Ceva Animal Health, maker of Amodip, has launched a free online feline ophthalmology course called ‘Looking hypertension in the eye’.

Ceva says the aim of the course is to enable vets to get the most out of their ocular exams and gain confidence in identifying ocular lesions associated with feline hypertension.

The course is presented by Dr Ben Blacklock BVSc (Hons), Dipl. ECVO, MRCVS, senior lecturer in veterinary ophthalmology at the University of Edinburgh. 

It comprises of 10 short videos grouped into four sessions, along with a self-assessment quiz to consolidate learning for each module.

The course counts for a total of two hours’ CPD.

Course content includes: the patient/equipment set up and getting the most from an ophthalmoscope; determining what is normal and what is abnormal during ocular examinations; an overview of ocular pathologies associated with hypertension; avoiding common pitfalls and mistakes; and hints and tips on how to take photographs of the fundus on a mobile phone.

To register, visit www.veterinarywebinars.com/community/ceva.

Hill's Pet Nutrition is offering a series of free webinars about feline medicine, delivered by some of the best-known experts in the field.

The first presentation on feline liver disease will be delivered by Danièlle Gunn-Moore BVM&S BSc PhD MACVSc MRCVS, on the 26th January 2011. Martha Cannon BA VetMB DSAM(fel) MRCVS (pictured right) will present the next two webinars on Renal disease on 2nd March and Chronic Diarrhoea on 4th May. Both speakers are RCVS Specialists in feline medicine. Norman Johnston BVM&S, Dipl. AVDC, Dipl. EVDC, MRCVS, will be discussing stomatitis in the cat - a particularly problematic disease - on the 18th May. Norman is an RCVS, American and European Specialist in Veterinary Dentistry. The series will end on 8th June with Duncan Lascelles BSc, BVSc, PhD, CertVA, DSAS (ST), DECVS, DACVS, Associate Professor in Small Animal Surgery at North Carolina State, talking about osteoarthritis in the cat.

The events kick off at 8.30 pm and are hosted by the Webinar Vet (www.thewebinarvet.com). One initial registration provides access to the complete series, with scheduled e-mail reminders sent out prior to the latest webinar. To register, go to www.thewebinarvet.com/hills and enter your details as well as the code hillsnl.

Webinars are ideal for time pressed individuals who may not always be able to travel to a distant venue, yet still offer a 'real- time' and interactive experience. No special equipment is required, other than a reasonable standard PC or MAC and a broadband connection. The events are open to both vets and nurses but early registration is advisable to take full advantage of the whole Hill's Feline webinar series.

SPVS has launched its 2023 Fee Survey, which looks at what vets are charging for their work and allows you to make sure you're keeping up with market rates, both nationally and locally. 

All vets are encouraged to take part, and everyone who does will get a copy of the results.  

The survey covers small animal, large animal and equine in all aspects of preventative health care and surgery.

It also looks at repeat prescription charges, the routine use of analgesia and antibiotics in neutering and lab interpretation fees, comparing them to last year.

https://surveys.spvs.org.uk 

RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor David Argyle has announced that he will step aside from his Council duties until such time as the College is able to conclude an investigation into allegations of bullying at his workplace. 

The College has confirmed that it has now received an official complaint about the matter and it is now investigating under its normal 'concerns' investigation process.

Professor Argyle made a private statement about the allegations to RCVS Council at its meeting today, having already answered written questions from a number of Council members in the preceding days.

The Council did not ask Professor Argyle to step aside, but acknowledged that this was his choice, made for personal reasons.

The College said that in line with its normal protocols, and to ensure fairness for all parties, it will not make any further public comment about the investigation for the time being. However, it wanted to stress that it remains firmly committed to following due and proper process in all its regulatory activities.

Zoetis has announced that following a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP), the European Commission has approved Apoquel (oclacitinib tablet) in the European Union for the treatment of pruritus associated with allergic dermatitis and the treatment of clinical manifestations of atopic dermatitis in dogs at least 12 months of age.

Developed by Zoetis, Apoquel is the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for veterinary use. The company says it inhibits the function of a variety of allergic, itch and pro-inflammatory cytokines dependent on JAK enzyme activity and thus stops the cycle of itch and inflammation occurring in skin allergies.

