Davies Veterinary Specialists (DVS), the Hertfordshire-based private small animal referral practice, has launched a pro bono scheme to help deliver the practice's multi-specialist care to deserving patients and clients.
All first opinion practices are eligible to apply for the scheme, which will allow an average of one patient per month to receive free treatment.
Clive Elwood, managing director of DVS said: "The DVS board was unanimous in its desire to introduce a pro bono scheme to help the needy, specifically those patients that are likely to achieve a full recovery following specialist care, but are otherwise precluded from referral because of their owners' particular circumstances."
Pro bono requests are open to all practices. They will be based on advocacy from the clinical head of the referring practice and on genuine need.
To find out more visit http://www.vetspecialists.co.uk/ or call Dr Clive Elwood on 01582 883950.
The Kennel Club has announced that the Crufts Best of Breed (BOB) winners in two of the high profile breeds - the bulldog and the Pekingese - failed their veterinary checks, so the breeds were not represented in the utility and toy group judging.
The British Veterinary Association says it welcomed the Kennel Club's initiative to put the veterinary checks in place for the BOB winner in the 15 high profile breeds at all championship dog shows starting at Crufts this year.
The 15 breeds have been identified as having particular health problems often due to poor conformation as a result of having been bred with exaggerated characteristics. The veterinary checks ensure the BOB winners are not suffering as a result of their conformation, such as eye problems, skin disease, lameness or breathing difficulties, which should have been identified by the judge.
Carl Padgett, President of the BVA, said: "Breeding dogs with exaggerated features must be tackled robustly. The veterinary checks are sending out a strong message that dogs with health problems will not win in the show ring, and only visibly healthy dogs will be rewarded.
"Dog showing can be a force for good for dog breeding and education but the veterinary checks on the first two groups at Crufts have highlighted the health problems that all too often affect man's best friend.
"We hope this strong action by the Kennel Club will be a wake-up call to those breeders and judges that still need to embrace the message that health should always be at the top of the agenda."
Warwick Seymour-Hamilton, a former veterinary surgeon who practised in Kent, has had his third application for restoration to the Register refused by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee this week.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was struck off in 1994 following an inspection of his premises, equipment and facilities in Orpington, which were found to be in such poor condition that it constituted a risk to the health and welfare of animals brought to the practice and brought the profession into disrepute.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton had made two previous restoration applications in July 1995 and June 2010. Both of these were refused on the grounds of poor preparation for re-entering practice life as, in both cases, he had made no attempt to engage in continuing professional development or visit and observe other veterinary practices.
Representing himself at this week's hearing, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that, since the 2010 hearing, he had further developed an interest in herbal medicine and, after visiting a number of veterinary practices in continental Europe, had attended the College of Naturopathic Medicine in Dublin, gaining a qualification in herbal and naturopathic medicine. He told the Committee that he currently worked as a herbalist and naturopath with human patients but wanted to widen his work and research to include animal patients.
The Committee was concerned by his answers to a number of questions, Mr Seymour-Hamilton having described the hearing as an 'exploratory meeting' and indicating a lack of knowledge in a number of areas to do with veterinary practice and its regulation. The Committee felt that this demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding as to its function and terms of reference.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee expresses its surprise and concern at the lack of preparation for this hearing by the applicant, given that these issues have arisen at his previous restoration hearings, and that the result of a positive finding in favour of him would be his ability to practise unfettered as a veterinary surgeon forthwith."
In particular the Committee highlighted Mr Seymour-Hamilton's lack of understanding of the regulatory framework for veterinary practice as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, the requirements of continuing professional development and what 'fitness to practise' meant, beyond the practical issues of his physical and mental capacity.
Professor Burrows added: "Based on all of the evidence available to the Committee it is very clear that he has failed to satisfy... that he is fit to be restored to the Register and this application is therefore dismissed."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:
Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.
Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;
Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;
Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;
Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;
Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and
Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).
Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.
He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.
The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.
It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.
The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.
The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.
"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.
In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.
In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.
"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.
“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.
"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.
"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”
The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The newsletter will include anaesthesia updates, bulletins and recaps, access to videos and downloadable resources.
Articles in Anaesthesia1ST are being written by Jurox’s technical advisors in collaboration with anaesthesia specialists such as Carl Bradbrook (European Veterinary Specialist in Anaesthesia and Analgesia and an RCVS Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Anaesthesia) and Ian Self (European Specialist in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, Associate Professor in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham).
The first newsletter launched on 15th May and included: ‘Capnography I – not just a load of hot air’, ‘Perspectives on premeds – Alpha-2 agonists’ and ‘What’s new in anaesthesia? Highlights of recent preoxygenation paper’.
