View all veterinary jobs
VetSurgeon.org publishes a curated feed of veterinary news for practising veterinary surgeons, with a primary focus on the UK profession.
We select stories based on their practical relevance, clinical interest, or professional significance — filtering out noise so busy vets can stay informed quickly.
Our coverage includes:
We report across all areas of practice, including companion animal, farm, equine and exotic species.
Our editorial approach is deliberately selective and concise. We prioritise clarity and relevance over volume, aiming to make each story worth your time.
You can follow VetSurgeon News by subscribing to the daily, weekly or monthly email digest, or via our channels on Facebook and LinkedIn.
The RCVS DC has directed that a Wirral-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the Register after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in dealing with the RCVS, and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
At the end of the five-day hearing, the Committee found that Ian Beveridge, of the Daryl Veterinary Centre, Heswall, was guilty of charges relating to two separate cases: one concerning a crossbred bitch named Holly, who belonged to Mr and Mrs Flanagan and was treated in February 2011; and the other, a cat called Blu, belonging to Ms Simpson and treated in March 2010.
On the morning of 23 February 2011, Holly was admitted to the Daryl Veterinary Centre in a collapsed state with a swollen abdomen. The Committee found a proper assessment should have led Mr Beveridge to perform an abdominocentesis at the practice, the results of which, in view of the practice and its facilities, would inevitably have led to Holly immediately being referred elsewhere. However, the Committee heard that Mr Beveridge simply placed her on a heat pad for observation until about midday, something it considered no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in general practice would have done. The Committee also found that, on more than one occasion, Mr Beveridge had refused to discuss referral with Mrs Flanagan, and this amounted to failing to treat her with courtesy and respect as required by the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010, which applied at that time. Holly was ultimately referred elsewhere and survived. The Committee also found the records of Holly's admission to be completely inadequate.
Blu was presented on 22 March 2010 in a collapsed state by Mr Taylor, Ms Simpson's former partner with whom the cat lived. The Committee found that Mr Taylor was told that the cat would be kept on a heat pad, that no other treatment or diagnosis was discussed, and that the possibility of euthanasia was not raised. Having been unable to contact Mr Beveridge that evening, Ms Simpson went to the practice the following morning, intending that her cat be discharged and taken elsewhere. However, the Committee found, when Mr Beveridge eventually fetched Blu, who had died, he blocked Mrs Simpson's exit from the consulting room, saying words to the effect that had she been a better owner, none of this would have happened.
Mr Beveridge also sent to the College clinical records for Blu detailing a blood sample taken at 19.00 on 22 March, and subcutaneous fluids administered during that night. The Committee found this to contain deliberately false information in order to cast a better light on his management of Blu and that he was dishonest; the document was essentially a fabrication to enhance his own interests.
In reaching its decision, the Committee said that it made allowances for the fact that Mr Beveridge operated in first-opinion practice at a basic level. Notwithstanding this, however, it found him guilty of a very serious failure of care to both patients, which gave rise to serious risks to their safety and welfare.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "On each occasion [Mr Beveridge] treated the owners with a lack of courtesy and respect and made the difficult and distressing circumstances in which they found themselves much worse than they need have been. The Committee takes a very serious view of his attempt to prevent Ms Simpson leaving the consulting room with Blu, and of the unjust and upsetting way in which he sought to blame her for the animal's death. He showed her no consideration at all. Likewise his refusal to contemplate referral for Holly until compelled by Mrs Flanagan to do so and his persistent refusal to engage with her about this at all was, in the Committee's view, reprehensible."
The Committee directed Mr Beveridge's name should be removed from the Register.
VetPartners says Valley Vets has around 200 employees, less than half of which are members of the union, although the BVU says 50% are required for recognition.
Suzanna Hudson-Cooke MRCVS, Branch Chair at BVU said: “Fees at Valley Vets have increased by 25% in two years, which is hurting pet owners whilst some staff at Valley Vets are being paid so little that they’re having to use foodbanks.
“Three years ago, VetPartners CEO Jo Malone committed to paying all staff a living wage, which still hasn’t happened”
“VetPartners did increase the salaries of lower paid members by 7.27% in the last review, but this was mostly to meet its legal obligation to pay the minimum wage.”
VetPartners responded to these points saying:
"It has been and still is our aim to pay at least the real living wage to all of our employees. We have moved closer to the aim over the past three years.
"There are 20 members of the regular team that work at Valley Vets who are below the real living wage and they are paid approximately 1.6% below that level.
"Since April 2020, we have uplifted overall salary costs at Valley Vets by 31.45% before the increase in April 2024, at a time when VetPartners, like many businesses across the UK, has been hit by a sharp rise in the cost of goods and services, interest rates and rampant inflation.
"Valley Vets’ profitability has declined over the last three years.
"We have made advances over several years in improving many benefits for our teams such as life cover, health shield, sickness and enhanced maternity cover and want to continue to do so.
"We have seen mass redundancies from other large groups and we are trying to avoid this at Valley Vets.
