VetSurgeon.org has introduced a new policy of zero tolerance of bad manners in its forums. 

It's believed that VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk, which run on a platform that predates Facebook, may be the first online communities to require good manners. 

Under the new policy, anyone who posts anything in the forums which is sarcastic, belittling, snide, rude or unkind towards another member will face immediate removal from the website.  

This marks a very radical change to the previous policy in which members were free to say pretty much what they wanted.

VetSurgeon.org Publisher Arlo Guthrie said: "For years, I felt the right to free speech trumped all, and would rarely intervene.

"When I did, the worst anyone faced was a temporary suspension. 

"As time has passed, I've realised the limitations of the written word, especially the short-form, hastily-written word, which can cause real distress. 

"We all moderate our language offline, it's just a question of realising that we need a different set of standards online, to account for the lack of facial expression and immediacy of reply, and the public nature of the discussion.

Some people have questioned the new policy, and whether it will stifle proper debate.

Arlo added: "I believe not. It is perfectly possible and OK to disagree with someone, and express that disagreement forcefully, without being sarcastic.

"On the contrary, I think that allowing bad manners has a far more chilling effect on free speech, because it scares off opinions from the majority of more moderate members"

Others have asked whether this new policy is the consequence of the new partnership with Improve International, or proposed new laws surrounding social media. 

Arlo said: "Again, no. It was a very personal decision I reached after years of wrestling with the problem. It was precipitated by a series of unkind posts and I just thought 'enough's enough'.

"That said, I am really excited about the prospect of working with Improve to grow the community as somewhere its members can come for high quality clinical content and authoritative opinion, which for sure would be hard to achieve if we don't have a friendly, collaborative atmosphere."

Another issue raised about zero tolerance is whether it is fair that there may be no second chance.

Arlo said: "I've tried loads of things over the years. Warnings. Red cards. Suspensions. None of them work. People just push the boundaries. 

"But the moment I said 'zero tolerance', it seems people get the message and moderate themselves accordingly."

"I'm delighted. I want people to think of VetSurgeon.org as somewhere everyone can come for authoritative advice and support, confident of a friendly welcome and the highest standards of online behaviour."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary 

Unite and the British Veterinary Union (BVU) have written to the government asking for the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), which  regulates such governing bodies as the General Medical Council,  General Dental Council, and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), to have 'scrutiny' of the RCVS.

In a letter to junior minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, the BVU chair  Dr Shams Mir cited the case of Munhuwepasi Chikosi struck off the register of veterinary surgeons by the RCVS in June 2013.

Dr Mir said that this case was "widely seen by the veterinary profession as blatant miscarriage of justice and many expressions of 'outrage' were published in the veterinary press and online.

"One popular online veterinary forum recorded over a thousand posts criticising and challenging various aspects of the decision."

The current statutory duties of the RCVS, established by Royal Charter in 1844, are determined by the Veterinary Surgeons Act (VSA) of 1966, which Unite says is now 'outdated.

Dr Mir said: "BVU petitions the government to extend the remit of the PSA to incorporate the RCVS to ensure appropriate overview and scrutiny.

"The RCVS proposed new Royal Charter could be exploited by the RCVS to give itself proxy powers to introduce incontestable new regulatory measures."

Unite has asked for an urgent meeting with Mr. Eustice. 

Unite professional officer Jane Beach said: "Our initiative is designed to safeguard the interests of both the public, and practicing vets and veterinary nurses in the UK.

"Basically, the way that the RCVS is presently constituted means that it is both judge and jury in disciplinary matters. It sets the rules and hands down the judgements - and we believe that an extra layer of scrutiny needs to be introduced which we would like to be the PSA."

A final year Bioveterinary Science student at Harper Adams University is carrying out some new research into Onchocerca Cervicalis, otherwise known as neck threadworm, and is asking equine vets to take part. 

The research is being conducted by Sarah Mansell under the supervision of Dr. Malgorzata Behnke. They say this parasite hasn't been studied in depth in the UK since the 1970's, because the symptoms can be controlled by routine worming measures. However, as the industry moves away from routine worming as a measure of reducing the risk of parasites developing resistances to treatments, a condition such as this which is now considered to be quite rare in the UK can start to re-emerge.