Articles in future editions will include: ‘Capnography II – what happened to the elephants?’, ‘Pain, what a pain! Local and regional nerve blocks improve outcomes and welfare of patients’, “The Big Chill – temperature management in sedated and anaesthetised patients’ and ‘Perspectives on premeds – a complete series of articles covering the ins and outs of the different agents, how they compare and recommended use in the different patient types’.
Jurox says that downloadable resources will include a capnography cheat-sheet detailing different traces and their meaning, premedication drugs comparison tables and pre and post rabbit anaesthesia check-lists.
Richard Beckwith, country manager of Jurox (UK) Ltd, said: "We take great pride in our investment in educational initiatives to enable veterinary professionals to deliver best practice anaesthesia to their clients. The new Anaesthesia1ST newsletter further demonstrates our commitment to educational support resources to enable veterinary professionals to attain and maintain 1ST class anaesthesia for all patients."
To sign up to the Anaesthesia1ST newsletter, click here, visit the Alfaxan website – www.alfaxan.co.uk, contact your local Jurox technical sales representative or email Jurox at: info@jurox.co.uk.
Cognitive aids are visual prompts that aim to reduce human error in critical processes by providing a supportive framework that ensures tasks are performed and communicated appropriately. They are designed for use whilst a task is being undertaken and enable individuals to concentrate on problem-solving and decision-making.
The BSAVA Cognitive Aids for Anaesthesia in Small Animal Practice, written by veterinary anaesthesia specialist Matt McMillan, includes both routine checklists, such as pre-anaesthetic assessment, equipment checks and postoperative handover, and crisis checklists for potential complications that may be encountered during surgery, such as hypotension, bradycardia and haemorrhage.
The guide also includes downloadable forms, which can be used in practice to ensure safety checks are completed and help improve clinical outcomes (available from www.bsavalibrary.com).
Ian Self, Principal Clinical Anaesthetist at the University of Cambridge Department for Veterinary Medicine said: "This handbook should be viewed as a ‘second pair of eyes’ throughout a procedure, especially if an anaesthetised patient deteriorates; consider it as having an experienced anaesthetist looking over your shoulder offering words of advice… I am very happy to endorse this exciting new BSAVA resource."
The BSAVA Cognitive Aids for Anaesthesia in Small Animal Practice is now available from the BSAVA website (www.bsava.com/shop) or by phone on 01452 726700 (£25; BSAVA members: £15).
Virbac has launched Milpro, a palatable milbemycin / praziquantel-based broad-spectrum wormer for dogs and cats.
Milpro is offered in tablet sizes suitable for dogs, small dogs or puppies, cats and small cats or kittens for ease of dosing. It is presented in 4, 24 and 48 packs.
As an aid to owner education and compliance, packs of Milpro use 'Blippar Augmented Reality'. Owners download the Blippar app and scan the front of a pack of Milpro or a dispensing envelope, whereupon the pack becomes animated and various interactive options appear, including educational videos, a built in reminder system and other product information.
Simon Boulton MRCVS, Marketing Manager for Companion Animals at Virbac, said: "The practice team has a crucial role to play in reminding owners that regular worming is essential for their pet's health. With the introduction of Milpro, we are extending our parasiticide range and offering practices an alternative solution.
"With compliance such an issue, we want to use 21st century communication to help practices to get the message across. The result is the introduction of an interactive element to our packs with the use of the Blippar platform. It enables us to create 'Augmented Reality' experiences through which we can provide comprehensive information to owners in an eye-catching and easily accessible way with the aim of boosting compliance and, ultimately, welfare.
"We believe the combination of the small tablet sizes and the innovative packaging will prove attractive and convenient to owners, making Milpro a successful product for practices".
Practices can also request an interactive waiting room poster which enables owners to watch a video on the poster on the importance of worming.
In one case, Tigga, a 17-year-old cat with an itchy and destructive tumour on her nose, was in complete remission within 44 days. In another case, a tumour vanished in a dog where the aim of the treatment was only to shrink the mass before an operation to remove it.
NDSR, which is based in Bletchingley, is the only referral centre in the UK and one of very few in the world offering electrochemotherapy in pets.
Electrochemotherapy is given in two stages.
First, the patient is given a mild dose of intravenous chemotherapy in the normal way and then, using a probe, a precise electrical charge is given to the area on or around the tumour.
This temporarily opens up tiny holes in the cells, big enough to allow the drug to enter, which then close again in microseconds. This means the drug will only attack cancerous cells, unlike normal chemotherapy, which also kills healthy cells.
Gerry Polton, clinical director of oncology at NDSR, said: "Normal chemotherapy works on the principle of being more damaging to cancer than non-cancerous tissue. Some cancers are more resilient, so there are differences in how they respond to treatment, and this can cause more harm to the patient.
"Electrochemotherapy involves clever anatomical targeting of a specific site and is an effective way of protecting healthy cells.