"The BVU in Unite requested pay and condition increases initially that would have raised employment costs by over 25% and they are currently requesting increases which would raise this by 15% which would make Valley Vets unsustainable without a significant reduction in the workforce, something we are trying to avoid.”
During annual salary reviews in 2024, we benchmarked pay for all roles within Valley Vets and they sit in the upper quartile.
"We prioritised lowest-paid team members with a 7.27% pay increase while higher paid colleagues also received an increase at a lower rate.
"We are also well aware of the affordability of care fees, and that is why we felt fees paid by our clients could not be raised any further to support significant salary increases demanded by the BVU in Unite.
The strike is due to continue till the end of July, during which time the BVU says staff are being released from the picket line as needed to provide local animals with emergency care.
Staff are not paid whilst out on strike so the BVU has started a fund, here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PTVKVK3
The robot is used to show how well potential new products or prototypes are performing when it comes to plaque removal.
Built using a scan of a real canine mouth and jaw, the 3D-printed model replicates the normal mastication action of a dog and the pressures it might exert on a dental chew. This, the company says, allows it to test the effectiveness of different product materials and shapes more rapidly and then refine its products at a much earlier stage in the research and development process.
Dr Phil McGenity, Global Pet Oral Care Technical Leader, Mars Petcare said the robot allows them to observe the effects of a dental chew much more easily than in a real dog: "Typically, it’s very difficult to look inside the mouth of a dog while it's chewing, but this robot allows us to assess products more rapidly than we’ve ever been able to in the past. It means we can continually improve the texture and materials in our products."
Mars uses the robot to compare different textures and shapes of products by analysing how much plaque is removed from the robot’s teeth.
Phil said: "We apply a plaque mimic to the surface of the teeth, so we can observe how effectively different prototypes or textures remove this mimic. We take before and after images and, using computer analysis, we can accurately determine what percentage of plaque has been removed.
"This robot has been extremely beneficial for us, to see just how visible the effects of our products, such as DentaStix Daily Oral Care, are."
Veterinary dentist John Robinson said: "One of the key benefits of the chewing robot is it allows a preliminary testing stage before you move into clinical trials. Clinical trials are lengthy and expensive, but the chewing robot means the product can be refined and improved to ensure optimum effectiveness.
"Then you can move into the full clinical trial knowing it has already had extensive texture and plaque removal analysis."
He added: "New research developments such as the chewing robot are vital to improving home dental care in dogs and giving vets the confidence to recommend dental chews to dog owners. Although brushing is regarded as the gold standard, vets need to work more closely with owners to improve homecare via the use of dental products."
Mars Petcare has produced a short report explaining each stage its product development and testing. You can download the report on the WALTHAM website: https://www.waltham.com/waltham-research/oral-health-research/oral-health-r-d/
Pfizer Animal Health has announced that its Dental Leadership programme is now available on-line at www.dental-leadership.co.uk.
The course is offered under the 'Pfizer Academy' umbrella and has previously been available in hard copy for over five years. Almost 1000 vets and nurses have tackled the course since inception and it is anticipated that the on-line version will prove to be equally successful.
Annelies Hall is the AntirobeTM Product Manager at Pfizer Animal Health. She said: "High quality CPD can sometimes be difficult to fit into a busy schedule. We recognised that the open learning format was attractive to vets and nurses because it was flexible and could be fitted around a demanding job. The teaching of dentistry to students has become much higher profile lately but many older graduates feel it is an area where they can learn more, and due to the prevalence of dental disease, can immediately put their learning into action."
A separate course is available for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and the course contributes 10 hours of CPD time. Learning is assessed through an on-line multiple choice examination and a certificate can be printed off when the pass mark is achieved. The course was developed by Pfizer Animal Health in association with Norman Johnston BVM&S, Dipl.AVDC, Dipl.EVDC, MRCVS, American & European Specialist in Veterinary Dentistry and covers topics such as anatomy, preventative treatment, periodontal disease, the dental workplace, equipment, radiography, economics and marketing veterinary dentistry.
Lisa Milella, President of the British Veterinary Dental Association said: "Dentistry is one of the most important aspects of veterinary healthcare alongside vaccination and medical care. Dental procedures should contribute 25% of the daily operating list in every small animal practice but unfortunately less than 5% of clients realise that their pet has a problem, leaving the onus on their veterinary practice to pro-actively identify dental disease."
The course is free of charge and those wishing to enrol are asked to visit www.dental-leadership.co.uk. For any further enquiries call 0870 0056554. The dental leadership website also contains details of the 2009 Pfizer Dental Bursary for veterinary nurses wishing to study for the BVNA Certificate in Dentistry.
'The Vet' branded surgeries were registered to Quality Pet Care Ltd which was initially acquired by CVS Group plc in August 2021.
The acquisition makes The Pet Vet not only the largest independent family-owned practice by number of sites (12) in the UK, but also the only one with a national presence.