Michael Stegemann, Senior Director Global Development Organisation at Zoetis said: "Apoquel is a targeted treatment that specifically inhibits JAK-dependent cytokines involved in allergic skin disease in dogs. Its rapid anti-pruritic effect along with its anti-inflammatory properties provide fast relief to dogs. Relief from itch and inflammation is maintained in dogs receiving long-term treatment with Apoquel. This exciting innovation molecule offers quick, effective, and sustained itch relief; improves skin lesions continuously and can be used safely short or long-term."

Zoetis says that in clinical trials, Apoquel demonstrated safety and efficacy for the treatment of itch and resulted in improved skin lesions in dogs diagnosed with a number of allergic skin diseases as well as atopic dermatitis and treated either short or long term. The decrease in itch scores was observed by pet owners as soon as 24 hours after administration, the first observation time point, and itch continued to decrease compared to baseline until the end of the study. Skin lesions scores assessed by veterinary surgeons were significantly improved after one week and continued to improve long term during the studies (4 months). In these studies, the most common side effects observed in dogs treated with Apoquel were vomiting and diarrhea. Other reported side effects included lethargy, decreased or lack of appetite, skin irritation or infection, and ear irritation or infection.

Apoquel will be a POM-V treatment. Apoquel tablets, dosed at 0.4 to 0.6 mg/kg, are administered orally, twice daily for up to 14 days, and then administered once daily for maintenance therapy if medium to long term treatment is required, such as in dogs with seasonal skin allergy and atopic dermatitis.

Zoetis plans to make Apoquel available to veterinary surgeons in the European Union during 2014. Meantime, Zoetis says it will be working with vets on the new science and research findings around itch and canine allergic diseases. For more information, visit www.zoetis.com, www.itchcycle.com.

Krka has added a new 20g pack size of Flimabend (flubendazole), its water-based chicken wormer, to suit the needs of smallholders and owners of backyard chicken flocks. 

Flimabend is diluted into water and replaces the flock’s drinking water for a set period during the day. 

The new 20g pack includes a post-prescription leaflet to help veterinary surgeons support clients in calculating the correct dose, based on the bodyweight of their flock. It also includes a measuring scoop to ensure accurate administration.

Flimabend is effective against the three key intestinal worms affecting chickens – Ascaridia (roundworm); Capillaria (hairworm) and Heterakis gallinarum, which can be a vector for Blackhead disease. No egg withdrawal period is required.

Charlotte Read, Krka's Key Account Manager – Farm said: “Poultry-rearing is on the increase in the UK, both at a commercial level and among the public.  Recent figures suggest that more than one million UK households keep chickens, with the majority of domestic flocks comprising five laying hens and a cockerel¹.

"A regular worming routine is, of course, essential for optimal flock health and ensuring ease of use in a worming product is the most effective way of ensuring compliance, especially among those keeping backyard chickens.

“As one of the first water-based worming products available for small flocks, Flimabend now offers an innovative presentation of Flubendazole which we believe offers a new level of convenience and flexibility.”

Krka is currently offering virtual ‘lunch and learns’ on the worming of backyard chickens. Contact your Krka Account Manager for more details.

Reference

1. ChickenGuard survey March 2020

Bayer Animal Health has launched a new version of Drontal which is presented as a bone-shaped tablet.

The company says that this is the UK's first worming tablet shaped like a bone, and that the product is designed to help improve client compliance.

Dan White, Group Product Manager at Bayer Animal Health said: "Almost half of dog owners - surveyed prior to launch - indicated that new Drontal bone would encourage them to worm their dogs more routinely. This is clearly great news for practices especially during these difficult economic times.

The launch of Drontal bone will be supported by a marketing drive that includes a new advertising creative concept which will be featured as part of a national TV advertising campaign, and an online consumer-facing competition called Give Your Dog A Bone designed to engage further with dog owners and communicate the benefits of having a worm-free dog.

Dan added: "The online and supporting consumer PR campaign will bring to life the special bond between pet and owner, and celebrate the happiness that dogs bring to our lives when they are happy, healthy and worm-free."

Practices can request a practice support pack to promote the availability of Drontal bone which will include a notice board picture-pack aimed at dog owning clients by calling their Bayer Territory Manager or 01635 563380.

The Give Your Dog a Bone competition and PR campaign has been devised by leading healthcare communications agency Pegasus. The new 'bone-shaped' TV and print creative has been developed by the recently-appointed advertising agency Dinosaur and will launch in early 2012.

Drontal's Give Your Dog a Bone competition will be launched on 1st March 2012 at www.giveyourdogabone.co.uk.

