Nicola Buttler, a Somerset-based veterinary nurse, has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee for working whilst under the influence of alcohol.

Ms Buttler was charged with having been under the influence of alcohol whilst at work on two separate occasions. On both occasions, she was working as a locum veterinary nurse.

The first occasion was between 25th and 28th April 2016 in Frome, and the second from 3rd July to 4th July 2016 in Salisbury.

It was also alleged that a prior conviction of drunk driving on 19th November 2013 rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.  

The Committee decided to hear the case in Ms Buttler’s absence as it was satisfied that she had properly been served with the notice of hearing and because she had stated that she was aware of the proceedings but did not wish to engage with the process. The Committee also noted that she had not requested any adjournment.

The Committee heard from five witnesses for the first charge, including three veterinary nurses and one veterinary surgeon. They gave testimony that they had had cause to suspect that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work due to her demeanour, and recalled Ms Buttler repeatedly retreating upstairs to her accommodation during the working day. Further, an open wine bottle was found in Ms Buttler’s accommodation and was observed to have been drunk during the course of her shift. The Committee found the first charge proved.

The Committee heard from four witnesses in respect of the second charge. Two of the witnesses stated that they smelt alcohol on Ms Buttler’s breath while she was on duty, with one of them stating that Ms Buttler had slurred speech and a flushed face at the end of a fourteen-hour shift. The other two witnesses also presented evidence to support the assertion that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work, while the Committee found that Ms Buttler lacked credibility because she had denied having any alcohol on the premises when originally confronted, but later admitted in an email to the College that she had had an open bottle of wine in her bag. The Committee found the second charge proved. 

The Committee then considered the third charge, namely the conviction in 2013. The Committee considered the certificate of conviction obtained from the North East Devon Magistrates Court and was satisfied that Ms Buttler had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol as set out within charge 3.

When considering whether these all amounted to a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee was concerned about Ms Buttler showing no insight into her drinking, and the repeated nature of the offences. The Committee also considered that being under the influence of alcohol when working as a veterinary nurse was conduct which fell far short of the standards to be expected of members of the veterinary nursing profession.

It therefore concluded that Ms Buttler was guilty of disgraceful conduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.

The Committee then considered whether Ms Buttler’s conviction (charge 3) rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. The Committee concluded that Ms Buttler had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions in 2013, or learnt any lessons from it. Accordingly, it felt that she continued to pose a risk to animals and the public in the future. The Committee also felt that the conviction undermined the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession because the offence inevitably involved a risk of injury to herself and other road users.

Having found Ms Buttler guilty of misconduct, the Committee went on to consider sanction.

The Committee took into account aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to an animal, the fact that the first two charges involved an element of premeditation, the fact that Ms Buttler was under the influence on more than one shift in each practice, that there is no evidence of insight from Ms Buttler and there is a future risk to animals if she continued to practice unrestricted. 

They also considered mitigating factors, including the fact that this is the first disciplinary hearing she has faced, that she did not cause any harm to any animal and that she did not gain financially from her conduct.

In reaching its decision Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Ms Buttler said she had worked for twenty years without any problem and that she was previously of good character. However because there was no evidence that Ms Buttler would not repeat the conduct with regards to working whilst under the influence of alcohol she could continue to pose a risk to animals or the public in the future. The Committee therefore was bound to consider her removal from the register.

"Although it noted from the brief email correspondence Ms Buttler had sent to the College that she said she did not intend to practice in the future, the Committee decided that until she had shown insight into her behaviour in 2016, she remained a risk to animals. It therefore decided that the proportionate action was to instruct the Registrar to remove her name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith."

If Ms Buttler chose to re-engage with the College, she could apply for restoration to the register after ten months.

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee has ordered that Karen Tracey Hancock be removed from the Register after finding that she had been dishonest about an injury she claimed to have sustained while working in practice in August 2015.

The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented. 

The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.

The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.

The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:

• issued a claim notification form dated 22 January 2016 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice in August 2015;
• signed a statement dated 30 June 2017 stating that she had sustained a knee injury at work on 13 August 2015 which had then been aggravated at work on the 29 August 2015;
• issued Particulars of Claim dated 13 July 2018 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice on 13 August 2015.

The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.

It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.

The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.

The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.

In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.

"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."

The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.

On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.

Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.

“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a County Durham-based veterinary surgeon following her undertakings to request removal from the RCVS Register and never to apply to be restored to it.

