A single 0.5ml vaccination provides 12 months immunity against all three pathogens, which will make vaccination more convenient and should help improve levels of compliance against variant strains of RHD which is currently estimated to be at around only 60% of the vaccinated rabbit population.
Nobivac Myxo-RHD Plus is available in a pack of five, single dose vials, with a shelf-life of two years. The vaccine can be used from the age of five or seven weeks onwards to achieve the full duration of immunity. Immunity is provided within three weeks of administration.
Leonora Bell, Product Manager at MSD Animal Health said: "It's clear that this year the usually busy spring season, where purchasing and vaccinating rabbits is at its highest, will not be as predictable as previous years. Vaccinating rabbits is unlikely to be at the top of your agenda. MSD Animal Health's new Nobivac Myxo-RHD PLUS has arrived, however, so this is a good opportunity to understand how to safely switch vaccinated rabbits and introduce new rabbits to vaccination. This is a time when clients can be encouraged back into your practice, ideally prior to the increase in infectious disease which we tend to see during the peak summer months.
"The variant RHD-2 strain appears now to predominate in cases of rabbit haemorrhagic disease and readily transfers over long distances via flies and the wind. Vaccinating rabbits that live both outdoors and indoors is therefore vital. Rabbits are popular pets and rabbit owners are highly motivated to seek veterinary advice once they are made aware of their pet's specific health needs. They are, however, much less likely to take their pet to a veterinary practice than cat or dog owners or to seek advice on vaccination, neutering or other routine health matters."
Leonora added: "Production of our existing Nobivac Myxo-RHD vaccine will necessarily be replaced with the new Nobivac Myxo-RHD PLUS to ensure that rabbits are vaccinated in the most appropriate way. Following the correct switching protocol is therefore vital. For unvaccinated rabbits it's a simple case of starting with the new vaccine. For rabbits due for a booster of Myxomatosis, RHD1 and RHD2, again, vets can simply switch to the new vaccine when the booster is normally due. Where rabbits have already only been vaccinated with the existing Nobivac Myxo-RHD vaccine it is recommended that vets vaccinate the rabbit with an inactivated RHD-2 vaccine, such as Filavac or Eravac vaccine, as soon as possible. For boosters due later this year and all subsequent boosters, use Nobivac Myxo-RHD PLUS."
The launch of the vaccine is being supported by a range of educational materials designed to help vets switch and encourage new rabbit owners into the practice. A new website is also in the pipeline, with rabbit owner support videos, an educational launch webinar, a detailer, practice posters, noticeboard materials and e-mail templates as vaccination reminders for rabbit owners.
For further information contact your MSD Animal Health account manager or visit www.nobivacmyxorhdplus.co.uk.
The acquisition takes the combined number of sites in the Linnaeus Group to 57.
Brendan Robinson, Village Vet director, said: "When looking for investment, there were a number of options open to us, however, we wanted to ensure we partnered with a group which had the same ethos and ethics as ourselves, who are dedicated to providing an excellent all-round service.
"Having chosen Linnaeus, we look forward to the partnership providing great opportunities for collaborating in CPD, sharing best practice, forming relationships with Specialists and other teams within the group, as well as being part of a bigger family."
Lynne Hill, chief executive of the Linnaeus Group (pictured right), said: "Both Village Vet and its referral centre, London Vet Specialists, will be very welcome additions to the Linnaeus team and complement our existing practices, especially those located in the South East.
"All three existing Village Vet directors will be continuing with the practice and remain committed to its success, working alongside the Linnaeus Group."
For more information about the Linnaeus Group, visit www.linnaeusgroup.co.uk.
It might explain why, according to the research, around 14% of British adults actively encourage fox visitors into their garden, with 10% of adults leaving out food, water or toys for foxes and 48% of them admitting they would feel disappointed if their garden fox did not return at night.
Bayer highlights research which showed an increase in the number of foxes infected with Angiostrongylus, from 7.3% in 2008 to 18.3% in 20152,3.
More recent work led by the aptly named Professor Mark Fox at the Royal Veterinary College has shown that, in the Greater London area, nearly three out of four foxes (74.4%) are infected with the parasite.4
Mark said: "We had previously mapped the distribution of Angiostrongylus in pet dogs by seeing how many cases every small animal practice in Britain had seen over the previous 12 months. This revealed the parasite’s widespread distribution coupled with hotspots of infection in Greater London/south-east England and South Wales, where dogs were four to five times more likely to be infected than elsewhere in the country.