Sarah is asking vets to fill out a short questionnaire to assess awareness of Onchocerca Cervicalis in veterinary practices. The survey includes specific questions about the parasite as well as questions about cases of unresponsive skin conditions because a similarity in symptoms can lead to misdiagnoses that could, in fact, turn out to be Onchocerca Cervicalis.

Sarah said: "Hopefully the findings will raise awareness of this problem and help shape future research in this area."

She added: "I want to get vets thinking about this issue much more than perhaps they are at the moment."

To take part in the survey, visit: https://harper-adams.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/assessing-the-awareness-of-onchocerca-cervicalis-amongst-e-2

Ceva Animal Health has extended its Meloxidyl dogs and cats’ range with the launch of a new 5ml Meloxidyl oral suspension for cats.

The company says the new bottle size will provide more prescription options for veterinary practices currently stocking 15ml bottles and is a perfect post-surgery size to send patients home with. The bottles are also clear brown in colour; designed to make it easier for cat owners to see how much liquid is left in each bottle.

Meloxidyl oral suspension for cats contains meloxicam for the alleviation of pain and inflammation. It is licensed for the treatment of musculo-skeletal disorders and the alleviation of post-operative pain.

Rob McLintock, business unit manager at Ceva Animal Health said: "The new 5ml Meloxidyl oral suspension for cats’ bottle will provide veterinary practices with more prescription options for the management and alleviation of pain and inflammation in cats."

To support the launch of the new 5ml Meloxidyl presentation, Ceva is running a competition to win one of five BSAVA Manuals of Anaesthesia and Analgesia by answering one question: ‘How many millilitres are in the new Meloxidyl cat bottle’? 

To enter the competition, email analgesics-group@ceva.com. Include ‘Meloxidyl competition’ in the subject line and contact details and the answer to the question in the main body of the email.

For further information on Ceva’s analgesic product range, contact your local Ceva territory manager, email analgesics-group@ceva.com or call 01494 781510.

The British Veterinary Association has opened Through the eyes of vets, an exhibition in the House of Commons of the diverse work carried out by veterinary surgeons, depicted in a series of photographs by its members.

The exhibition comprises 22 photographs showing a range of subjects from across the UK and overseas, including cattle during a TB testing day on the island of Arran, a surprising find during surgery, a look down the microscope at feline myofiber disarray and a practical session of bee veterinary medicine.

The photographs were selected from around 1,000 that were submitted to the association's photo competitions by its members in 2016 and 2017.

The exhibition was officially opened today by Neil Parish MP, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EfraCom) and BVA Honorary Member, at an opening ceremony attended by parliamentarians as well as many of the veterinary surgeons whose photographs feature in the exhibition.

Neil said: "These photos show the diverse range of things that vets are involved in. What we respect from BVA is that we get good clear, evidence-based advice when we need it."

BVA member and Director of Cambridge Veterinary Group Lucy Crosby was commended for her snake intubation picture last year. She said: "The exhibition is a really exciting opportunity for vets to show that their skills extend beyond the operating room to the arts.

"I personally feel privileged to have my photo shown here. The veterinary profession and what we do is diverse and it's important to broadcast to the general public just how important the profession’s contribution is to the country."

BVA President, John Fishwick said: "It's an honour to have the opportunity to exhibit our members’ photographs in the Palace of Westminster. Vets work in practices across the UK, in government policy, public health and food safety, industry and technology, the armed forces, and beyond.

"As a profession, we play a significant role in many areas of personal and political life; an issue that EU exit has brought into sharp relief. With the political landscape shifting so rapidly, it’s apt that we’re showcasing vets’ work to parliamentarians to make sure it’s at the forefront of their minds as they return for the New Year."

The exhibition will be open daily until Thursday 11 January in the Upper Waiting Room of the House of Commons, an area open to Members of Parliament, Peers and visiting members of the public.

To view the photographs exhibited, and many others from BVA’s photo competitions, visit BVA’s Flickr account: www.flickr.com/photos/britishvets/albums/

RCVS Council has approved a trial protocol which will allow the College to launch private prosecutions against unqualified individuals breaching the Veterinary Surgeons Act from April 2023.

Under the protocol trial, the RCVS can launch private prosecutions against unqualified people practising veterinary surgery or using the title 'veterinary surgeon'.

