The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Oxfordshire-based practitioner Dr Susan Catherine Mulvey MRCVS for six months, for failing to communicate with clients, professional colleagues and the College.

There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.

The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.

At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.

The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.

In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.

This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so. 

With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.

The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.

The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.

The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.  

The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.

In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.

The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).

Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.    

Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.

It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings. 

Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.

"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."

Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

New research from the RVC has revealed that young, male, crossbred cats are at greater risk of being hit by a car, begging the question as to why they tried to cross the road in the first place.

The study, which was carried out by the VetCompass programme at the RVC, in partnership with Vets Now, also found that cats are most likely to be involved in a traffic accident in the autumn. 

1,407 cat road traffic accident cases that attended Vets Now clinics across the UK between December 2011 and February 2014 were analysed, with researchers finding: 

• Younger cats, aged six months to six years, are at the greatest risk of road traffic accidents.

• Male cats are 1.3 times more at risk of road traffic accidents than female cats. 

• Crossbred cats are 1.9 times more at risk of road traffic accidents compared to purebred cats.

• Cats are more likely to be involved in a road traffic accident in the autumn. However, they are less at risk in winter as compared to spring.

• Those cats that present with abdominal or spinal injuries are more likely to die, as are those that present with an increasing count of injuries.

• The 1,407 cats that were admitted after being hit by a car represented 4.2% of all cats treated at emergency veterinary clinics (n=22,586) during the period. 

RVC veterinary epidemiologist and VetCompass researcher Dr Dan O’Neill said: "One of the scariest times for any cat-owner is when they first start to let their cat go outside unattended. Owners of younger, and especially male, cats need to be especially vigilant. These results help owners to understand the true risks and therefore assist these owners to make the best decisions about if and how they let their cats go outside."

Dr Amanda Boag, Clinical Director of Vets Now, said: "We are very proud to have worked with VetCompass to ensure this important information about risks to our pet cats is made available to vets and the public. Working with our partners such as the RVC, we are committed to ensuring our large clinical database is used to help advance veterinary knowledge and understanding of emergency and critical care practice."

The full paper entitled 'Epidemiology of Road Traffic Accidents in Cats attending emergency-care practices in the UK' is published in the Journal of Small Animal Practice.

The Royal Veterinary College has launched an appeal to the veterinary profession to raise a target of £10,000 to enable VetAid Kenya to help during what has become the worst drought in living memory in the Horn of Africa.

According to the RVC, the drought has already forced over one million cattle and small stock south into the Tana Delta district of Kenya in search of grazing. Crowded together, these weakened animals are at major risk of infectious and parasitic disease. In some cases 80-90% mortality can be expected in herds or flocks. Without veterinary intervention, breeding livestock for communities in the Horn of Africa drought area will be devastated.

Government veterinary services are stretched and they are assisted in a coordinated response involving Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (Belgium, Switzerland and Germany) and VetAid Kenya which has staff in the field protecting herds.  The programme has been partly funded by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), but with funds running low this vital activity is at risk just as it is most needed. VetAid Kenya is now the only veterinary agency working in the area, implementing an emergency vaccination programme to protect the breeding stock.

Gabriel Turasha, Director of VetAid Kenya said: "We only have one team working in Tana River and desperately need funds to send out three more teams as soon as possible.  £10,000 would cover the cost of three teams, transport and vaccinations to treat 20,000 animals per week.  This will make a real difference as we are providing the only veterinary support in this vast area.  

"Our vaccination teams are ready to go out into the field at a few days notice. We just need to mobilize them.  This is where the UK veterinary profession can help - every pound donated will make a huge difference!"

RVC Principal Professor Stuart Reid said: "Veterinary services are seriously stretched in Kenya and the only organisations with the flexibility, initiative and expertise to respond this to emergency are the veterinary NGOs such as VetAid Kenya and its Vétérinaires Sans Frontières partners.

"FAO has limited budget to spend on disaster response and RVC has a longstanding relationship with VetAid Kenya and with the region in general.  As a College, we strongly feel that we should do all we can to support pastoral farmers in the region, and mounting this appeal is one way in which we can respond to the ongoing disaster and support our veterinary colleagues in East Africa."   

The RVC and all other agencies involved in this appeal are contributing their services pro-bono so that all funds raised will go to the programme to help the people and animals struggling with the drought. 

To donate, visit: www.rvc.ac.uk/vetaidkenya

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register by Mr Joseph Holmes, who was struck off in 2011 for serious professional misconduct associated with surgery he had carried out on a dog and two cats.