"The results we are seeing in cases like Tigga’s are unprecedented and we are learning about the procedure all the time. We are always looking for better ways of treating cancer without the effect of harming the patient indiscriminately and this has proved to be a very effective way of doing this."
According to NDSR, the results could help inform the development of the targeted treatment in humans, where electrochemotherapy is used in a small number of cases in the NHS.
At present, many clinical trials are carried out on laboratory animals which are bred with no immune system – but dogs have similarities in genetics to humans and have working immune systems, meaning they can provide a more accurate parallel for how the treatment may work in people.
Gerry said: "A pet dog would be a good model for human cancer studies. It's a mammal with a heartbeat, blood supply and working immune system.
"Progress with electrochemotherapy in animals is being made in parallel with progress in electrochemotherapy in the human field, and what we are learning may even inform what is happening in people.
"Electrochemotherapy is a form of treatment which Cancer Research UK describe as 'fairly new' on its website, with limited information about its effectiveness. So maybe something would be gained from learning together."
The Best UK Vets Awards are given to the practices that accumulate the largest number of positive reviews from clients on vethelpdirect.com and any-uk-vet.co.uk over the course of the year.
Penmellyn Vets achieved 839 positive ratings; 200 more than their nearest rivals, reflecting the tremendous level of engagement they have with their clients, something which also shone through in the sentiments expressed in their client reviews.
Penmellyn Vets is an independent practice owned by six veterinary surgeons, who are all based in Cornwall. They have been providing veterinary care to the pets and horses of Cornwall for over 130 years. They still cover their own out of hours’ care and their services include preventative healthcare packages for their cat and dog-owning clients, ‘LifeCare’ and ‘LifeCare+’. The latter grants clients access to unlimited vet and nurse consultations 6 days a week – something that is currently only offered by Penmellyn Vets in Cornwall.
Philip Harris, one of the partners at Penmellyn Vets said: "We are absolutely delighted to have won this award and want to say thank you to each and every one of our clients who took the time to leave a review. And my thanks to the Penmellyn staff for their hard work and commitment to providing the outstanding customer service that has been recognised by this award. I couldn’t be more proud of them. We’re an independent practice and very traditional in many ways, so I think as we’ve grown as a group, with a goal of excellence always in patient care, our values have kept us grounded and very client-centric. We look forward to celebrating the award with our team at the awards ceremony in the coming weeks."
Blacks Vets in Dudley were awarded the Silver award after receiving a very commendable 620 qualifying client reviews.
Tracey Jewkes, Managing Director, said: "We are delighted to have been awarded Silver in the Best UK Vet 2017 Award and would like to take this opportunity to send a heartfelt thank you to our wonderful clients for voting for us again this year. Our consistency at the top of this award for the past 3 years is a reflection of both the calibre and heart Team Blacks give to pets, clients and each other year after year. We could not be more proud of each and every team member here, nor could we feel more privileged to take great care of so many much loved pets in our local community."
Inglis Veterinary Hospital in Dunfermline, Scotland received 358 qualifying reviews and received the Bronze award. They also went on to win the Best Scottish Vet Award 2017.
The full list of winners is:
This year’s winners of the small category awards are:
Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.
At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.
Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.
Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.
Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.
The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.
The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.
The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College.
The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession.
In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.
The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:
To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month
Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.
To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.
To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).
To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.
To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.
To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor.
Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.
"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."
Dr Stephen Hearns, a consultant in aeromedical retrieval (human) medicine, who delivers pre-hospital critical care for major trauma patients, will open Congress as the keynote speaker.
He'll also present a limited-seat session where he’ll focus on performance under pressure.
Joining Stephen in the speaker line up are Simon Cook from the RVC, Megan Brashear from Purdue University Veterinary Hospital, Tim Travail, Chloe Fay, Dan Tipney, Jenny Guyat, Ashton Hollworth and Dr Craig Joyce, an educational psychologist who will be offering his insights into dealing with imposter syndrome.
This year, participants will have the opportunity to follow a trauma case from arrival to departure on the first day of Congress, gaining real-time insights into the decision-making process and management strategies.
On day two, speakers will delve into lessons learned, allowing attendees to deepen their understanding of emergency and critical care practices
Simon said: “Get ready for a fantastic speaker line-up, an array of workshops and learning experiences, a bustling exhibition hall and more opportunities than ever for veterinary and nursing delegates to reconnect with old friends and make new ones.
"Brace yourselves to absorb knowledge and tips from some of the world’s leading veterinary experts discussing emergency and critical care.”
The ECC Congress programme for 2023 is open to veterinary professionals of all levels, including veterinarian surgeons, vet nurses, students and graduates.