At the hearing held yesterday, Silke Birgitt Lindridge was charged with disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in regard to four separate allegations, spanning the period of June 2011 to September 2012 whilst in practice at the Safe Hands Veterinary Group. Two of the allegations related to failures to euthanase or arrange the euthanasia of a cat and a dog and being dishonest and/or misleading about these failures, with their respective owners. The other two allegations related to administering a vaccine (Fevaxyn) which was more than two years past its expiry date to a cat, and failure to provide or take adequate steps to provide promptly all the relevant clinical information to a veterinary practice taking over the responsibility for the treatment of a Labrador Cross.

However, before the Disciplinary Committee had heard evidence in respect of these charges, Mrs Lindridge, who did not attend the hearing, had lodged her application for adjournment on the basis that she would request that the Registrar remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and undertake never to apply to be restored to it. The Disciplinary Committee made no enquiry into the facts of the four charges and emphasised that they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, the respondent.

Removal from the RCVS Register removes a veterinary surgeon's right to practise in the UK. The respondent informed the RCVS that she had no wish to return to the practice of veterinary surgery in this country. Should she subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Disciplinary Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with the breach of her undertaking.

The Disciplinary Committee was advised that the views of the animal owners involved had been sought and that all had agreed with the proposed course of action.

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having considered the information before it, the Committee has decided it would not be in the public interest to proceed to a full hearing. It is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the respondent [Mrs Lindridge] protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession."

Professor Lees added: "The undertakings offered by the respondent to request the Registrar to remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and never to make an application for restoration to the Register, go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing. It does not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing."

A coalition of veterinary organisations including the BVA, BVNA, Blue Cross, BSAVA, BVZS, PDSA and RSPCA has launched a joint campaign to help pet owners understand their pets' five welfare needs.  

According to the forthcoming PDSA Animal Welfare 2016 report, only 35% of pet owners are familiar with their pets' legal welfare needs, a figure which has remained persistently low over the past 6 years (45% in 2011, 31% in 2012, 38% in 2013, 36% in 2014 and 31% in 2015).

The same report revealed in 2015 that 97% of veterinary professionals agreed there is value in encouraging pet owners to better understand and provide for the five welfare needs of their pets.

The 2016 report will also report that pet owners who feel more informed about each of the five welfare needs are significantly more likely to provide preventive healthcare to their pets.

Gudrun Ravetz, President of the BVA said: "It’s concerning that, despite many veterinary practices’ best efforts, public awareness of the five welfare needs remains consistently low. There are so many strong voices for animal welfare, which is why it’s great that so many veterinary organisations – including BSAVA, BVNA and BVZS – are coming together within this coalition to highlight pet owners’ legal duty of care. We hope practices across the country will join us in spreading the message by continuing to deliver the welfare need-focused advice to clients that they already do, day-in, day-out."

The 2006 Animal Welfare Acts of England and Wales, and Scotland consolidated and replaced more than 20 pieces of outmoded legislation. They established a duty of care, enshrining in law five animal welfare needs, outlining housing, diet, behaviour, social interactions and health as the legal responsibilities that every owner should meet to ensure their pet is as happy and healthy as possible.

The veterinary animal welfare coalition says it recognises that veterinary practices across the UK already promote the five welfare needs through a range of methods, from displaying materials in their waiting rooms to providing health check consultations with vets and vet nurses to discuss pets’ needs. The seven organisations, which are all UK based and support or provide veterinary service delivery, are pooling their resources so that veterinary practices can more easily signpost clients to the wealth of resources that are available.

James Yeates, who chairs the veterinary animal welfare coalition as part of the Vet Futures Action Plan, said: "The five welfare needs are a fantastic 'umbrella' guide to taking care of our pets, yet each and every species has such differing welfare needs - from cats who tend to be solitary animals and usually prefer to be the only pet to rabbits that should live in pairs or groups of other rabbits and dogs, who should not be left on their own for more than a few hours a day - it’s vital that pet owners can translate theory into practice. Our understanding of animal welfare science has come such a long way over the past 50 years so we'd really like pet owners to visit their local veterinary practice, where they will be able to get tailored, up-to-date advice for their pets."

The BVA's Spring 2016 Voice of the Profession survey of over 1,600 veterinary surgeons found that the majority (60%) see diet as their main welfare concern, causing obesity, dental issues and a variety of other complex health problems. The coalition of veterinary organisations behind this campaign says it hopes it will encourage the 15% of pet owners not currently registered with a veterinary practice to seek out their local surgery for expert advice about issues such as these.