Jurox (UK) Ltd, manufacturer of Alfaxan for dogs, cats and pet rabbits, has published Considerations for Anaesthetising Rabbits, a booklet offering expert guidelines for rabbit anaesthesia.

The booklet contains practical advice on handling rabbits, anaesthetic drugs, procedures and what to look out for from the moment the rabbit arrives into the practice up to recovery and homecare. Special attention is given to reducing anxiety in rabbit patients as much as possible at every stage.

Topics covered in the booklet include: medications in rabbits generally used according to the UK prescribing cascade, preparing for rabbit anaesthesia in clinic, staff training, an overview of anaesthetic drugs, the induction process and important points of difference, monitoring and recovery and adjunctive treatments.

Richard Beckwith, country manager of Jurox said: "Rabbits are prey species and often become stressed in the veterinary practice environment which can have a negative impact during anaesthesia and post-anaesthesia. Our new Considerations for Anaesthetising Rabbits expert panel guidelines booklet will help address this and raise anaesthesia and analgesia standards in veterinary practices."

For more information, visit www.alfaxan.co.uk, contact Jurox customer services on info@jurox.co.uk or telephone 0800 500 3871.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Kent veterinary surgeon convicted of tail-docking and also charged with misleadingly altering an owner's record relating to tail dockings.

At the outset of the four-day hearing, David Smith, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre, Deal, admitted he had been convicted of an offence of tail docking on 14 December 2010 at the Channel Magistrates Court.

He said that, in 2008, he had misinterpreted the legislation about tail docking and as a result had removed the tails of a litter of 13 Rottweiler puppies. He was subsequently convicted of illegal docking.

Mr Smith also accepted he had altered the owner's record, at the owner's request, when the RSPCA was investigating the circumstances of the docking by adding the words "for law enforcement", but maintained this alteration was to clarify the record to which he had initially added the words "for security selection"; he denied any attempt to mislead, or that he ought to have known it may mislead.

The Committee accepted that Mr Smith misinterpreted the legislation and had taken some steps to satisfy himself that the tail docking was legal, namely: he had asked an employee colleague to make enquires of the College and, as advised, he had downloaded a copy of the AWA 2006 to read and to make his own decision with regard to legality; some enquiry had been made by the practice of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at Reigate; and, Mr Smith had himself researched dog breeds on the Kennel Club website.

The Committee also accepted that he had asked and been told that the client had previously supplied dogs to the police.

However, the Committee found that these steps were inadequate; in particular, he should have contacted the College and Defra himself and not delegated this to administrative staff. Furthermore, that he should have obtained confirmation of the advice given in writing.

Regarding the alteration of the owner's record, the Committee was satisfied that this annotation was added for clarification. The Committee was not satisfied that the addition 'for law enforcement' altered the meaning of what was already stated on this form, and found the wording confirmed Mr Smith's misapprehension at the time of the legality of the tail docking.

This charge, which alleged that the alteration had been carried out misleadingly, was dismissed. 

The Committee also said that Mr Smith's reluctance to engage with the police and the RSPCA during their later investigation had been regrettable: as a professional he had had a duty to co-operate fully. However, it concluded that this had been "of little probative significance".

The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place.

In deciding whether Mr Smith was fit to practise, the Committee took into account two previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee findings involving tail-docking.

It concluded these were significantly different. In the first case, the respondent knew that the tail docking he had carried out was illegal. On the contrary Mr Smith had misguidedly believed the docking he carried out was permitted.

In the second case there had been several charges, in addition to the charge of tail docking.  In this case no charges other than those related to tail docking had been alleged against Mr Smith.

It further noted that no issues of clinical competence were raised, and that the dockings were undertaken less than 12 months after the new legislation came into force. 

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Vice-Chairman Beverley Cottrell, who chaired the hearing, said: "The Committee has expressed its disapproval about Mr Smith's failure to make adequate investigations of the College and of Defra, and his erroneous interpretation of the Act. 

"In reaching its decision, the Committee has paid particular attention to issues of animal welfare, maintaining public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct.

It has concluded that Mr Smith's conduct fell short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon but does not consider that it fell far short." 

After directing that the case should be dismissed, Mrs Cottrell added: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that tail docking is legal in each and every instance before carrying out the procedure. If there is any doubt, then tail docking should not take place."

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.”

Congratulations to Kent-based Pennard Vets, an employee-owned, seven-practice group which has become the first veterinary practice in Europe to become B Corp certified.