Tickets range in price from £50+ VAT for exhibition-only tickets, up to £520+ VAT for a vet to attend for 2 days plus the Gala dinner.
https://www.vets-now.com/congress/
Ceva Animal Health has added to its joint care range with the launch of Meloxidyl Oral Suspension for Cats, licensed for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders and alleviation of post-operative pain.
Meloxidyl Oral Suspension for Cats is available in 15ml bottles containing 0.5mg/ml meloxicam. Each pack contains a tailored maintenance dosing syringe with a 'kg scale' for all sizes of cat. In addition, Meloxidyl's sweet tasting formulation helps to maximise ease of administration.
Meloxidyl Injection complements Ceva Animal Health's joint care range, which also includes Meloxidyl Injection for dogs and cats and Meloxidyl Oral Suspension for dogs.
For further information, please contact your Ceva Animal Health representative or call 01494 781510.
Eprecis injection (eprinomectin) is an broad spectrum endectocide with activity against gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep1 and goats2.
After Eprecis injection Haemonchus contortus in the abomasum in goats were reduced by 97.8%2 and Trichostrongylus colubriformis in the small intestine were reduced by 98.7%2.
In lactating dairy ewes Eprecis injection was found to be 99% effective against gastrointestinal nematodes3 and was associated with an increased milk yield of 8%4.
The bioavailability of eprinomectin after one Eprecis injection in goats is larger than that reported for eprinomectin pour on5, 6, with Eprecis injection found to be four times more efficacious than eprinomectin pour-on across four dairy goat farms7.
In sheep, the efficacy of Eprecis injection against gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep is 99.6% versus 86.1% for a pour-on formulation8.
Eprecis injection is associated with higher plasma levels of eprinomectin and has a higher efficacy compared to eprinomectin pour-on in dairy ewes naturally infected with gastrointestinal nematodes8.
This is also achieved using five times less active than a pour-on formulation8.
Eprecis injection is administered subcutaneously and there is no need to part the fleece or coat along the animal’s back.
Ceva says it has excellent syringeability9 and a low dose volume (0.1ml/10kg) to help with accurate dosing of animals.
Harry Walby, ruminant veterinary advisor at Ceva Animal Health, said: “Eprecis injection is a highly effective broad-spectrum wormer that is now available in sheep and goats, as well as cattle.
"The injectable formulation not only allows accurate dosing, but there is no subclinical dose transfer between animals.”
Eprecis injection is available in 100ml and 250ml CLAS vials.
References
During the webinar, which took place earlier this month, senior officers and staff from the College explained the new guidance, what it will mean for the profession, and answered questions submitted by delegates.
The webinar was chaired by RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS with a panel comprising Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and RCVS Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The webinar included an overview of the main changes, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “We have also now published a range of practice-based scenarios to help explain how the new guidance should be followed in various circumstances, and in relation to different species.
"These scenarios cover a variety of different situations, including how the guidance applies to two or more practices with mutual clients, consultancy services and the prescription of long-term controlled drugs.”
A second webinar will be held on Monday 17th July, with priority for those who wanted to attend the June webinar but were not able to do because it was over-subscribed.
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
Severn Edge was formed six years ago with the merger of two long-standing neighbouring practices, and now employs 135 people, including 43 veterinary surgeons.
Mrs Karyn MacKenzie, Director of CVS’ Practice Division, said: "Severn Edge is an impressive practice with an outstanding leadership team and an ambitious and exciting vision for the future which we share. We are delighted to welcome the team to CVS and look forward to working with them to help them build an even more successful future."
Dr John Brentnall BVSc MRCVS, a Director of Severn Edge, will continue in the role of CVS Regional Director. He said: "It was clear from our early discussions that CVS understood what we are trying to achieve. We have embarked on a significant investment programme, including upgrading our surgery at Madeley outside Telford, and the redevelopment of the site of an additional clinic which we have recently acquired in Craven Arms.
"In order for us to continually upgrade our clinics, provide the widest range of career opportunities for our staff and steer our practice through an increasingly competitive world, we believe that the best interests of us all lie in joining forces with CVS. It is known for its interest in equine and farm practice, as well as companion animal practice, and has a policy of significant investment in both infrastructure and staff. We believe it offers the best fit with Severn Edge."
Vetoquinol is launching Forcyl, an injectable anti-infective for the targeted therapeutic treatment of respiratory infections in cattle, in November.
Forcyl is a patented 16% marbofloxacin solution, registered as a single intramuscular injection, which the company says will ensure a high level of compliance.
Forcyl follows the SISAAB concept (single injection short acting antibiotic), with an optimised dosage to minimise the risk of development of antibiotic resistance. Shorter exposure time limits the opportunity for resistance to develop. The formulation means a lower volume of administration (10 ml for 160 kg body weight) is required. Vetoquinol says that other benefits of Forcyl include excellent injection site tolerance and short withdrawal periods (meat: 5 days, milk: 48 hours).