The College says that where breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act cross over to other criminal offences, for example, fraud by false representation, they will be more properly dealt with by the relevant police force.

Local authority trading standards agencies will also deal with issues around, for example, misleading courses that purport to lead to registration with the RCVS but do not; concerns about dog grooming businesses and concerns about dog breeding establishments (other than where there is illegal practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons).

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: “This protocol recognises that there are constraints on the time, resourcing, and budgets of both the police and public prosecutors which means that the pursuit of these breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, both of which carry minor criminal penalties, is not necessarily a priority.

“While we are always willing to work with the police and other agencies to pursue such breaches, the protocol details how we can act independently where appropriate and ensure we are fulfilling our stated ambition to safeguard the interests of the public and animals, as well as the reputation of the professions, by ensuring that only those registered with us can carry out acts of veterinary surgery.

“We would like to manage expectations around this trial period as we will only be launching private prosecutions where they meet the criminal evidential standards of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it is judged to be in the public interest to do so.

"We will also be relying on members of the professions and the public to report breaches and provide sufficient evidence to us, as we have no statutory investigatory powers.”

The trial period will last for one year and the College has set aside £50,000 to pursue private prosecutions.

The trial will be overseen by the Disciplinary Committee/ Preliminary Investigation Committee Liaison Committee while decisions on whether to pursue private prosecutions will lie with the Registrar/ Director of Legal Services.

Suspected breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act can be reported to the RCVS Professional Conduct Department on breachvsa@rcvs.org.uk.

Professor Steve Dean MRCVS has been elected as the 14th Chairman of the Kennel Club. He is the first veterinary surgeon to hold the post.

Professor Dean has been a Member of the Kennel Club since 1992 and has been a member of the General Committee since 2005. He has served on the Crufts and Finance & General Purposes Sub-Committees for the past two years and previously spent four years on the Disciplinary Sub Committee.

Professor Dean said: "I am honoured to be elected as Chairman of the Kennel Club and to be given the opportunity to help improve the lives of dogs by ensuring that they live healthily and happily with responsible owners.

"I am aware of the scale of some of the challenges that we face but am excited about the opportunities that exist to help us make a real difference for dogs. I look forward to supporting and working with the millions of responsible dog breeders and owners that there are in this country, and to standing shoulder to shoulder with vets and other individuals and organisations, who are dedicated to improving the health and welfare of dogs."

Professor Dean, who turns 60 in August, is currently the Senior Veterinary Surgeon at Crufts each year. He is a breeder, exhibitor and judge of Border Terriers and has been involved in the breed for 30 years. He is currently Chairman of the Southern Border Terrier Club as well as the overall breed health co-ordinator for all seven breed clubs. He is also President of Windsor Dog Show Society.

Away from the world of dogs, Professor Dean is a keen reader and gardener and is an avid supporter of rowing, treasuring his Henley Regatta medal equally to his achievements in the show ring.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool are asking veterinary surgeons to take part in a survey to explore the reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs).

It is hoped the survey will capture the experiences vets have had reporting ADRs, as well as identifying barriers to the current process which could be used to improve the ease with which ADRs are reported in the future.

PhD student Heather Davies (pictured right), who is leading the research project, said: "The survey is an important opportunity to gain insights into the issues that vets  face when dealing with ADRs.

"We want to make the process easier in order to improve the safety of veterinary medicines, and ultimately, we need the help of professionals on the front line in order to do that."

She added: "The survey is relatively short and can be completed anonymously. 

"We’re really keen to gather as many of your experiences as possible so we’d like to encourage veterinary professionals to complete it."

The research is being carried out as part of a PhD project funded by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) in collaboration with the Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET), based at the university.

The survey is now open and you can take part here: https://liverpool.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/adrs-vet

Any questions about the survey can be addressed directly to the researchers: Heather Davies (PhD student): H.H.Davies@liverpool.ac.uk and/or Dr David Killick (Supervisor): David.Killick@liverpool.ac.uk.

Krka has launched Otomicol ear drops and cutaneous suspension for the treatment of otitis externa and primary and secondary infections of the skin and adnexa¹.

Otomicol contains miconazole nitrate, prednisolone acetate and polymyxin B.

