over the next five days, and was seen by the practice on 17th July and then on 18th when blood tests were conducted. Rupert’s condition deteriorated as he continued to vomit and lose weight and he was brought back to the practice on 22nd July where he was euthanased by Dr Vasilev.
The Committee heard evidence from Rupert’s owners as well as two expert witnesses. It found the first aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that there was an inadequate discussion with the owners regarding the option of delaying the dental treatment on Rupert because of his recent ascites caused by congestive heart failure.
The Committee found the second aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that he had not discussed the risks of Rupert undergoing general anaesthetic given the recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure, following which (in relation to the third aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine), it was therefore found proven that he had failed to gain informed consent.
With all aspects of the charge against Mr Irvine being proven, and with Dr Vasilev admitting the charge against him, the Committee went on to consider if the proven and admitted charges against both amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In respect of Mr Irvine, Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was not persuaded that the failure to obtain informed consent from [the owner] and discuss matters further with her on 10th July 2017 in the circumstances of this case would amount to serious professional misconduct which would bring the profession into disrepute.
"In the Committee’s judgment, the breach of standards, whilst amounting to professional misconduct, was not serious professional misconduct, in the context of other discussions which had taken place…. The Committee further decided that a finding of serious professional misconduct in this case would be disproportionate having taken into consideration the discussions that Mr Irvine had with [the owner] prior to 10th July 2017 and the fact he was dealing with a complex and changing case.
"The Committee therefore found that Mr Irvine was not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee noted that Dr Vasilev had admitted breaching the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in respect of failing to keep adequate clinical and client records.
However, in mitigation, the Committee considered a number of factors including that, in failing to maintain adequate notes related to Rupert’s treatment, Dr Vasilev had followed the standard of notetaking in the practice as set out by Mr Irvine who was practice principal; that Dr Vasilev had only worked with Mr Irvine in the UK and his record-keeping was limited to working in one practice; that Dr Vasilev admitted his failures at an early stage of the proceedings; that he had made efforts to avoid repetition in the future by undertaking webinars and research; and, that he had shown insight into the need to ensure full communication and detailed note-taking.
Stuart Drummond added: "In relation to Dr Vasilev, the Committee was satisfied that [his] standard of record-keeping was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and that the breach… amounted to professional misconduct.
"The Committee concluded that the breaches overall, when considering the context and number of mitigating factors, were, in the Committee’s view, insufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct…. Accordingly it found Dr Vasilev not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The new service was reported in The Times, in an article titled "How much should your vet cost? Pet owners bitten by untamed fees."
Since launch, VetHelpDirect has offered owners information to help them pick a veterinary practice, including reviews, ratings (including a value for money score), RCVS accreditation, cat/ rabbit friendly status, health plan details and how out of hours cover is provided.
It has now added some basic information about each practices' charges, specifically the first consultation fee, a dog castrate and health plans, and then categorised them according with £££££ signs to indicate how far above or below the average they sit.
Susie Samuel said: “Most practices will give out these prices over the telephone, but there’s no way for the client to find them without directly getting in touch, something people are less and less likely to want to do nowadays.
"Our research data suggests that people want to find this information online, just as they would in any other service industry.
"When they can’t find any information at all on pricing, there can be a perception of secrecy that can do damage to the vet-owner relationship.”
Susie added: “True comparison for vet practices is of course very complex and no basket of services is ever going to capture the whole complexity.
"Every practice is different, from facilities and team qualifications; to the time allotted for consultations; to monitoring equipment for surgery; and of course the level of investigations undertaken which can also vary from vet to vet.”
“We can’t solve all this straight away but we started from a good place, over the years we have built up more information about vet practices than any other website.
"The aim is to provide commonly requested prices for owners to easily access and to add more and more detail on the vet practices over time so that owners can make the most informed choice on the vet that's most appropriate for them and their pet”.
VetHelpDirect says it will soon be adding prescription fees and out of hours consultation, and a much wider range of species-specific fees in the near future.
The company also points to the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into pricing in the UK, highlighting that in its 2019 Report into Funerals in the UK, the CMA noted that weaknesses in the sector included the fact that less than 40% of funeral directors posted any form of pricing online, and those that did were frequently not in a form that made for easy comparison.
Susie says the veterinary sector has an even lower rate of online pricing transparency.
To add your pricing information to VetHelpDirect, email: info@vethelpdirect.com.
COMMENT
Whilst greater transparency over pricing in almost any field is surely to be welcomed, it seems questionable whether comparing prices for consultations and standard procedures will be of much help to pet owners, because things like the level of investigations, how defensively a clinician practises and the owner's own relationship with risk are likely to have a far greater impact on the bill than whether a consult costs £20 more or less up the road.
There is perhaps also a risk of practices rated as '£££££ / more expensive than average' will be seen as just that. Expensive and nothing more.
It's not like a restaurant where £££££ usually means particularly delicious.
Whilst this may not matter much whilst so many practices are having to turn away business, it may become more important in the future.
Discuss here.
The RCVS has opened a consultation on the future of veterinary specialisation, which includes a proposal that the use of postnominals and titles by veterinary surgeons should be rationalised in order to avoid confusion amongst the public.
The proposals are submitted for comment by the RCVS Specialisation Working Party, which is chaired by former Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Kenneth Calman.
The Working Party's review was precipitated by a finding that the structure of veterinary specialisation is "confusing and opaque" to both animal owners and the profession (Unlocking Potential - a Report on Veterinary Expertise in Food Animal Production, by Professor Philip Lowe, 2009).
The Working Party has explored the routes to RCVS Recognised Specialist status. It has also looked at the use of 'specialist' more broadly, given the fact that it is not a protected term in the veterinary field, and has considered animal owners' expectations of a 'specialist'.
The Working Party also makes proposals for encouraging more veterinary surgeons to become specialists, given that there are currently only 319 on the RCVS List of Recognised Specialists, out of a UK practising arm of the profession of some 17,400 veterinary surgeons.
The proposals from the Working Party could have far-reaching impact. One suggestion is that all those meeting the criteria for specialist status would also become Fellows of the RCVS (FRCVS) - a status currently only held by those who complete a thesis or exam, or who qualify on the basis of 'meritorious contributions to learning'. There are also proposals that the term 'RCVS Recognised Specialist' be dropped and replaced with the much simpler term 'specialist' or 'veterinary specialist'.
Further proposals include the introduction of a 'middle tier' of veterinary surgeons - potentially to be called 'advanced practitioners' - who would be below full specialist status and subject to periodic revalidation.
There are also recommendations that veterinary surgeons should be obliged to explain referral options to their clients, including the level of expertise of those to whom they are referring cases.
The future of the RCVS subject boards, which currently manage the various Certificate and Diploma examinations, is also considered in the proposals.
The emphasis throughout is on simplification and improvement, according to Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, who said: "New legislation to introduce statutory registration for veterinary specialists would no doubt make things clearer, as it is for doctors and dentists, but, in the meantime, we believe there are a number of actions which the RCVS could take to improve matters."
The consultation paper can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations, and comments are welcomed from members of the public, veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. The closing deadline for comments, which should be sent to RCVS Head of Education, Freda Andrews, on f.andrews@rcvs.org.uk, is Friday 9 December.
Comments received will be considered by the RCVS committees and Council in early 2012.