At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing that concluded on 14 January 2011, two separate complaints had been considered against Mr Holmes, formerly of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby. These involved a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct. Mr Holmes was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.

The then-Committee directed Mr Holmes' name be removed from the Register, whereupon he appealed to the Privy Council, who dismissed his appeal on 22 December 2011, concluding that removal from the Register "was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession".

At the hearing last week the Committee considered several factors in relation to Mr Holmes' application for restoration.  Although Mr Holmes gave assurances that he accepted the findings of the original hearing, this contrasted completely to the robust way in which he had challenged all of these at that hearing and the majority in his appeal. Mr Holmes had been off the Register for only 12 months - just over the minimum period before an application for restoral was permitted. The Committee took the view that the application was premature and was not satisfied that Mr Holmes truly appreciated the seriousness of the findings made against him.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Holmes showed deficiencies in his knowledge, such as not knowing all of the constituents of the human drug, Anadin Extra, in spite of having produced a record of continuing professional development (CPD) on analgesia and having prescribed it to a dog in the original complaint. He did not provide records of CPD for 2010, 2011 and 2012, and although recognising that working in isolation from the majority of his fellow practitioners had contributed to his failures, he had made very limited efforts to observe first-opinion veterinary practice.

The Committee accepted at face value Mr Holmes' statement that he had not worked as a veterinary surgeon whilst de-registered, and accepted that removal from the Register had had a profound effect on Mr Holmes and his family, including the sale of his practice. It noted that Mr Holmes produced only the testimonials previously submitted to the Privy Council, which were of limited scope.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "Having regard to all the factors set out above, the Committee regrets that it is not satisfied that the applicant is fit to be restored to the Register. Accordingly, the application is refused."

Scotland-based veterinary ophthalmologist Tamir Spiegel, who offers referral and telemedicine services through Vision Vet, has launched two CPD webinar courses.

The first, which covers three topics: canine uveitis, canine glaucoma and non-healing corneal ulcer, is for the entire practice. It normally costs £95 per practice, but for VetSurgeon.org members, it's £70. 

To book, visit: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScSSbUDCcC53cvPJtj1oPkJFEoDjJ3Tdij_y9iFtr7emBvkoQ/viewform?usp=pp_url 

The second course is 'Ophthalmic Examination in the Dogs and Cats', which costs £25 for VetSurgeon.org members, that is reduced to £15 per person. 

To book, visit: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfnBizM5NmFGwWeDqtdXy9zCq8KdFgGI2e5D8pjuWOTuPln0Q/viewform?usp=pp_url 

Originally from Belgium, Tamir, who qualified at Glasgow in 2001, started Vision Vet in 2009 and gained his National French Certificate in Ophthalmology (broadly equivalent to the UK Cert) in 2011.

https://www.vision-vet.co.uk 

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is inviting comments on new proposals for bringing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 up to date.

In 2005, following earlier consultations, the RCVS Council called for extensive changes in the arrangements for regulating veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Last year, however, the Government made clear that it had no plans to bring forward amending legislation for the time being.

Council has now considered recommendations for more limited changes in the Act. The report of the Veterinary Legislation Group advises focusing on three priority areas: the composition of Council itself; the composition of the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees; and the jurisdiction and powers of the two committees.

Council would welcome comments on the recommendations from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, interested bodies and the public.

"We now know that it will not be easy to get any changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, so we need to think very carefully about the priorities and how to achieve them," says RCVS President Sandy Trees. "Before making any decisions, we want to hear views from a wide range of people who are affected by the work of the RCVS."

A consultation paper is online at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Hard copies are also available from Jeff Gill, Policy Officer, RCVS, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF, j.gill@rcvs.org.uk, 020 7202 0735. The deadline for responses is 21 October 2009.

The National Office of Animal Health (NOAH) has issued a briefing document for veterinary surgeons to help clarify which antibiotic classes should be considered as critically important antibiotics – those classified as such by scientific assessment by the European Medicines Agency.

The responsible use of antibiotics termed critically important is an important strand in the UK policy to fight antibiotic resistance development.

However, NOAH says there is much confusion about which antibiotics should be considered within this group, with different organisations referring to different classes.

Donal Murphy, Head of Technical and Regulatory Affairs at NOAH said: "NOAH believes the classification and use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine should be driven and guided by the regulators, who are independent and make science based decisions and recommendations.