More information about the coalition and the resources available to practices can be found at www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/newsroom/news-releases/uk-pets-at-risk-as-two-thirds-of-owners-unaware-of-legal-welfare-needs/

Bristol-based Dayna Johnson has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee after she was convicted of stealing controlled drugs from a practice where she worked.

Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.

She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.

There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.

Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.

The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.

Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.

Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.

Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).

Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.

Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.

At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.

Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.

After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.

Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.

In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.

Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.

In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:

• Risk of injury to an animal or human
• Recklessness in carrying on working despite the risks to animals and colleagues
• Premeditated misconduct (for example obtaining keys/codes to the controlled drugs cabinet)
• Abuse of professional position
• Misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time
• Conduct contravening advice issued by the RCVS, including the Preliminary Investigation Committee and Professional Conduct Department, or other appropriate authority (the police conditional caution)

The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.

The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.

When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:

• There were no previous disciplinary findings against Miss Johnson
• Her criminal conviction was now a spent conviction
• Her misconduct appeared to be as a result of her drug addiction at the time
• She had made some efforts to avoid repetition by engaging with addiction recovery meetings and talking therapies
• She said she had been drug-free since December 2023

The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”

She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.

"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.

“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.

"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.

“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”

Veterinary Prescriber has named 2019 the Year of Prescribing Excellence and launched a new online training module: Good veterinary dispensing practice.

Andrea Tarr BPharm MSC MRPharmS, the founder and director of Veterinary Prescriber said: "Prescribing is a neglected aspect of veterinary practice. When it comes to making treatment decisions, vets are very poorly supported by their professional organisations, the pharmaceutical industry has a hugely distorting influence and there's a lack of access to really helpful information. 

"We're determined to use the expertise in Veterinary Prescriber to change this, and support vets in their use of medicines in the best interests of animals, their owners and the environment.

"With this in mind, we start the year with a learning module of good veterinary dispensing practice."

The module explains what constitutes a well-run dispensary, including how to organise, handle and store medicines correctly. It reviews the legal classifications of medicines, including controlled drugs and the cascade. It also considers why dispensing errors occur and what to do when they happen. 

Veterinary Prescriber says its modules are evidence-based, peer-reviewed and independent of the pharmaceutical industry. 

Subscription costs £9.95 per month, which you can cancel any time. To subscribe, visit: www.veterinaryprescriber.org 

RSPCA has launched a new website called 'Political Animal' to encourage voters to lobby their prospective parliamentary candidates about animal welfare issues ahead of the General Election.

The site offers an interesting timeline of the last 20 years of animal welfare law, leading up to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, showing landmark changes. It also gives details of the RSPCA's stance on issues like status dogs, higher welfare farming, wild animals in circuses and animals used in experiments.

RSPCA parliamentary officer Stacey Frier, said: "The Political Animal microsite is a unique project allowing our supporters to drive the debate by letting politicians know what they want them to do for animal welfare if they are elected.

"The RSPCA and its supporters have been instrumental in campaigning for change in animal welfare legislation since the Society's creation in 1824 and we're urging the incoming parliament to continue to work with us to achieve further animal welfare milestones."

For more information, please log on to http://www.politicalanimal.org.uk/

Researchers at the Animal Health Trust Equine Clinic have developed an ethogram to help veterinary surgeons, owners and riders identify when a horse is in pain, from its facial expressions when being ridden. 

According to the AHT, there is undisputed evidence that owners, riders and trainers have a poor ability to recognise signs of pain seen when horses are ridden. As a result, problems are labelled as training-related, rider-related, behavioural, or deemed 'normal' for that horse because 'that’s how he’s always gone'.

This, says the AHT, means pain-related problems are often disregarded, the horse continues in work, and the problem gets progressively worse. 

Dr Sue Dyson, Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the AHT, believes it may be easier to educate riders and trainers to recognise changes in facial expression and behaviour rather than lameness. So she and her team set out to develop and test an ethogram to describe facial expressions in ridden horses and to determine whether individuals could interpret and correctly apply the ethogram consistently.

At this stage in the project, they concluded that their ethogram could reliably be used to describe facial expressions of ridden horses by people from different professional backgrounds (full paper here: http://www.journalvetbehavior.com/article/S1558-7878(16)30184-8/fulltext).

In the next stage of the project, Sue and her team sought to demonstrate that the ethogram could be used to identify lameness. 

The ethogram was applied blindly by a trained analyst to photographs (n=519) of the head and neck of lame (n=76) and non-lame (n=25) horses acquired during ridden schooling-type work at both trot and canter. These included images of seven lame horses acquired before (n=30 photographs) and after diagnostic analgesia had abolished lameness (n=22 photographs).