The product targets a range of pathogens including miconazole and polymyxin B-sensitive, Malassezia and Pseudomonas spp.

Renzo Di Florio, technical vet at Krka UK, said: “With its multifactorial aetiology, ear disease is often challenging to manage, causing frustration for owners and significant discomfort for pets.

"Otomicol is a cost-effective solution that veterinary surgeons can add to their treatment toolbox for cases where bacterial and fungal infection are important factors.”

Otomicol ear drops and cutaneous suspension are available in a 15ml bottle with an extended shelf life of six months after opening.

Otomicol is available from veterinary wholesalers.

https://www.krka.co.uk 

Reference

1. https://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/ProductInformationDatabase/files/SPC_Documents/SPC_2803678.PDF 

IVC Evidensia has launched a new tier of its Pet Health Club which includes unlimited preventative consultations and 24/7 online access to a vet.

IVC's existing Pet Health Club includes vaccinations, flea and worm treatments, microchipping, health checks and a variety of discounts.

IVC says the new tier, Pet Health Club Plus, has been introduced to encourage owners to bring their pet in early, meaning problems can be diagnosed more quickly and therefore improve the welfare outcome of the pet.

It is also designed to support owners by spreading the cost of their pet’s healthcare.

25,000 pet owners have already joined Pet Health Club Plus, which costs £27.99 for cats and £29.99 for dogs, and it is now being pushed with a national TV advertising campaign which will run till the end of the year.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Aberdeenshire-based James Gracey from the Register for six months after he was found guilty of conduct that risked undermining procedures designed to promote  public health and animal welfare.

At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.

There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.

The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.

Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:

• that he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow without declaring that there was a conflict of interest because the cow belonged to his father and without including his and his practice’s contact details with his signature
• that he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow, also without declaring a conflict of interest or leaving sufficient contact details;
• that he signed an Emergency Slaughter form for a cow without declaring a conflict of interest as above, and that he stated that he hadn’t not administered any treatment to the cow within the previous seven days of signing the form when he himself had
• that he signed a Food Chain Information form stating that a cow was fit for travel when it was not;
• that his conduct in relation to the proven charges risked undermining public health and animal welfare, and in relation to the Emergency Slaughter Form his conduct was dishonest and misleading. 

Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.

The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.

Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.

"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.

"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.

"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.

"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”

“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.

"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”

In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.

The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.

Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.

Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.

"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.

"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.

"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.

“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.

"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary  

Bayer Animal Health has announced that it will launch Seresto, a new POM-V collar for cats and dogs that kills fleas and repels and kills ticks for up to eight months, in March.

According to Bayer, Seresto is the first treatment to provide repellency against ticks in both cats and dogs, and represents the fruit of a multidisciplinary effort incorporating the company's research into insecticides, polymers and veterinary parasiticides. The end result is a polymer-based collar that transfers the active ingredients to the lipid layer, from where they are spread by the animal's neutral oils.

Bayer Animal Health group product manager, Caroline Braidwood, said: "Seresto is simple to use on both cats and dogs. And because it is long lasting, it offers pet owners an alternative to those struggling to maintain a monthly routine. Bayer believes in innovation and Seresto is an enhancement to our product portfolio that meets the needs and requirements of pet owners and vets alike in the treatment of ticks and fleas."

Seresto contains two active ingredients - imidacloprid for fast action against fleas and flumethrin, which repels and kills ticks.

Caroline added: "Thanks to Seresto's unique polymer structure the active ingredients are safely locked away in the collar's matrix, and are released directly from the collar surface into the lipid layer of the animal at just the dose needed, ensuring optimal protection is sustained for up to 8 months."

Bayer says that because of its repellent (anti-feeding) effect, Seresto reduces the risk of vector-borne disease transmission - a first for cats. The company also says that because the active ingredients are stored on the inside of the polymer, it doesn't matter if the pet is shampooed and the lipid layer stripped off - the active ingredients are quickly replenished by the collar. 

Seresto is odour-free and has a safety release mechanism to prevent strangulation. It is available in three sizes, Seresto Cat for cats less than 8kgs, Seresto Small Dog for dogs up to 8kgs and Seresto Large Dogs, for dogs over 8kg.

For further information about Seresto, contact your Bayer territory manager or call 01635 563000.