"Of course, all classes of antibiotics, whether critically important or not, should be used responsibly and guided by the principle outlined by the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (RUMA) who state they should be used  'as little as possible but as much as necessary'. The use of these important products in this manner can ensure that the availability and efficacy of antibiotics can be maintained to ensure animal health and welfare in the future."

You can download the briefing document here.

The BSAVA has published the results of a survey which shows that technology used to mitigate the effects of lockdown may lead to long term, beneficial changes to the way practices operate. 

Over 25% of the 1001 veterinary professionals who responded felt that the use of technology for triage and or consultations had either improved efficiency or the service offered to clients.

More than 10% said the pandemic had led to practices taking actions which streamlined client processes such as taking payments and booking appointments online or by phone.

The survey results are included in a presentation at the BSAVA Virtual Congress: "Lessons from Lockdown:Telemedicine is here to stay", which forms part of the current topics stream on Saturday 27th March. Brian Faulkner will take a look at maintaining relationships and changing dynamics with remote consults, communication challenges and opportunities. Matt Flann will follow with: "A practical perspective – how we have used it, what have we learned?"

BSAVA President Professor Ian Ramsey said: “The survey results have given us an important insight on how technology is being deployed to help the profession continue to help pets and their owners safely and to the best of their ability in these difficult circumstances. 

"Vets have embraced innovations in practice such as telephone triage, remote consultations and digital communications. These have shown us that, as within the human healthcare sector, we can continue to deliver our vital services, possibly to an even more efficient and effective standard, despite the restrictions. 

"Our Congress session on lockdown learnings promises to make for compelling listening with important ramifications for veterinary practice even after the pandemic has receded to a bitter memory. As we return to degrees of normality these innovations should not be discarded, but equally must not be allowed to generate the inequalities that go hand in hand with them if some practices and owners are inadvertently left behind.”

To register for BSAVA Congress, visit https://www.bsavaevents.com/bsavacongress2021/en/page/home 

Reference

1. The BSAVA Market Research was conducted online in November/December 2020, with responses from 1001 veterinary professionals.

Virbac has launched an iPhone app designed to support veterinary surgeons in the diagnosis of canine dermatological conditions.

Called Virbac-Derm-Diag it enables clinicians to create a clinical history (including photographs) of a patient then recommends a clinical chronological approach for the diagnosis of many of the canine skin diseases seen most commonly in practice. It also contains a library of downloadable monographs, videos and images of skin diseases which can be used to support discussions with owners about diagnosis and potential treatment regimes.

Chris Geddes MRCVS, Product Manager, said: "Dog skin disorders are among the most common health problems seen in practice and have a wide range of causative factors. We are really excited about the launch of the app, which should prove really useful as vets work through the various steps of history-taking and examination required to reach an accurate diagnosis.

It also provides a wealth of materials to help them explain the implications of diagnosis to owners and recommended treatment options."

Veterinary dermatologist Anthony Chadwick said: "This is an ideal app for those vets who have an interest in dermatology and want readily accessible information at their fingertips. The images of lesions are likely to be particularly helpful."

Virbac Derm-Diag, it is available by searching for 'Virbac' in the app store (or click here). The content is restricted to veterinary surgeons, who must register at www.virbacderm.com to gain an access code.

Virbac says an iPad version will be available within weeks and there are plans to launch the app on other platforms shortly.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Gloucestershire veterinary surgeon Adele Lewis for failing to pass on information about a horse’s clinical history to a potential buyer during a pre-purchase examination.

Ms Lewis, the sole principal of the Cotswold Equine Clinic in Lechlade, Gloucestershire, carried out the examination of a pony called Luke on 13 February 2014. Luke was owned by Mrs Booth who was a long-established client of Ms Lewis, both at her previous practice, Bourton Vale, and at her current practice. The examination was carried out on behalf of the prospective purchaser, Mrs Grieve.

Upon examination Ms Lewis certified that, in her opinion, Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase.

Following the purchase of Luke, Mrs Grieve attempted to obtain insurance for Luke and found out from a pet insurance company that a claim had been made by Mrs Booth in September 2013. She subsequently found out that, following concerns expressed by Mrs Booth and her trainer about Luke’s movement and their wanting an expert opinion, Ms Lewis had referred him to Dr Kold, a Specialist in Equine Orthopaedics, in September 2013. Dr Kold had diagnosed Luke with lameness and had given him intra-articular medication. Luke had also had a follow-up appointment with Dr Kold about four weeks later in October 2013.  