The newly acquired surgeries are in Warrington, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bristol, Nottingham, Liverpool and Morden and Waltham Forest in London.
The Pet Vet already operates three surgeries in South Yorkshire (Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster) and in 2021 opened a 5,500 sq ft surgery on a retail park in Lincoln.
The Pet Vet is under the sole ownership of Rob Jones MRCVS (pictured right with Managing Director, Mel Fuller), who graduated from Bristol in 1987.
Rob practised in companion animal care in London and Australia before opening the first The Pet Vet surgery in Doncaster in 2011.
The practice now has nearly 100 employees, including 24 full time vets, and an annual turnover of over £6m.
Earlier this year, The Pet Vet secured £3.1m from alternative lender ThinCats to fund its growth plan.
A extra cash injection then allowed the family-owned independent to snap up The Vet when it came up for sale in April 2022.
Rob said: "With nearly 70% of the veterinary practice market by revenue already in the ownership of major corporations, a fact of which most consumers are still completely unaware, this is a real opportunity for us as a family business to make a positive difference for pet owners.
"Our acquisition of The Vet will allow us to further advance in-house provision, giving our vets more variety and stimulation in their working day and even greater opportunities for professional development."
Eukanuba has published the results of a 10 year study to evaluate the health and longevity of continuously Eukanuba-fed dogs, in which 90% lived beyond the breed's typical lifespan.
Before the start of the study, a independent panel of veterinary academics and experts assessed existing evidence concerning the longevity of Labrador Retrievers and came to a consensual conclusion that the average lifespan for the breed is 12 years.
39 Labrador Retrievers in early to mid-adulthood were then enrolled in the study1, which began in 2004. All the dogs were neutered and had identical housing, standardised daily care and veterinary care. The dogs were fed the amount of food needed to maintain each dog within an optimal body condition score.
Remarkably, 28% of the dogs in the study achieved exceptional longevity, living beyond 15.6 years. One dog very nearly made it to 18 years of age.
The study was overseen Eukanuba's Longevity Council, a panel of international vet and industry experts including Professor Stuart Carmichael, Dr Penny Watson, Dr Vicki Adams, Professor Steve Dean and David Morgan, which collectively agreed that the secret to healthy ageing in canines is a careful balance of nutrition, good husbandry and effective veterinary care.
Professor Steve Dean, Former Chairman of the UK Kennel Club said: "Nutrition is a major contributor to the health of dogs in the long term, of course it isn’t the only contributor; good husbandry and good veterinary care are the other major pillars for health and longevity. The correct nutrition has a big part to play in maintaining dog health throughout its entire life, which we’ve found out from the Eukanuba Long Life Observation, can be a lot longer than we have previously expected. We’ve always assumed that Labradors will live 12 years if we’re lucky, but now we have a whole new target to aim for…16 and 17 years. It is quite phenomenal."
Dr Penny Watson, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Medicine, Queen’s Veterinary School Hospital, University of Cambridge said: "Vets as a profession are very good at treating diseases in animals, but perhaps slightly less good at giving preventative advice to pet owners about healthy lifestyles. As vets, we should be thinking all through an animals life cycle, from puppy to geriatric, about the preventative aspects, such as good diet, maintaining the right body condition score and other aspects including dental care, rather than just looking disease and treating it."
David Morgan, Eukanuba’s Senior Scientific Communications Manager said: "The hope is that we can take the message that it’s not only about nutrition but what we call appropriate care, which is veterinary care and husbandry, looking after the dogs in a responsible way. Because, yes we have some great observations and we are starting now with Dr Vicki Adams to break down into more detail what we’ve actually seen in the Eukanuba Labradors and what recommendations we can give in the future so that all dogs can have that longer, healthy and more vibrant lives."
Reference
Dechra Veterinary Products has announced that it is to relaunch Fuciderm Gel, the topical skin product used to treat surface pyoderma in dogs, as Isaderm.
Isaderm contains fusidic acid, which Dechra says is highly effective against the bacteria Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, and the steroid betamethasone, which is both an anti-inflammatory and anti-pruritic.
Available as a white translucent gel in 15 g and 30 g tubes, Isaderm is a topical treatment which can be applied directly and stays on the affected area - the base of Isaderm is a carbomer gel which maintains contact on skin and wet lesions.
Dechra Dermatology Brand Manager Roger Brown said: "Fuciderm is one of our most popular products. As part of an international Dechra rebranding programme the name will now be Isaderm® but veterinary professionals can be assured that the only thing about the product that has changed is the name.
"This treatment was the subject of a multi-centre UK trial* comparing treatment of surface pyoderma with the gel or systemic therapy, and the gel product was shown to be as effective as systemic therapy."
For further information, visit www.dechra.co.uk
Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."
Led by the RVC’s VetCompass Programme, researchers say the study1 was the largest exploration of cherry eye in dogs in the world.
The research team followed the anonymised veterinary health records of 905,553 dogs for a year and identified that 0.20% (1,802 dogs) were affected by this condition.