A pain score (0-3; 0=normal, 1-3=abnormal) was applied to each feature in the ethogram, based on published descriptions of pain in horses.

A total of 27,407 facial markers were recorded, with those giving the greatest significant difference between lame and sound horses including ears back, eyes partially or fully closed, an open mouth with exposed teeth and being severely above the bit.

Pain scores were higher for lame horses than non-lame horses (p<0.001). Total pain score (p<0.05), total head position score (p<0.01), and total ear score (p<0.01) were reduced in lame horses after abolition of lameness.

Severely ‘above the bit’, twisting the head, asymmetrical position of the bit, ear position (both ears backwards, one ear backwards and one to the side, one ear backwards and one ear forwards) and eye features (exposure of the sclera, the eye partially or completely closed, muscle tension caudal to the eye, an intense stare) were the best indicators of pain.

The researchers concluded that application of the ethogram and pain score could differentiate between lame and non-lame horses. Assessment of facial expression could potentially improve recognition of pain-related gait abnormalities in ridden horses (full paper here: http://www.journalvetbehavior.com/article/S1558-7878(17)30019-9/fulltext)

Sue and her team are now working on the development of a whole horse ethogram and its application to non-lame and lame horses, to help to differentiate between manifestations of conflict behaviour, in response to the demands of the rider, and pain. They are also working towards the development of a practical tool for recognising facial expressions, similar to that of a body condition score chart, which they say could dramatically improve the health and welfare of all horses.

Photo: Signs of pain include ears back (pain score of 3), intense stare, muscle tension and mouth. Courtesy Dr Sue Tyson. 

Swadlincote Veterinary Centre in Derbyshire has become the first veterinary workplace to be awarded Gold accreditation through the Great Workplaces by BVA scheme.

The Swadlincote and Melbourne-based IVC practice worked with a Great Workplaces by BVA accreditor during the pilot of the new scheme, to demonstrate its strengths against an accreditation framework covering four key themes: health and wellbeing, leadership and management, culture and learning and development. 

In the report, the accreditor was particularly impressed by the practice’s strong leadership and management; its emphasis on accommodating flexibility for team members in various forms; a robust teamworking ethos; and a focus on continuous improvement.

British Veterinary Association President Elizabeth Mullineaux said: “We’re delighted to see Swadlincote Veterinary Centre become the first veterinary workplace to achieve Gold accreditation through Great Workplaces by BVA scheme.

"Congratulations to the whole practice team for this incredible recognition.

“Creating positive working environments and targeting areas for improvement are the key to tackling ongoing workforce challenges around recruitment and retention.

"We hope this first Gold accreditation inspires others to strive towards gaining recognition as workplaces where vet teams thrive.”

Ingrid Stevenson, Clinical Director at Swadlincote Veterinary Centre, said: “While we knew the practice was doing well, we didn’t go into this process expecting Gold at all.

"My practice manager and I were just both really keen to get some feedback and to find out what more we could do to help the team.

“We have several clinical accreditations in the practice, but it is the team that are responsible for achieving these and maintaining the high standards.

"I believe the team should be looked after, recognised and rewarded for their hard work and going above and beyond when necessary. 

"The team were really pleased when I shared the news.

"It has certainly been good for team morale and a positive outcome to share with potential new recruits. '

“The accreditation process was a thorough assessment of the practice and our accreditor made us feel all at ease during the interviews. 

"While we achieved Gold, which was unexpected, we have also learnt of areas to develop further over the coming months.

"Overall, it was a positive experience for our practice.”

www.bva.co.uk/take-action/good-veterinary-workplaces/

Nominations are now open for the Ceva Animal Welfare Awards 2020, including the Vet of the Year Award.

The awards celebrate the achievements of remarkable people who dedicate their lives to improving animal health and welfare both in the UK and abroad. They are open to vets, vet nurses, farmers, animal welfare professionals and animal welfare teams who can be nominated to receive an award by fellow peers, friends and family or the general public.

There are nine nomination categories including a new one this year to recognise an international individual or team that stands out from the crowd by influencing and significantly contributing to making a visible difference in the world of animal welfare.

The categories are: 

• Chris Laurence Vet of the Year supported by Vet Record. 

• Vet Nurse of the Year supported by Agria Pet Insurance

• Charity Team of the Year supported by PDSA

• Charitable Contribution of the Year supported by Blue Cross

• International Cat Care Welfare of the Year supported by International Cat Care

• Farmer of the Year supported by R.A.B.I. and Farmers Guardian

• Farm Educator of the Year supported by NADIS and Farmers Guardian

• Outstanding Contribution to Animal Welfare supported by Your Dog and Your Cat magazines

• Outstanding International Contribution to Animal Welfare supported by Ceva International

Nominations can be made at https://www.cevawelfare.com/click-here-to-nominate with nominations closing on Tuesday 31 December 2019. 