"We then investigated why hot spots were seen in these locations and, apart from land type, dog density and climatic factors, we found that the mere presence of foxes locally increased the risk of infection in dogs five-fold."
"The overall prevalence of infection in Greater London was very high, at just under 75 per cent4, and prevalence was maintained at this level throughout the year. These results suggest that foxes act as year-round, wild animal reservoirs of infection for urban dogs."
Donna Tomlinson, Bayer Senior Brand Manager said: "The recent ‘pet foxes’ pet owner research results coupled with the lungworm prevalence fox studies highlights the growing concern of the spread of Angiostrongylus vasorum in the UK and the need for adequate preventative measures for pet dogs.
"Veterinary professionals are perfectly placed to advise dog owners on the risk of their pets becoming infected with the parasite, including the growing role of foxes as potential wild animal reservoirs of Angiostrongylus, as well as advising pet owners to use a monthly spot-on prevention such as Advocate.
"Treatment with products containing moxidectin, such as Advocate, not only kills lungworms present at the time of treatment but also kills larvae after ingestion preventing new infections. Regular monthly use prevents disease and ensures that no lungworm larvae are shed in dogs’ faeces which helps to prevent the spread of the parasite in the environment."
To highlight the increased prevalence of lungworm in foxes Bayer has created a poster for veterinary practices, which you can get from the Bayer Vet Centre at: https://www.vetcentre.bayer.co.uk/marketing-and-resources/advocate-fox-poster
References
Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.
After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.
The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”
“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”
Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”
“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Conducted in partnership with Royal Canin and led by Professor Alex German, the Feline Healthy Ageing Clinic, located at the University’s Small Animal Practice, will undertake extensive examinations of cats over 7 years of age.
Lead researcher Nathalie Dowgray BVSc MRCVS MANZCVS, and Kelly Eyre RVN are now recruiting mature cats in Liverpool and the surrounding area to offer health screenings and assessments of musculoskeletal, cardiac and retinal health.
Nathalie, said: "We are inviting 300 cats to take part in the Cat Prospective Ageing and Welfare Study (CatPAWS), a 5-year study; the largest of its kind.
"Cats will visit the practice every six months and we’re recruiting as many cats aged 7 to 10 years of age as we can at this stage.
"We will carry out a number of diagnostics including retinal examination and photography, blood and urine sampling and orthopaedic – including gait analysis - and dental examinations.
"The valuable data we collect will enable us to analyse the effects of ageing in more detail than ever before, and on a far larger scale.
"We’re ultimately aiming to improve the quality of life for these patients and instead of simply accepting what some may consider an inevitable decline in function, collectively take strides toward healthy ageing.”
Findings will be shared with Royal Canin, which will be trying to determine the role of nutrition alongside the many other factors affecting ageing in cats.
For more information, email: catpaws@liverpool.ac.uk
Locum David John Porter has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for rude and aggressive behaviour, deficient clinical standards and obstructing the Committee's investigation into the complaints against him.
Three charges were found against Mr Porter.
The first charge (charge A) concerned failure to communicate courteously and respectfully with colleagues. This charge related to four incidents as follows:
In finding him guilty of this charge the Committee referred to his “wholly unacceptable exchanges with other veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and ancillary practice staff members with whom he was working on the dates in question.”
The second charge for which he was found guilty (charge C) concerned what the Committee called “his seriously deficient clinical standards when treating animals under his care”, in particular that:
Within charge C he was cleared of two further parts of the charge – first, that he failed to discuss euthanasia with a client in relation to a kitten and failed to provide the client with sufficient advice and instructions regarding after-care; and, second, that he prescribed steroids to treat a kitten for muscle strain at a time when it was recovering from surgery.
The third charge for which he was found guilty (charge D) relates to Mr Porter’s failure, between 7 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, to respond adequately to communications from the RCVS. In particular that:
As to the conduct found proved in relation to charge D, the Committee set out its findings of fact and declared: “What Mr Porter chose to do was to attempt to obstruct the College in its attempts to investigate the complaints laid against him and, thereafter, its attempts to bring him before the Committee to answer the charges preferred against him. In short, he has directly questioned, and then disregarded and thwarted, the legitimate role of his professional regulatory body.”