Certain breeds showed showed significantly high proportions of dogs with cherry eye, including: Neapolitan Mastiffs (4.9%), English Bulldogs (4.8%), Lhasa Apsos (1.6%) and American Cocker Spaniels (1.5%).
Importantly, say the researchers, some popular designer breeds of flat-faced dogs were also hugely affected, such as the Puggle (Pug x Beagle) (2.1%) and Jug (Jack Russell Terrier x Pug) (1.2%), suggesting the recent craze for designer crossbreeds does not eliminate health issues associated with the parental pure breeds.
Overall, brachycephalic breeds had 6.9 times the risk of cherry eye compared with dogs with medium skull length, with the Neapolitan Mastiff at the top of the league table with a risk factor of x34.
Other findings from the study included:
Dr Dan O’Neill, Associate Professor in Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and lead author of the paper, said: “Given that humans designed dog breeds in the first place, we all carry a heavy responsibility to constantly improve our designs to breed away from poor health for these dogs.
"The hugely increased risks of cherry eye in popular flat-faced breeds such as English Bulldogs suggests that we have some way to go before we can consider many flat-faced breeds as designed for optimal health.
"The findings from this study will hopefully help prospective owners make better informed choices when purchasing a dog. We urge all would-be dog owners to follow advice from the UK Brachycephalic Working Group to ‘stop and think before buying a flat-faced dog’.”
The practice, which has nine clinicians (including three RCVS Recognised Specialists), eleven RVNs, two human-trained cardiac physiologists and a dedicated referral administrator is the first referral practice in the UK to become an EOT.
Dave Dickson, a director alongside Jo Harris, said: "The decision to transition the clinical side of the business into employee ownership was led by the core values of the team and the desire to preserve our independence as a referral service.
"In an industry dominated by corporate acquisitions, with business models increasingly focused on keeping referral offerings within the corporate groups and limiting choice for clients, we felt it was crucial to chart a different course.
"We have a very bonded and supportive team, working together to continuously improve and evolve, where the ideas of every team member are important and all roles are equally appreciated.
"We feel that employee ownership aligns perfectly with this ethos.
Jo Harris added: “By involving all our employees in the ownership of the business, we aim to foster a culture of engagement and collaboration.
"This new structure ensures that every team member has a stake in the success of the business and a voice in how it operates.
"We believe this will not only enhance our service quality but also promote sustainable growth and innovation.
"The transition to employee ownership is not just a change in structure; it is a reaffirmation of our values and a pledge to our patients, clients, and partners that we will continue to strive for excellence in every aspect of our work.”
https://heartvets.co.uk
The main change to the guidance was from:
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care should have a 24/7 facility to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
to
A veterinary surgeon who has an animal under their care must be able, on a 24/7 basis, to physically examine the animal or visit the premises in the case of production animals, equines, farmed aquatic animals and game.
Where a veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service, they must make arrangements for another veterinary service provider to do so on their behalf, details of which must be provided to the client in writing in advance of providing veterinary services.
The new guidance elaborates on the details which must be given to clients:
Veterinary surgeons should provide clients with full details of this arrangement, including relevant telephone numbers, location details, when the service is available and the nature of service provided.
The amended guidelines maintain that the prescription of antimicrobials and controlled drugs requires a physical examination in all but exceptional circumstances, but clarify that for antimicrobials, this applies to all except production animals, farmed aquatic animals and game.
The guidance for limited service providers, such as vaccination and neutering clinics, has been amended with the requirement that if they engage the services of another provider to provide 24-hour emergency cover, this arrangement must be confirmed in writing with the client before veterinary services are offered.
Council voted unanimously for a review of the guidance to be conducted 12 months from the implementation date, with the caveat that the Standards Committee would continue to monitor any impacts on an ongoing basis.
The full details of the amendments can be found in the papers for the March 2023 RCVS Council meeting at: www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/
Linda Belton MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee, said: “I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals within the professions who helped provide the crucial content and context for the case study scenarios, as well as feedback to make sure they were realistic and applicable in practice.
"Thank you also to all those who have fed into the further improvements that have been made to the guidance and I would like to reassure those with concerns that the guidance is robust, we have considered how it will be enforced and we will continue to review the guidance.”
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, added: “Ahead of it coming into force, we will also be publishing resources about the guidance, including the case studies that we are currently finalising, and some FAQs.
"We hope these will help to further explain the context behind the guidance changes, and help to counter any misunderstanding about the impact of the guidance and what it will actually mean for practising professionals on a day-to-day basis.”
For further information about the guidance and the consultation process that led to its development visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
A 15-minute consultation with Online Vets on the IVC-owned www.myfamilypet.co.uk website costs £16, compared to the three other players in this marketplace: Pawsquad, Vet AI and Firstvet, which all charge £20.
The other significant difference is that Online Vets is backed by IVC's extensive network of 800+ bricks and mortar practices, so they have somewhere to refer cases that need treatment and they undertake to deduct the online consultation fee from the final bill if that happens.