The Disciplinary Committee hearing commenced on Tuesday 13 October 2015. At the outset, Ms Lewis admitted several parts of the charges (charge A and charge B) against her. In regards to charge A, she admitted that she had failed to inform Mrs Grieve that, when she examined Luke on 24 September 2013, his then owner Mrs Booth had complained firstly that Luke was “not tracking up and going forward” and, secondly, that he had improved significantly when put on a Phenylbutazone trial. She also admitted that she had referred him to Dr Kold for a poor performance investigation and that she ought to have informed Mrs Grieve of these matters.

In regards to charge B, she admitted that she completed a Certificate of Veterinary Examination in which she had declared that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase and allowed the vendor’s declaration to include assertions that there had been no previous lameness and no intra-articular medication given in the last 12 months. Ms Lewis admitted that she ought to have known that her declaration that Luke’s veterinary history did not increase the risk of purchase was incorrect.

However, Ms Lewis denied being aware that Dr Kold had diagnosed lameness, administered an intra-articular corticosteroid to Luke and examined and noted a problem with his breathing, including upper airway disease and possible lower airway disease. Furthermore, she denied dishonesty in regards to both the charges against her and in relation to vendor declarations made on the Certificate of Veterinary Examination regarding previous lameness and intra-articular medication.

During the course of the hearing, Ms Lewis told the Committee that she had not received the reports about the two consultations by Dr Kold (despite their having been sent to her by letter and, with respect to the second report, also by email) and that she was therefore unaware of his findings when she carried out the pre-purchase examination. She also stated that she had not been informed of these by Mrs Booth. During her evidence, Ms Lewis also admitted having entered inaccurate information on a veterinary report to assist with an insurance claim.

The Committee did not find Ms Lewis to be an impressive witness citing the fact that her “explanations as to her practice showed a worrying absence of probity in the completion of veterinary reports for the purposes of insurance claims, and an absence of any effective practice management, consistent with acceptable practice.”

However, the Committee felt it did not have the evidence to conclude that Ms Lewis had acted dishonestly during the pre-purchase examination. It cited the fact that her actions, when informed by the purchaser Mrs Grieve of Dr Kold’s examination, did not appear to be those of someone trying to cover their tracks.

In regards to charge A, the Committee also found that the “apparently chaotic manner in which Ms Lewis ran her practice, and her own opinion that the pony was sound, would appear to have led her to wrongly disregard these matters from disclosure.”

In making its decision on her conduct and sanction, the Committee said that Ms Lewis’ failure to fully communicate to Mrs Grieve all the relevant information about Luke’s veterinary history fell far short of the conduct expected from a veterinary surgeon. It also cited the utmost importance of a complete and accurate certification process, as made clear in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Twelve Principles of Certification.  

Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said:  “The Committee continues to emphasise the importance of maintaining the integrity of veterinary certification in any aspect of practice. Mrs Grieve told this Committee that if she had been fully informed about Luke’s veterinary history she would not have purchased the pony. It is clear from the evidence that it affected Mrs Grieve’s ability to insure the pony. Ms Lewis has accepted that the information about Luke’s veterinary history, not having been disclosed, was capable of affecting the risk of purchase. The public are entitled to rely upon veterinary surgeons providing complete and accurate information, when certificates and reports are prepared.”

In mitigation, the Committee paid regard to Ms Lewis’ inexperience at running her own practice and found no issue with her competence or clinical ability as a veterinary surgeon. It concluded that she had acted out of character and that there was no financial motivation for her actions. It also found it “highly relevant that the facts admitted and found proved related to a single pre-purchase examination.”

It also noted that Ms Lewis has now put in place a practice management system and has shown insight into her actions, by taking active steps to better comply with her obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. She had also made early admissions of guilt and made a full apology to both Mrs Grieve and the RCVS both at the outset of the hearing, and in her evidence.

Chitra Karve added: “Having had the opportunity of observing her demeanour at this hearing, the Committee believes that it is unlikely that she will repeat her conduct.... The Committee has concluded that an appropriate and proportionate response in this case is to reprimand Ms Lewis.”

Legislation to make CCTV cameras mandatory in slaughterhouses in England has been laid before Parliament by Environment Secretary Michael Gove.

The legislation will come into effect from May 2018, at which point businesses will have six months to comply. The penalty for failing to comply will be an enforcement notice to the business or prosecution.

In August 2017, the Secretary of State launched a consultation on the plans to deliver a manifesto commitment for CCTV to be required in every slaughterhouse in England in all areas where live animals are present, with unrestricted access to footage for Official Veterinarians.