The Committee’s reasons for taking a serious view of such conduct were expressed in the following words: “Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the expectation that all veterinary surgeons, as responsible professional persons, will co-operate fully and promptly to all proper enquiries made of them by the College. This is the wider public interest factor which means that deliberate attempts to thwart the College’s enquiries into complaints must, in our judgment, come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
During the course of the hearing, which began in June 2015 and was adjourned three times, Mr Porter was cleared of charge B against him which concerned alleged refusal to undertake out-of-hours work for the Clent Hills Veterinary Group having previously indicated he would undertake such work.
In making the decision on the sanction in this case, Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In reaching our conclusion as to the sanction which is merited in this case we have taken into account the totality of Mr Porter’s conduct and failings. We consider that the conduct pertaining to Charges D(i) and (ii), even when viewed separately, demand the imposition of a direction for the removal of Mr Porter’s name from the Register.
“When that conduct is considered in conjunction with the other misconduct found proved in relation to Charges C1 to C4, which identify his clinical failings, and Charges A1 to A4, which demonstrate unprofessional behaviour in the workplace, we unhesitatingly conclude that there is no other sanction that could be considered sufficient, other than that of erasure.”
MiPet Cover has been developed using feedback from CVS's own veterinary surgeons and veterinary team members who deal with insurance claims on a daily basis.
The company says it'll offer a new level of transparency to owners, including policy documents which are clear, concise and free of 'legalese'.
As the first insurance range to be integrated directly into a practice management system, it also offers benefits to the veterinary team by speeding up the time taken to provide quotes and to introduce and activate policies.
CVS says the addition of insurance to its range of services is in line with its vision of offering clients complete care for their pets and at this stage, it is focused on offering the new policies to clients of its existing 420 practices.
VetSurgeon.org spoke to Simon Morrall, the insurance professional brought in by CVS to develop the new range of insurance products for the company. He said: "As the UK’s largest provider of veterinary services, we knew that some owners experienced frustrations with insurance and we challenged ourselves to eliminate these problems with the development of MiPet Cover.
"The more research we did, the more we realised that there was an opportunity for us to go one better and to draw on the extensive experience of our veterinary teams to produce an insurance solution built on transparency, choice and efficiency, which would give our clients access to the very best treatment when they needed it.
"With the launch of MiPet Cover, I believe that’s what we’ve done. It has been received positively by our teams across the country and we are excited about the potential it has to help both our clients and our veterinary teams."
Canergy contains propentofylline, a xanthine derivative which, Virbac says, potentiates the action of adenosine, a molecule found in the body which has a wide range of physiological effects which can be beneficial in the management of various age-related degenerative disease in dogs and cats1.
In particular, Virbac says propentofylline improves peripheral and cerebral vascular blood circulation, and has bronchodilating actions. This helps to increase oxygen supply to organs and muscles, which can result in a positive effect on overall demeanour and energy levels in older dogs.
Canergy is a beef-flavoured tablet which features SmartTab divisible design.
Canergy Product Manager Claire Lewis said: "Growing old should not have to be a barrier to enjoying life, so we are delighted to be able to add Canergy to the Virbac portfolio."
For more information, contact Virbac ob 01359 243243, email: enquiries@virbac.co.uk or visit: www.virbac.co.uk
Reference
MDC Exports has launched a new Soft E Collar specifically designed to help greyhounds recover, post-op.
MDC says the new Soft E Collar has been designed to take into account a greyhound's long fragile neck and to make wearing a medical collar much more comfortable. It also features a drawstring design to prevent the animal from being able to back out of the collar, something the company says is a particular problem when greyhounds wear conventional collars.
According to MDC, the Soft E Collar acts as an effective barrier to a treatment area while ensuring an animal can eat, drink and sleep comfortably. It allows free movement of the head, neck and body so the animal can carry on as normal. And unlike traditional "Elizabethan" collars, the Soft E Collar is made out of soft fabric that is non-allergenic, non-toxic and water repellent. It is tough and easily able to withstand persistent clawing and chewing. Lastly, it is lightweight and very flexible, folding flat for ease of storage and springing back to its original shape when you are ready to use it.
The Soft E Collar for greyhounds is priced from £7.95. For more information visit http://www.mdcexports.co.uk/
Doxybactin, a second generation Tetracycline, can be used to target conditions caused by bacteria sensitive to doxycycline such as rhinitis, bronchopneumonia, and interstitial nephritis in dogs and respiratory infections in cats. It will be available in multiple tablet strengths of 50 mg, 200 mg and 400 mg.