Douglas Veitch MRCVS, Head of Online Vets (the affable-looking chap pictured right) said: "In human healthcare, an online doctor can prescribe medication to their patients. However under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) legislation, vets cannot do that. This impacts the wallets of our clients, as it will often mean they pay twice; once for the online consultation and then for the subsequent consultation in practice. That’s why we have launched our Online Vets service as the digital vet team can refer into one of our 800+ practices and ensure the initial online fee is deducted from the bill."
That sounds like a bit of a pop at the RCVS being responsible for legislation that impacts clients' wallets, so it might be worth reflecting whether the GMC would allow doctors to prescribe medication online if their patients were all deaf, mute and had a mental age of less than one, which I assume is the intellectual capacity of the average dog.
That's by the by. It is this ability to offset Online Vets' consultation fee against any treatment needed offline that forms the basis of IVC's claim to save pet owners nearly £100 per annum on veterinary bills.
Of the other online service providers, only one (Vet AI) undertakes to refund the fee if offline treatment is then required. Online Vets says pets typically need 5 consultations per annum, and if they all need a subsequent consultation (and presuming none use Vet AI), £20 x 5 would therefore be down the drain, or, as the French would say, hors de la fenêtre.
I think that claim is a bit punchy myself. It would be interesting to see the research that shows pets need 5 consultations per annum. My dog rarely sees the vet more than once in a year. And even if it did, I'll bet at least a couple of those consultations could be handled online.
But really, isn't this a bit of a red herring? The truth is that all these services are still in their infancy, and online consultations still make up only a tiny fraction of the overall number of veterinary interactions. So whether you'll actually save a few quid using Online Vets vs one of the others is probably not the point.
The really big savings for pet owners will surely come when bricks and mortar veterinary practices, IVC included, offer online consultations between clients and their normal vet, who can already prescribe medications remotely if the animal has been seen recently enough. That'll save me a lot more than £20 a visit.
In the meantime, if I was using one of these services to consult about my dog (and I might), the bigger deal for me would be to have the reassurance of knowing the advice was backed by a bricks and mortar practice, which is why I find it curious that the only mention of IVC (and all its resources) on the www.myfamilypet.co.uk website is, er, in the cookie policy.
It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
Sylvie, a four-month-old Maine Coon, was referred to NDSR with a loud heart murmur. Scans revealed she was suffering from a severe obstruction on the right side of her heart which was steadily becoming worse.
Her condition, double chambered right ventricle, is very rare and, until now, could only be corrected by open heart surgery. However, NDSR specialist cardiologist João Loureiro believed this would be too much of a risk for frail Sylvie, so he opted for a cutting balloon angioplasty which had never been applied to cats before because their hearts are so small.
He and fellow cardiology specialist Joel Silva carried out the procedure, which involved inserting two balloons on a wire into a vein in Sylvie’s neck and on to her heart. The first had four cutting blades, which were manipulated to score the obstruction before the second was gently inflated in order to relieve it. After the wire and balloons had been removed, the incision in Sylvie’s neck required just two stitches and within 48 hours she was well enough to return home.
A subsequent scan showed the level of obstruction had been reduced from severe to mild and her owner, Dr Bob Baxter, described her as “much more lively”.
João, who has a special interest in the treatment of congenital heart disease in small animals, said the decision to perform the interventional ballooning was made because of the risks of open heart surgery and the recent development of veterinary applications of the cutting balloon technique.
João said: "As Sylvie’s condition was so rare, wider application of the technique is limited in terms of the number of cats which could benefit from it. However, it is extremely relevant to those individuals who are affected and could be of use in the treatment of other, more common, conditions."
Joel said: "Cutting balloon angioplasty is routinely used in human medicine for treating narrowed and stiffened blood vessels and has recently been adapted to treat a heart condition in dogs but we believe this may be the first time it has been used to treat this condition in a cat."
Ms Burrows faced 11 charges against her.
The first alleged that in November 2017 she had allowed or caused her horse to be re-registered at the Cardiff equine practice where she worked under a different patient name, and had failed to consolidate and cross-reference this new record with the previous one.
The second charge alleged that between November 2017 and March 2018 she failed to make entries into the practice’s clinical records for her horse about its epistaxis and the investigations into the condition.
Charges 3 to 9 related to various telephone conversations and email exchanges Ms Burrows had with NFU Mutual in 2018 in which she failed to disclose the horse’s full clinical history and knowingly gave false statements to the effect that the horse’s condition of epistaxis had started more recently than it actually had. These charges also include asking an administrative colleague in the practice to, unknowingly, provide the insurance company with false information.
Charge 10 alleged that Ms Burrows asked a colleague to provide incorrect and/or dishonest information to the insurance company about the date of an endoscopy that had been performed on her horse in or around November or December 2017.
The final charge (Charge 11) alleged that, in regard to all previous charges, Ms Burrows had acted dishonestly.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Burrows admitted to Charges 2 to 9, as well as charge 11 in so far as it related to these charges.