A summary of responses published in November showed that of almost 4,000 respondents, more than 99% were supportive of the plans.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove said: "We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and want to cement our status as a global leader by continuing to raise the bar.

"Introducing compulsory CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses is a further demonstration to consumers around the world that as we leave the EU, we continue to produce our food to the very highest standards.

"The previous reaction to the consultation highlighted the strength of feeling among the public that all animals should be treated with the utmost respect at all stages of life and be subject to the highest possible welfare standards."

The proposals will also give the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) Official Veterinarians (OVs) unfettered access to the last 90 days of footage to help them monitor and enforce animal welfare standards.

BVA President John Fishwick said: "Mandatory CCTV in all areas of slaughterhouses will provide an essential tool in fostering a culture of compassion that could help safeguard animal welfare.

"We commend the Government’s commitment to provide Official Veterinarians with unrestricted access to the footage, which the veterinary profession has long been campaigning for. 

"It is vets’ independence and unique qualifications that help ensure the UK will continue to have the highest standards of animal health, welfare and food safety post-Brexit."

Photo: Lititz, Pennsylvania. Hoisting a slaughtered steer in Benjamin Lutz's slaughterhouse, 1942. Wikipedia.

RCVS Knowledge has launched a national research project into quality improvement (QI) in the veterinary profession, which all members of the profession are invited to take part in.

What is 'quality improvement', you ask? Good question. Sure, it's an improvement in, er, quality. But of what?

'Quality improvement' is a term adopted from the human healthcare sector, variously defined as anything which makes: "healthcare safer, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable (NHS)", or "the combined and unceasing efforts of everyone—healthcare professionals, patients and their families, researchers, payers, planners and educators—to make the changes that will lead to better patient outcomes (health), better system performance (care) and better professional development (BMJ)."

The RCVS research project, which is being conducted by RAND EUROPE, will assess current perceptions and adoption of quality improvement in the veterinary profession.

Specifically, it'll look at the drivers, barriers and expectations associated with QI, with the ultimate goal of strengthening the support provided to the profession.

Chris Gush, Executive Director of RCVS Knowledge, said: "We are delighted to be launching this research project with RAND Europe.

"We know that many of our colleagues across the profession have embedded quality improvement into their practice to great benefit, while we are also aware that it can be a challenge to do so all of the time.

"This research will provide an unprecedented body of evidence on the experiences and perceptions of QI, which will be critical to how we work to support the sector in this area going forward."

Integral to the research is a survey which all members of the profession are invited to take part in, here: bit.ly/QIvetsurvey. 

The survey will be live for six weeks, closing early April. It takes around ten minutes to complete, with a prize of one £150 Amazon voucher on offer. Responses will be anonymised.

You can read more about Quality Improvement on the RCVS Knowledge website, here: https://knowledge.rcvs.org.uk/quality-improvement/ 

A new survey of horse owners¹ by supplement brand, Cavalor, has found that 66% of horses have suffered from lameness as a result of joint disease and one-fifth of horses have been off work with the problem for a year or more.

The company says it's not just older horses suffering from joint disease, 36% of horses developed the condition by the time they were eight years old.

In the survey, 69% of horses needed up to five visits to their veterinary surgeon for treatment, while 21% needed as many as ten visits. Horse owners spent an average of £2,104 treating their horse’s joint condition while 5% spent more than £7,500 on the problem.

In addition, 53% said they've missed up to ten competitions due to joint disease, with 17% missing more than 20 competitions.

The survey revealed that joint problems are an ongoing concern for many. 76% of owners said they worry about their horse developing osteoarthritis and 30% had retired a horse earlier than expected owing to joint disease. In addition, 84% admitted that they would not buy a horse if they knew it had joint problems.

In terms of joint care, 74% of respondents said they give their horse a joint supplement. 69% check their horse's legs daily and 90% implement post-competition leg care measures.

Cavalor’s Lieselot Hamerlinck said: "It is good to see that so many horse owners are using a joint supplement but it’s important that they understand what to look for when choosing which product to use. They should look for anti-inflammatory products, not just joint support and for clinical evidence on any product claims. It’s not just about giving a joint supplement every day, it’s more about giving the right product tailored to the horse’s individual needs.

"Also horse owners should be mindful that it is equally important, if not more so, to take proper care of their horse’s joints all year round, not just during competition."

For further information, visit www.cavalor.com.

Reference

1. Survey of 1339 horse owners conducted online between August and September 2018.