Spizobactin (spiramycin and metronidazole) is indicated for the treatment of (peri)oral and periodontal multi-bacterial infections in dogs such as those associated with gingivitis, stomatitis, glossitis, periodontitis, tonsillitis, dental fistula and other fistulous wounds in the oral cavity. It will be available in three different tablet strengths.
Both treatments are meat flavoured and the tablets can be divided twice for accurate dosing. This, Dechra says, is to help avoid the development of antibiotic resistance associated with under dosing.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: "The launch of Spizobactin and Doxybactin to the UK and ROI markets will offer vets even more choice when it comes to the targeted and responsible use of antibiotics for these specific conditions.
According to the Animal Protection Agency, the rule had been included in the draft version of the new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations 2018, which had been compiled with input from a number of stakeholders who agreed, based on scientific evidence, that snakes should be kept in enclosures at least as long as their body length.
However, the APA says that the rule was removed by Defra just days before publication, on the basis of one protest from a veterinary clinic closely associated with the pet trade and following what the APA describes as 'somewhat pally' correspondence between Defra officials and the representative of the veterinary clinic that had protested.
As a result, the ad-hoc group of biologists and vets, including Dr Phillip Arena (a biologist from Murdoch University), Rachel Grant (herpetologist from Northampton University), Angelo Lambiris (herpetologist), Catrina Steedman (reptile biologist), Clifford Warwick (reptile biologist) and veterinary surgeons Martin Whitehead MRCVS, Fredric Frye DVM, Mike Jessop MRCVS and Anthony Pilny DVM, have written to Defra, arguing that the scientific evidence significantly contradicts the veterinary clinic's protest, and that for their health and welfare snakes need to be provided with enclosures at least as long as they are.
Elaine Toland, biologist and Director of the APA, says this latest skirmish is symptomatic of a wider malaise: that whenever the APA meets with government officials, it finds itself up against a small group of pro-trade veterinary surgeons that tries to block any attempt to advance welfare for captive reptiles if it compromises the profitability of the trade.
Elaine said: "It's very frustrating, because the views of the vocal minority of pro-trade vets seem to us to be completely unrepresentative of exotic vets in general, who we've always found to be very supportive of our work and deeply frustrated by the welfare issues surrounding reptiles.
Devon vet Jo Dyer has launched a petition for the RCVS to remove mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct, in response to the College's call for evidence on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary cover.
Clause 3.13 of the Code currently says: "Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else to provide the service."
In other words, whilst it is not mandatory to accede to every request for a home visit, the Code starts by saying: 'it may be desirable' and 'it may be necessary', thereby implying that the veterinary surgeon will need to explain themselves if they decide against.
Jo argues that this ambiguity, coupled with outcome of recent disciplinary cases and the risk, however small, of losing one's livelihood, means that there are many practitioners, particularly younger and less experienced graduates, who are now fearful of refusing home visits, rendering them to all intents and purposes mandatory. It's a situation compounded by the perception that if push comes to shove, a practitioner's actions will be judged by a Disciplinary Committee whose members may be out of touch with the sometimes harsher realities of life in practice.
Jo also points to the increased risk of assault that practitioners face when making home visits, rather than treating the patient from the relative security of the practice premises. She also makes the point that leaving a practice unattended (as can happen if the only vet on the premises has to go on a home visit), may compromise the welfare of any other animals that need emergency treatment in the meantime.
The petition calls for the complete removal of clause 3.13 from the Code, and for clause 3.2 to be amended to read: 'The responsibility for the welfare of an animal rests primarily with the owner, keeper or carer of the animal. Veterinary surgeons are unable to make a definitive decision regarding diagnosis and treatment until they have undertaken a physical examination of an animal. This examination may take place at the surgery or other address entirely at the discretion of the veterinary surgeon on duty. It is expected that farm animals and equines will mainly be examined away from the surgery and pets at the surgery."
Jo said: "It is important to stress that I am not calling for the abolition of home visits, and nor do I think this would be the effect of my proposed change to the CoPC. The profession is almost entirely made up of people who care desperately about the quality of the service they offer, and who want to offer the best to their patients and their clients. Of course we'll continue to make home visits. But I do feel passionately that the decision in each case must rest unambiguously with the veterinary surgeon concerned and not be subject afterwards to the judgement of others."