Finalists will be announced at the beginning of February and winners will be revealed at an awards ceremony in Birmingham in April on the eve of BSAVA Congress.

Cuneyt Seckin, Managing Director of Ceva Animal Health UK and Ireland, said: "As an animal health company, animal welfare is a huge focus for us. The Ceva Animal Welfare Awards are an opportunity to formally recognise and congratulate outstanding animal welfare teams and individuals who contribute to the protection and welfare of animals in their daily lives."

For more information, visit www.cevawelfare.com.

The RCVS has announced the winners and losers in this year's Council elections. 

7,383 veterinary surgeons voted in this year's election, a turnout of 19.7%. 

This compares to turnouts of 16.7% in 2023, 18.6% in 2022, 24.5% in 2021, and 26.2% in 2020. 

Of the 14 candidates, Professor David Barratt, Sinead Bennett and Zara Kennedy were all elected to serve for a four year term, with 1,747 votes, 1,796 and 2,264 votes respectively. 

Mark Bowen (1,404), Richard Brown (1,030), Paddy Gordon (1,612), Gerard Henry (1,157), Peter Higgins (496), Penelope Morgan (1,584), Kate Richards (1,264), Richard Sanderson (1,380), Sally Schroeder (1,630), Lara Wilson (1,399) and the inevitable Thomas Lonsdale (257) were all unsuccessful. 

The winning candidates will take up their posts at Royal College Day, which is open to all vets to attend on Friday 5th July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.

www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned a Clwyd-based veterinary surgeon on charges relating to falsifying prescriptions to obtain drugs for her own use.

At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mrs Alina Grecko admitted that in 2009 she had written out three prescriptions for her own use whilst working as a veterinary surgeon at Greenfield Veterinary Surgery, Holywell, Clywd, and that this amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee found this to be the case, and said she was right to admit it. The Committee also said this was deliberate wrong-doing on three separate occasions and involved an obvious breach of Mrs Grecko's legal duties in relation to prescription which was bound to diminish the profession and public confidence in it. It was also a flagrant breach of the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.

In the Committee's opinion the charge was a serious one; it involved falsehoods and disregard of legal obligations and of the profession's standards, as well as compromising another professional - a pharmacist. In mitigation, however, the Committee accepted that the offence involved no harm to any animal or person, nor risk of harm except to herself; nor was there financial gain. Mrs Grecko was a young and relatively inexperienced veterinary surgeon, and the Committee's view was that the offence was the result of her not thinking straight at a time of great stress in her personal and professional life, rather than a clearly thought out course of deliberate conduct. It was in no doubt that Mrs Grecko was genuinely remorseful about her behaviour and had insight into its seriousness.

The Committee also considered evidence relating to the circumstances in which the prescription came to be written. It accepted the general case that the original idea of self-prescribing did not come from Mrs Grecko; however, the Committee did not find that she had been encouraged or persuaded; the most that could be said was that Mrs Grecko had taken up a casual suggestion that she might write the prescription herself.

When deciding on sanction, the Committee took into account both the facts of the particular case and the mitigating factors. It reiterated that the primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish the Respondent but to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and said the sanction applied must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the Respondent's conduct, and weigh the public interest with the interests of the Respondent. The Committee also said that in a case involving the writing of false prescriptions the importance of public confidence in the profession and of upholding the standards of the profession mean that the Committee would normally feel that at least a suspension from the Register should be imposed.

Having given anxious consideration to the question whether that course could properly be avoided in this case, the Committee felt able to take an exceptional course and the sanctions it has imposed are that the Respondent will both be reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct. It directed that these sanctions will remain on her record indefinitely.

Welsh Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, has announced a £5m programme to help eradicate sheep scab.

The disease had been identified as a priority by the Wales Animal Health and Welfare Framework Group.

Further details will be announced in the coming months following ongoing discussions with industry representatives.

The Minister said: "Sheep scab has significant economic consequences for sheep producers and animal welfare issues for sheep. It is one of the most contagious disease of sheep in Wales and eradicating it is a priority for us and the industry.

"I’m pleased to be able to announce £5m Rural Development Programme funding will be used to help support the industry tackle the disease.  Eradicating the disease has the potential to deliver significant lasting economic benefits for the sector at a particularly challenging time as we prepare to leave the European Union."