For further information on implementing the SISAAB concept in your practice, please contact one of Vetoquinol's large animal team on 01280 814500.
The consultation, which was held by the College early in 2017, asked for the views of veterinary surgeons and nurses, animal owners, and stakeholders on the use of telemedicine in veterinary clinical practice.
The consultation was designed to help identify potential risks associated with telemedicine, identify areas where it may help address the needs of both clinicians and the public, and support the potential development of new professional standards and guidance.
The online survey of veterinary professionals received 1,230 responses, while the public consultation received 229 responses and the survey of organisations/stakeholders received eight responses.
The headline question asked of veterinary professionals was whether RCVS 'supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct' should be amended to allow remote examination to take the place of physical examination in certain circumstances. 41% said 'Yes', 40% said 'No' and 18% were unsure.
Veterinary professionals and organisations were then asked a series of questions in order to establish how they rated the risk associated with telemedicine according to activity type, practice type, clinical sign or syndrome, mode of technology, and familiarity with client, animal or environment.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the majority felt that providing just general advice presented a low risk. At the other end of the scale, most felt that the use of telemedicine to diagnose disease or injury would be either 'high risk', or 'not appropriate at all'.
Likewise, the majority said the risks would be low or medium where the client and environment were known and the animal seen before, for the same problem. By contrast, the majority said telemedicine would be either 'high risk' or 'not appropriate at all' when the client, animal and environment were all unknown.
When asked whether the current definition of 'under care' should be extended to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe veterinary medicines where there has been no physical examination of the animal, 69% said 'No', 16% said 'Yes' and 15% were unsure.
However, when asked whether certain types of veterinary medicines should be able to be prescribed without a physical examination of the animal, the majority of respondents to the professional survey (52%) were in favour.
The results of the consultation were first considered at a special meeting of the Standards Committee in August 2017, where it was noted how the consultation had revealed significant confusion around current supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and that, at a minimum, clarification as to what was currently permissible was needed.
The Committee determined a key issue going forward was whether to change the Supporting Guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct regarding 'under care' to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe POM-V medicines based on telemedicine alone.
Given the complex nature of the issues and the wide-ranging implications, the Standards Committee presented a range of options for amending RCVS Guidance to RCVS Council at its meeting in November 2017. After discussion, Council asked the Standards Committee to continue their review and to present more detailed proposals to Council regarding the future of telemedicine in clinical veterinary practice.
Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership and Innovation, said: "We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to the consultation – although Council has not yet made any firm decisions, we felt it would be useful to share our research so far.
"The use of telemedicine is growing rapidly in human healthcare and it is only right the RCVS assesses the opportunities it could bring to improve access to veterinary services. It is critical, however, that we understand the issues it presents 'at the coal face' and consider all the available evidence before making any changes to our Guidance. The RCVS should ensure its regulatory framework fosters innovation and maximises the opportunities to improve the quality, efficacy and accessibility of veterinary services, whilst at the same time protecting animal health and welfare."
The Standards Committee will meet again in April 2018 to take further evidence and develop proposals to take the issue forward.
Meanwhile, the full summary is available on the College’s website: www.rcvs.org.uk/telemeds-summary/.
The survey found that 51% of cat and dog owners didn't research their pets breed before buying. Of the 22% who then regretted their decision, 31% said it was because they didn’t have enough time to look after the animal, 18% because they turned out to be allergic to the animal, and 16% because they didn’t like their pet’s personality.
Apparently dog owners were more likely to regret their new pet (26%) than cat owners (16%).
Sainsbury’s has therefore launched the Pawfect Match tool, designed to help future pet owners to make informed decisions when choosing the most suitable breed for them. The pet picker asks you a number of questions about your circumstances and makes a number of suggestions based on how you answer.
Sainsbury's campaign is being fronted by Scott Miller MRCVS, who said: "I am saddened to hear that so many pet owners are regretting the animals they have chosen as companions. Dogs and cats come in all shapes and sizes, and have different temperaments. Looking after a pet is a huge commitment so it is important that people undertake adequate research before buying a pet to ensure it is a happy experience."
COMMENT
I tried Sainsbury's pet picker and it recommended a Basset Hound as the first choice. Fair enough. I always think they look like the living embodiment of the word 'hangdog', which is not really my cup of tea. Luckily, the tool makes more than one suggestion. One of the criteria I'd specified was 'quiet and calm', so the second recommendation, a whippet, was fine. But the third caught my eye. A Border Collie. What? Whaaaaaat? Quiet and calm? A Border Collie. Are you having a laugh? I thought Border Collies usually need to be sent to some sort of asylum.