However, she denied that she had allowed the creation of a new record for her horse under a different name for the purposes of concealing its clinical history or that she had attempted to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to provide false information about the treatment of her horse.
Nevertheless, the Committee found all the charges proven.
Next the Committee considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so the Committee considered the pre-meditated nature of Ms Burrows’ conduct in setting up the second record for her horse with the intention of benefitting financially by providing false information. Likewise, the Committee considered that Ms Burrows had abused her professional position by asking her colleague who was a practice administrator to, unknowingly, provide false information to the insurance company on her behalf and in attempting to induce a veterinary surgeon colleague to lie on her behalf.
The Committee found her guilty of serious professional misconduct in respect of all 11 charges and stated that her conduct could be characterised as deplorable.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that, in the event, no actual harm had been occasioned to any animal or person. There had been an attempt at, but no actual, financial gain. The Committee had not been informed of any previous regulatory findings against Ms Burrows. In addition Ms Burrows had made some, limited, admissions to the College in her responses to it and has admitted a number of the Charges, including her dishonesty, before the Committee. Ms Burrows has apologised for that to which she admitted and in the Committee’s view has displayed a limited degree of insight.”
Having determined serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Burrows. Ahead of the decision she made representations to the Committee in which she acknowledged that she had let the profession down, multiple breaches of the Code, and highlighted that her actions had prejudiced the delicate relationship between the public and the profession and had tarnished the reputation of the profession. She asked the Committee for the opportunity for a second chance, saying that she had started her own veterinary practice now and that honesty and integrity were now integral to her practice.
The Committee also heard several character witnesses as well as testimonials from both professional colleagues and clients attesting to her integrity and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon. Ms Burrows’ counsel also highlighted that at the time of the misconduct she was young and relatively new to veterinary practice and had been going through a difficult time, both professionally and personally.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Cerys Jones, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: “In the view of the Committee, honesty in a veterinary surgeon is a fundamental professional issue, and that is the case regardless of age and experience. The public, other professionals and insurers all at times rely on the word of a professional veterinary surgeon to honestly attest to matters of importance. All need to be able to trust the veterinary surgeon. Any departure from a standard of honesty undermines public confidence in the profession.
“In the Committee’s determination, Ms Burrows had shown a repeated disregard for the principle of honesty on a number of occasions when dealing with the insurance claim in her telephone calls. Moreover, the Committee had found that Dr Burrows had caused or allowed the preparation of documentation concealing the full history of her horse and attempted to involve another professional in the matter.
“The Committee had found that Ms Burrows’ dishonesty had extended over approximately five months, and she had had several opportunities to resile from it. However, it took until [a colleague] raised the issue with Ms Burrows before she took steps to end the claim.
“The Committee determined that Ms Burrows had put her own interests ahead of those of the public and undermined the trust that underpins the relationship with insurers.”
She added: “In the Committee’s determination, the repeated dishonesty in the case in all the circumstances could not be met other than by directing that Ms Burrows’ registration be removed from the Register.”
Ms Burrows has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The overview starts with the CMA noting how it has had significant dealings with many vets and nurses from different practices and acknowledging their dedication and commitment to owners and their animals.
Nevertheless, the CMA has identified various areas of concern about the state of the marketplace:
The CMA says it will publish three further papers in the spring, one sharing its analysis of treatment and pricing data from two large insurance companies, another in which it will lay out its proposed remedies to the concerns it has raised, and a final one analysing the profitability of veterinary businesses.
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/veterinary-services-market-for-pets-review#working-papers
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and the BVA to help the profession prepare for and shape its own future, has published a guest blog in which an academic argues that the profession needs to introduce safeguards to prevent inappropriate profit-seeking behaviour.
David Main is Professor of Animal Welfare at the School of Veterinary Sciences at the University of Bristol, with research interests in welfare assessment, animal welfare education and intervention strategies to improve welfare.
In his blog (www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss), Professor Main says he believes the vast majority of individual veterinary surgeons and practices are not motivated by money and do have animals’ best interests at heart, but that the differences between the business structure of veterinary and medical practitioners in the UK means the profession is always at risk of standing accused of excessive profiteering.
He said: “Since we still live in the age of the media scare story, it would seem prudent for the profession to embed some anti-profit seeking safeguards in our regulatory controls before, rather than after, a problem is highlighted.” One suggestion he makes is for the prohibition of turnover-based incentive schemes in favour of incentives based on health outcomes.
He believes that such safeguards, which he says could be incorporated into the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, would be a “healthy demonstration” that the profession has animal welfare rather than profit as its main priority.
Professor Main also argues that the profession urgently needs to deliver on society’s expectation of vets as animal welfare experts: “Veterinarians could perhaps... do more at an individual level to act as animal welfare advocates. It is easy to inform clients on the technical rationale for a specific husbandry change but then walk away knowing full well the client will not action the advice. In the medical profession, advanced communication techniques are becoming more widely accepted to promote positive change within their patients. Perhaps we should be more explicit in teaching our veterinary students influencing skills.”