Certified B Corps are companies that meet exceptionally high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency and accountability.

The process examines a company’s full range of processes, from supply chain to charitable giving and employee benefits.

Other well-known names that have achieved B Corp status include Patagonia, The Body Shop, BrewDog, TOMS, Ben and Jerry’s and Innocent Drinks.

Dr Caroline Collins, from Pennard Vets, said: “We’re extremely proud to achieve B Corp status and there’s no doubt that it will be transformational for the business, in the same way that becoming an employment ownership trust has been.

"Being employee owned and socially minded is a huge draw for vets and nurses seeking a change in their career, who want to be part of an organisation where they can have a real say in the running of the practice and make a tangible difference to the environment.

“It also means that we can now make very long-term decisions, that could even take several decades to pay off, which would be very difficult to do in a traditional shareholder business, and that gives our team the authority to always do the right thing.”

Vetoquinol has just launched its Marbocyl 10% online case study competition in which veterinary surgeons are being invited to provide information about how they treat E.coli mastitis. Two winners (one in the UK and one in Ireland) will win a BCF EASI-SCAN cattle ultrasound scanner with goggles worth over £6000. 

Vetoquinol's large animal product manager, Susan Mitchell said: "We hope that this case study competition will help us gather further information on how E.coli mastitis is treated by veterinary surgeons in the UK and Ireland.  I would encourage large animal veterinary surgeons to be part of this UK and Irish survey to highlight the severity of the disease and share their success stories." 

The competition will run until the end of October 2011.

For your chance to win a BCF EASI-SCAN and goggles visit http://www.vetoquinol.co.uk/.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has postponed judgment on sanction for 12 months in the case of a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog.

At a hearing which concluded last Thursday, Peter Ardle MacMahon MRCVS faced a six-part charge after working as a locum for Vets Now at North End in Portsmouth where, on the night of 14/15 July 2009, he treated Wilfred, a Cocker Spaniel who had ingested broken glass along with raw mince. 

The Committee found that, having decided that surgery was an appropriate treatment, Mr MacMahon had not removed the glass identified on a radiograph. Nor had he even superficially searched the stomach contents he had evacuated to check that a large piece of glass he had previously identified on the radiograph had been removed. He had also not taken adequate steps to prevent contamination of Wilfred's abdominal cavity prior to the incision to the stomach.

Mr MacMahon admitted he knew there had been considerable spillage of stomach contents into Wilfred's abdomen. The Committee found that, with this knowledge, for Mr MacMahon to use only 250ml of fluid to lavage the abdomen was inadequate. This contributed to the Spaniel developing chemical peritonitis which might have developed into septic peritonitis but for a second operation the next morning, after the dog had been returned to the care of his usual veterinary practice. The Committee also expressed concern that Mr MacMahon had failed to effectively communicate the abdominal contamination to Wilfred's usual vets when he was handed back into their care. 

Taken as individual allegations, these would not, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute serious professional misconduct. However, the Committee was of the view that, taken cumulatively, the charges were proved, and therefore the treatment given to Wilfred, fell far short of the standard to be expected in the profession.

When considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Committee accepted that Mr MacMahon and the veterinary nurse assisting him were unfamiliar with the premises in which they were working, resulting in a difficulty in locating important equipment, and there were also multiple urgent cases during the evening the operation took place. The Committee also noted that 17 months had passed since the operation, and no further complaints against Mr MacMahon had been received by the RCVS.

The Committee further took into account that Mr MacMahon had little recent experience, having returned to practising veterinary medicine in January 2009, following almost ten years spent outside the veterinary profession. During this hiatus he undertook no continuing professional development (CPD), and completed only a five-week period of supervised practice prior to re-entering the profession. 

Mrs Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The Respondent placed himself in this situation: he knew that he had been out of practice for ten years, had not done any formal CPD during that time and chose to accept an appointment to work as a locum in a sole-charge out-of-hours emergency clinic. A foremost aggravating factor is that animal welfare was adversely affected. A non-critical patient was placed at risk by the Respondent's failures."

The Committee reiterated that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain professional standards.  "A postponement of judgment, with suitable undertakings from the Respondent, is the correct course of action," said Mrs Freedman. Mr MacMahon has subsequently signed undertakings relating to CPD in both surgical and medical disciplines, and the Committee has postponed for 12 months its judgment as to any further sanction.