Still, if Sainsbury's tool encourages more people to think harder about their choice, that's no bad thing. But they might like to rethink the Border Collie recommendation.
According to the College, other research suggests that comorbidities - such as anxiety and cognitive impairments - are common in dogs with epilepsy, meaning there is a need for new epilepsy management options which help to control seizures and improve behavioural and cognitive comorbidities.
Led by canine behaviour and welfare scientist Dr. Rowena Packer from the RVC and veterinary neurologist Professor Holger Volk from the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover (TiHo), alongside RVC PhD student Dr. Benjamin Andreas Berk, the team of researchers tested the effects of an oil supplement on seizure frequency in dogs with drug-resistant epilepsy.
Multiple studies from the RVC have shown that medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oils-enriched diets can improve seizure control in difficult to treat, drug-resistant dogs with epilepsy. This controlled clinical study used non-invasive cognitive tests and a validated psychometric tool to show that dogs had improved spatial and working memory when treated with MCTs.
Dr Rowena Packer, Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare at RVC, said: "Our ground-breaking research into the behavioural and cognitive comorbidities of canine epilepsy was the first to identify cognitive impairments in this population. We have now gone one step further and found a promising way to boost the impaired memories of these patients and reduce their seizure frequency, by a simple dietary change."
Professor Holger Volk, Department Chair for Small Animal Diseases at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, said: "Our guts influence how well we think – this study highlights the importance of diets and the power of the gut-brain axis. We are just at the beginning of understanding how diets can influence complex diseases such as epilepsy and dementia. MCT oil could offer a promising addition to our management tool-kit."
Reference
In the survey of 354 owners, 65% thought their cats get on well with each other. However, 60% reported signs of disharmony, including: chasing (65%), swiping paws (53%), hissing (48%), keeping a distance from one another (31%), fighting and acting aggressively (27%), staring (30%) and sitting in front of resources to block access (25%).
In addition, some of the cats were so stressed that they would often scratch furniture or household items (46%), hide from their housemates (26%), meow excessively (20%) or spray (17%).
Claire Russell, Feliway brand manager at Ceva Animal Health, said: "There is the common misconception that cats need other feline companions, however they are naturally solitary survivors who are more than happy in their own company. Simple environmental changes and using Feliway Friends can help restore harmony between household cats who are displaying signs of multi-cat tension."
In the study titled “Outcomes of treatments for keratomalacia in dogs and cats: a systematic review of the published literature including non-randomised controlled and non-controlled studies”, a systematic review of the current literature was undertaken to determine the evidence base for the various treatments of keratomalacia in dogs and cats.
The aim of the review was to assess the evidence base and identify recommended treatment(s) based on globe survival, visual outcome, and time to resolution (while maintaining a globe).
An online literature search found 18 relevant studies which were then reviewed and assigned a level of evidence base as described in the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence Working Group.
Each study was assessed for type of study described (e.g. retrospective, prospective, controlled, random/non-random, cohort study, case series/study), the number of animals included, criteria for assessing outcome (e.g. vision, corneal clarity, anatomic repair) and duration of follow-up and time to resolution.
Systematic reviews of randomised trials, randomised trials or observational studies with dramatic effects would have provided the most reliable evidence on which to base recommendations for treatment(s) but none were available for inclusion.
Only one study was classified as level 3 evidence (non-randomised controlled trial) and considered the use of corneal cross-linking (CXL) in the treatment of keratomalacia.
Most studies were level four evidence reporting the outcome of a single treatment, with three prospective studies and seven retrospective studies.
The remaining seven studies were level five evidence (mechanism-based reasoning) and were considered not to provide good evidence for answering the particular study question.
The findings of the study suggest that the evidence for improved outcome of one proposed treatment over another proposed treatment for keratomalacia in dogs and/or cats is very weak.
A combination of treatments – both medical and surgical – may be the most appropriate depending on the individual case.
Studies utilising mechanism-based reasoning would suggest that medical treatment with anti-collagenase treatment is a minimum requirement for keratomalacia cases to prevent globe loss through perforation, with associated pain and suffering.
Nicola Di Girolamo, Editor of JSAP, said: “The findings of this study highlight once more the infrequency of randomised controlled trials in the veterinary literature, and the need for such studies to expand the evidence base in this field.
“Focussing on collecting available evidence in well-conducted systematic reviews is a critical step in order to improve accessibility of the literature for general practitioners and specialists alike.”
The full article can be found in the October issue of the Journal of Small Animal Practice and can be read online here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsap.13326. It is open access and can be freely accessed by anyone.
Photo courtesy BSAVA
The Ear Protector sits on the back of the head and hooks onto face mask strings, pulling them backwards and away from the ears, thereby relieving pressure and stopping chafing.