In response to David’s blog, this month’s Vet Futures poll asks visitors ‘Do vets always act as animal welfare advocates?’
The previous month’s poll, which was based on an article co-written by Erwin Hohn and Adi Nell from MediVet, asked to what extent vets would be willing to work collaboratively with others if it would benefit all. Of the 50 people who answered the poll, 60% said they would be completely willing to work with others, 32% a lot and 8% to some degree – no one said they would be unwilling to work with others.
The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.
In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.
In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:
Chapter 8 (para 8.9)
There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.
In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found.
Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)
Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.
The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.
The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines.
BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”
Neptra contains florfenicol, an antibiotic which Bayer says is ideal for dealing with the Staphylococcus pseudintermedius found in the majority of otitis externa cases, together with terbinafine hydrochloride, which is effective against Malassezia pachydermatis, and mometasone furoate, a corticosteroid that provides anti-inflammatory activity to improve patient comfort.
A single, 1ml dose in each affected ear treats dogs of all breeds and in trials, continuous clinical improvement was seen until day 28.
Neptra was approved for use in the USA back in 2015, where it has apparently gone down a bit of a storm, becoming the number one product for otitis externa in the country, with over 4.7 million doses prescribed since 2017.
Dr Ken Kwochka, DVM, DACVD, President of the World Association for Veterinary Dermatology (pictured right) said: "This solution is trusted by thousands of vets across the USA, it’s now time for UK vets to benefit from the convenience and confidence Neptra offers. Neptra is the ideal and easier way to treat the majority of otitis externa cases you see and can (and should) be used first-line."
Donna Tomlinson, Senior Brand Manager at Bayer said: "It’s not every day that you’re able to launch a solution that has the potential of Neptra to change treatment practices for the better and improve outcomes for dogs. Across the UK and Europe, our brilliant team at Bayer have put months of effort into this launch and developed an exciting marketing support package. Our veterinary business managers are already out on the road, ready to talk to you all about it."
Neptra is available now to order as one SKU via your regular wholesaler or speak to your Bayer veterinary business manager.
Practice support materials are also available via www.vetcentre.bayer.co.uk.
Eurovet has launched Comfortan, the first EU-authorised methadone in the UK, available as an injectable solution for use in dogs.
Eurovet says that whilst methadone may seem an unfamiliar analgesic choice for some vets in practice, that is about to change very quickly.
Ruth Vernon Technical Services Manager at Eurovet says that prior to the launch of Comfortan, reports show that usage of methadone to manage pain in animals is much higher than previously thought: "We have become aware that many practices are using methadone routinely for orthopaedic procedures and that several specialists use it in preference to any other analgesic where rapid onset of action and profound analgesia is important. This opioid provides vets with an animal analgesic with very rapid onset of action: exerting an effect in just 10 minutes of intravenous administration and 15 minutes of intramuscular administration. Comfortan is licensed both as an analgesic and as a premed in combination with a neuroleptic drug. As a full opioid agonist, Comfortan results in very effective pain relief, particularly when used for moderate to severe pain. Comfortan provides pain relief for approximately four hours and can be re-dosed to achieve the desired level and duration of pain relief."Ruth is anticipating high demand for Comfortan from launch: "Comfortan enables many more patients to be given methadone immediately to control their acute pain without their vets having to go through lengthy protocols involved in using products off-licence, so we think that more vets are about to become convinced of the benefits. Comfortan is licensed for veterinary use and it offers the convenience of a 10 ml vial with a shelf life of 28 days. Those who have not used methadone before, or indeed anyone with a query about storage or monitoring, can source all the information and advice they need by contacting us at Eurovet Animal Health."
For further information contact Eurovet Animal Health on 01223 257933, e-mail: office@eurovet-ah.co.uk, or visit: http://www.eurovet-ah.co.uk/
Mr Lomax was found guilty of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court in July 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-month community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, 15-months’ driving disqualification and ordered to pay £1,000 in prosecution costs and victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Lomax declared his conviction to the RCVS in April 2020 as part of his declaration upon renewing his registration, following which the RCVS started its concerns investigation process leading to his appearance before the Disciplinary Committee last Monday.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Lomax admitted the charge against him, which was also accepted by the Committee based on its receipt of the certificate of conviction from Shrewsbury Crown Court.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered Mr Lomax unfit to practise. The RCVS submitted that the nature of the conviction and the devastating consequences of Mr Lomax's conduct, which caused the death of a 64-year-old woman, rendered him unfit to practise.
The College also submitted that his conduct would be considered to have fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession, that it had devastating consequences, and that the conviction would have an impact on the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it.
Mr Lomax’s counsel, who represented him during the hearing, submitted that he did not accept his conduct rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Mr Lomax did accept that the impact of his conduct was devastating.