The product was designed by AMufacture's Chief Operating Officer, William Howden, a former Olympic sailor who competed in the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. He said: "Early in the pandemic, it became apparent to us that there was a serious need to address an unresolved problem with face masks – people were really beginning to suffer and were getting distracted from their work."
The Ear Protector is sterilisable in a dishwasher. It is also recyclable when it reaches the end of its life.
The Ear Protectors cost fifty pence each, for orders of two hundred. Contact the company direct for lower volume pricing.
For more information, visit: http://www.theearprotector.com
Bayer Animal Health (makers of Advocate, Advantix, Advantage, Seresto, Profender, Drontal and Droncit) has launched 'It's a Jungle Out There', an educational initiative aimed at simplifying parasite control for veterinary practices and pet owners alike.
The impressive-looking initiative comes on the back of research carried out by the company which found:
Dan White, Group Product Manager for Bayer's Animal Health division said: "Our research concluded that many vet practices are missing an opportunity because of a lack of clarity regarding best practice for parasite control. With ongoing support and practical development tools, Bayer's 'It's a Jungle Out There' Programme is an educational initiative which will arm vet practices with the tools they need to make parasite control clearer and more accessible to owners, helping to ensure the UK is a nation of healthy parasite-free pets and happy owners."
Bayer says the first stage of the 'It's a Jungle Out There' initiative aims to help the veterinary community identify opportunities where they can help to improve pet owner compliance. Vet practices will then be supported in developing a parasite protocol which will then be launched to consumers via a heavyweight advertising and PR campaign.
The initiative comprises a new educational website: www.jungleforvets.co.uk, which includes practice development workbooks, market research and trends, extensive technical information on a wide variety of parasites and CPD assessments. Additional downloadable content includes a range of materials such as images, videos, downloads and web buttons.
From the end of August, practice support materials will be available including a waiting room display pack, parasite guide and dispenser, vet nurse reference guide, waiting room posters, lifestyle questionnaire, badges and static window stickers.
The pet owner focus will begin in September and will include an interactive website, advertising and an extensive print and broadcast PR campaign with celebrity ambassadors David Bellamy and TV vet Steve Leonard. This activity is aimed at driving owners towards their vet practice for advice on parasite risks.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against Duncan Davidson MRCVS, a South London veterinary surgeon accused of clinical failings in relation to his treatment of a cat and of keeping poor and misleading clinical records.
The Committee heard the case against Dr Davidson, who was the sole practitioner and owner of Mitcham Veterinary Clinic until his retirement from clinical practice in November 2014, at a hearing which concluded on 22nd January.
The first charge against Dr Davidson alleged that, between 7 November 2013 and 13 December 2013, he had failed to provide adequate care to Ameira, an Egyptian Mau cat. The charge was in four parts: that he had inappropriately administered corticosteroids; had failed to administer adequate fluid therapy; discharged the cat to its owner suggesting a referral when he should have suggested or arranged a same-day referral; and that he failed to communicate the urgency of referral/ further investigation of the cat’s condition to her owner.
The second charge was that, between 7 November 2013 and 17 January 2014, he dishonestly made retrospective alterations to Ameira’s clinical records and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
From the outset Dr Davidson, who attended the hearing, did not admit the charges against him and denied that his conduct, if found proven, constituted serious professional misconduct.
A summary of the circumstances of the case were that the cat had been admitted to Dr Davidson’s practice on 8 November 2013 with poor appetite and a piece of thread in its mouth. The cat was later admitted, on 21 November, with dehydration and was diagnosed with a linear foreign body (ie the thread) on 25 November 2013. Dr Davidson continued to treat Ameira with corticosteroids and rehydration fluids at the practice but a second opinion was sought by Ameira’s owner from a nearby veterinary practice. This practice referred the cat to the Royal Veterinary College for treatment. Surgery to remove the linear foreign body was undertaken on 13 December 2013, albeit with a poor prognosis, and Ameira subsequently suffered two cardiac arrests and died on 14 December 2013.
In terms of its findings on the first charge, the Committee heard from an expert witness, Mr Hurst, regarding the use of the corticosteroids which were administered to the cat by Dr Davidson on 22, 27 and 30 November 2013 and 5 and 12 December 2013. Although Mr Hurst said that a minority of veterinary surgeons may have provided corticosteroids when the cat was first presented to Dr Davidson on 8 November; when it was determined by Dr Davidson’s colleague Mr Holden that the cat’s condition was due to it having ingested thread, the use of corticosteroids was inappropriate from then on and would be considered contra-indicated. The Committee found this charge proven.
The Committee did not find the charge against Dr Davidson that he failed to provide adequate fluid therapy proven. When the cat was presented to the practice on 21 November 2013 suffering from dehydration, fluid rehydration was given but not administered intravenously. The Committee concluded that intravenous hydration was not necessary because the clinical records from both Dr Davidson and the Royal Veterinary College indicated that Ameira was only moderately dehydrated.
Regarding the referral of Ameira, the Committee could not be sure that the cat was sufficiently unwell on 23 November that it required immediate referral. Dr Davidson had sent Ameira home with her owner on that date on the basis that she was stable and that he would arrange a referral for her on 25 November. There was conflicting evidence from Dr Davidson and Ameira’s owner on the matter of whether, on 23 November, Ameira’s owner was advised that the cat’s condition was critical or that a referral was urgently required. Dr Davidson accepted that he did not seek to make an urgent referral. The charge was not proven.
Regarding the communication of the urgency for further investigation of Ameira’s condition, the Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Dr Davidson did not adequately communicate with Ameira’s owner after the diagnosis of a linear foreign body was made on 25 November. According to Dr Davidson, he explained the risk of further damage to the oesophageal and gastrointestinal tract and offered further radiography. This was strongly contested by Ameira’s owner. However, ultimately the Committee were unable to be satisfied as to which version was correct to the necessary standard of proof required.
Regarding the retrospective amendment of clinical records, the Committee found that although there were some “troubling aspects” about the case, particularly evidence of a telephone call with the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in which Dr Davidson said that no retrospective alterations had been made, it was unable to be satisfied so as to be sure of his motivation for changing the records. His contention was that changes had been made as he was concerned he would be subject to civil litigation by Ameira’s owner. However, the Committee found the charge not proven, also taking into account Dr Davidson’s good character and unblemished professional record over 40 years.
However, the Committee did find that Dr Davidson’s clinical records were illegible. Dr Davidson recognised the poor quality of his handwriting, which the veterinary surgeons to whom Ameira was referred were unable to understand. The Committee found this charge proven.
Taking into account the charges it found proven, the Committee then considered whether they constituted serious professional conduct either individually or cumulatively. Judith Webb, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "It does not consider that on the facts of this case the administration of corticosteroids amounted to disgraceful misconduct."
She added: "The Committee has already emphasised the importance of making legible handwritten records but it does not consider that the failure to do so in this case amounts to disgraceful misconduct.... The Committee has found that Dr Davidson was wrong to make retrospective entries in this case without making it clear when such alterations were made. The Committee does not consider that in this case the making of those alterations was capable of being disgraceful misconduct. The case is dismissed."
Titled 'Animal Welfare For The Many, Not The Few' (uh?), the policy proposes appointing an Animal Welfare Commissioner to ensure Government policy across Whitehall is informed by the latest scientific evidence on animal sentience.
The proposed policies in the document include a number of things the Conservatives have already been working on, such as:
Prohibiting the third party sale of puppies. All puppies will need to be sold with their mother on site.
Increasing maximum sentences for those convicted of animal cruelty.
Introducing mandatory CCTV in all slaughterhouses.
Enshrining the principle of animal sentience in law, covering all policy areas to prevent practices that expose animals to cruel and degrading treatment.
Introducing a ban on ivory trading.
However, Labour propose a number of additional ideas which are now open for a public consultation, including:
Improving accessibility to vets for those on low incomes/receiving financial support, working with organisations like the PDSA to explore how access to affordable vet care can be expanded.
Banning the use of animal shock collars, including sale and importation.
Expanding mandatory microchipping to cats.
Consulting with landlords and tenants on the ability for tenants to keep pets as default unless there is evidence that the animal is causing a nuisance.
Ending the badger cull.
Strengthening the Hunting Act, closing loopholes that allow for illegal hunting of foxes and hares.
Banning Foie Gras (which the Conservatives say is impossible under EU rules which Labour has said it wishes to continue following post-Brexit)
Mandatory labelling of domestic and imported meat, including country of origin, method of production and slaughter (stun or non-stun)
Requiring motorists to report accidents where an animal has been injured.
Banning wild animals in circuses.
Sue Hayman MP, Labour’s Shadow Environment Secretary, said: "Labour is the party of animal welfare. From bringing in the ban on fox hunting to tightening the rules on the transport of live animals, Labour has always been consistent in our leadership on matters of animal welfare.
"Today we’re making proposals for real, long-term progress. Our vision is one where no animal is made to suffer unnecessary pain and we continue to drive up standards and practice in line with the most recent advances and understanding."
Conservative MP Steve Double said: "Labour are belatedly playing catch-up with the huge progress made by this Government on animal welfare.
However, Labour wouldn’t even be able to deliver some of these promises because they want to keep following EU rules after Brexit.
From introducing mandatory CCTV into slaughter houses to increasing the maximum sentence for animal cruelty ten-fold, the Conservatives will continue taking the action needed to ensure animals receive the proper protection they deserve."