Mr Lomax’s counsel submitted that there was a significant difference between his conduct and its consequences, as evidenced by the fact he was charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving meaning that, though his standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent and careful driver, it did not fall far below. Nor was there a suggestion that Mr Lomax had carried out a deliberate act, was carrying out any dangerous manoeuvres or was otherwise impaired.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “There is no doubt that the consequences of Mr Lomax’s conduct were serious and tragic for the [victim’s] family.
"The Judge at the Crown Court referred to their loss in detail and it no doubt played a significant part in the sentence he passed, as reflected by his comments.
"The Committee was cognisant, however, of the different role it had to perform.
"A criminal conviction marks a breach of criminal law, whereas a finding of unfitness marks a breach of professional standards.
"When looking at the conviction, the Committee focused on the actual conduct of Mr Lomax and the concomitant level of culpability, rather than the consequences. Whilst it would be artificial, insensitive and inappropriate to ignore the consequences, the Committee was concerned with the conduct.”
He added: “The Committee did not consider that Mr Lomax’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling for the [victim’s] family, in terms of Mr Lomax’s culpability this was a momentary piece of poor driving rather than anything more blameworthy. At its height it was careless driving for three or so seconds.
"In the Committee’s view Mr Lomax’s careless behaviour fell below, but not far below, the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The new spot on, which is complementary to the Bravecto dog chew, is the only one to provide 12 week protection for both fleas and ticks, including Rhipicephalus sanguineus.
The company highlights research it carried out which showed that the convenience of Bravecto's 12 week flea and tick killing treatment improves compliance over monthly alternatives1.
The new product means practices now have more choice if they prefer to offer a spot-on or clients find compliance easier to achieve with a spot-on rather than a chew.
Amanda Melvin, Marketing Manager at MSD Animal Health said: "Our research has shown that convenience is the key to improving compliance and successfully eradicating fleas and ticks. By offering a new formulation of a 12 week treatment, Bravecto Spot-on for dogs further increases the opportunity.
"It improves the choice for vets and pet owners depending on the client’s lifestyle and type of dog.
"This new innovation also offers vets the opportunity to raise the topic of fleas and ticks with clients that have been more reluctant to use existing products.”
The applicator for Bravecto Spot-on for dogs has been designed so there is no need to remove a loose cap and no sharp edges that can scratch the pet's skin.
The launch is also supported by a range of materials for veterinary surgeons, nurses and pet owners, including information guides, a quick-fact flip book, waiting room materials, Bravecto 3+1 card and post-prescription client leaflets.
For more information, contact your MSD Account Manager.
Liz, a mother of two who qualified at Cambridge in 2004 and now works part time doing ECC shifts at the Cromwell Veterinary Group and shelter medicine at Wood Green, said: "I’m an average GP vet-mum who found a happy work-life balance after a decade in practice. Fed up with bemoaning the state of the profession, I started looking into solutions. And there are many; a growing wave of initiatives by both veterinary organisations and individuals to address the issues facing the profession and move us to a brighter future. But all of this reading took time, and I wanted to help friends and colleagues access appropriate resources quickly and efficiently.
"So, I’ve created www.vetsnet.net; a website to curate, collate and summarise a wide range of resources covering everything from support for employers/employees/students, financial advice, mental wellbeing, career breaks, advice for mums, and a vet sports page to celebrate and highlight sporting endeavours and encourage us to get active. The site is free access and not-for-profit. If you have a resource you’d like me to add, or if you are able to promote or support the site in any way, please contact: liz.barton@vetsnet.net”
The ten-programme series stars Cat Henstridge MRCVS, a Midlands-based locum, Cheryl Lucas MRCVS, a Vets4Pets JVP from Essex, Bristol-based James Greenwood MRCVS and Rory Cowlam MRCVS from London.
The documentary follows a wide selection of patients and conditions, from routine stuff like lump removal from a dog and dental work on a cat, through to more obscure things like an obstructed python and surgery on a goldfish.
Cat said: "I am hoping the profession will like it. It definitely features the realistic side of the job!"
To watch the show on iPlayer, visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/shows/the-pets-factor
The company says that so far, it has had no cases of flu reported in horses vaccinated with Equip F or Equip FT in the UK. However, it cautions that in the present flu outbreak it is not clear if any of the current influenza vaccines will provide complete clinical protection against the mutated strain.
In addition, Zoetis highlights that:
Equip F and Equip FT are both indicated for reduction in clinical signs caused by Equine Influenza, including Florida Clade 1 strains.
Cross protection has been demonstrated by virulent challenge for representative strains of Florida Clade 1 (Paillot et al 20081, Bryant et al 20102) and Clade 2 (Paillot et al 20153).
Vaccination with Equip F stimulated a flu specific cell-mediated immune response to a Clade 1 strain which was detectable for up to one year after the third vaccination in primary course (Paillot et al 20153).
Zoetis says it is confident that the Equip range continues to be effective against its licensed indications.
If you have further questions about the vaccines, ring 0845 300 8034 and choose option 1 to speak to Zoetis' technical team.
References