To sign the petition, visit: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-remove-mandatory-house-visits-from-the-code-of-professional-conduct
You could otherwise call them "Britain's Best Places to Get Ill (if you are a dog)", or alternatively "Britain's Worst Places to Open (another) Veterinary Practice".
The best town, in the whole of the UK, for a dog to get ill, is, wait for it ... Worcester, which has a veterinary practice for every 7,308 people. Not far behind, Worthing, Chelmsford, Southampton, and Exeter all have a practice for every 9,916 people or less.
At the other end of the scale, the very worst place for a dog to get ill - and possibly the best place to open a practice - is Birmingham, where (according to this research) each practice serves 227,424 people. London was in second place (one practice for every 210,119 people), Manchester in third (1:181,833) and St Helens in fourth (1:179,331).
The research was part of a bigger analysis to see where in the country pets are best catered for, according to the number of pet shops, dog groomers, vets, parks, dog walkers and kennels in the area, as listed on yelp.co.uk.
Blackpool was the clear winner, with pet-friendly facilities for every 2,680 people. In fact, it was the only Northern town in the top ten. In second was Chelmsford and in third was Woking.
The full rankings of UK towns and cities by number of veterinary practices per capita was:
1. Worcester (.0001368)2. Worthing (.0001277)3. Chelmsford (.0001192)4. Southampton (.0001189)5. Exeter (.0001008)6. Cheltenham (.0000939)7. Gloucester (.0000930)8. Eastbourne (.0000872)9. Watford (.0000828)10. Cambridge (.0000801)11. Oxford (.0000776)12. Bath (.0000742)13. Maidstone (.0000715)14. Woking (.0000692)15. Reading (.0000675)16. Southend-on-Sea (.0000660)17. Ipswich (.0000650)18. Blackpool (.0000643)19. Norwich (.0000641)20. Swindon (.0000635)21. Crawley (.0000627)22. York (.0000625)23. Blackburn (.0000605)24. Telford (.0000569)25. Brighton (.0000555)26. Poole (.0000529)27. Newport (.0000528)28. Bournemouth (.0000513)29. Lincoln (.0000508)30. Peterborough (.0000503)31. Dundee (.0000471)32. Solihull (.0000467)33. Portsmouth (.0000466)34. Wolverhampton (.0000462)35. Rochdale (.0000458)36. Northampton (.0000443)37. Belfast (.0000441)38. Newcastle upon Tyne (.0000439)39. Bristol (.0000435)40. Basildon (.0000434)41. Warrington (.0000429)42. Nottingham (.0000425)43. Kingston upon Hull (.0000422)44. Luton (.0000419)45. Coventry (.0000416)46. Cardiff (.0000414)47. Slough (.0000403)48. Edinburgh (.0000390)49. Derby (.0000389)50. Oldham (.0000385)51. Plymouth (.0000380)52. Colchester (.0000368)53. Middlesborough (.0000356)54. Bolton (.0000351)55. Gateshead (.0000346)56. Basingstoke (.0000342)57. Glasgow (.0000338)58. Stoke-on-Trent (.0000313)59. Stockport (.0000275)60. Milton Keynes (.0000262)61. Doncaster (.0000259)62. Wigan (.0000246)63. Swansea (.0000244)64. Liverpool (.0000224)65. Aberdeen (.0000219)66. Wakefield (.0000205)67. Sheffield (.0000190)68. Sunderland (.0000180)69. Rotherham (.0000152)70. Leicester (.0000141)71. Salford (.0000119)72. Bradford (.0000112)73. Leeds (.0000102)74. St Helens (.0000056)75. Manchester (.0000055)76. London (.0000048)77. Birmingham (.0000044)
The proposal seems to have its roots in the First Rate Regulator initiative announced by Nick Stace in November 2012. As part of the initiative, the College commissioned Sally Williams and Associates to conduct research amongst stakeholders and report back with recommendations for being a first rate regulator.
One of those recommendations was to move to the civil standard of proof (page 33/34 here). There is no stated rationale for this recommendation, other than: "The majority of other professional regulators have moved to the civil standard of proof".
Nevertheless, the recommendation then found its way into the RCVS 2017-2019 Strategic Plan.
The proposal was then mentioned in the published summary of the Legislation Working Party's meeting in December 2017:
"In considering reform to the disciplinary process, the Registrar noted that the RCVS is one of the only regulators (and the only healthcare-based regulator) still using the criminal standard of proof (‘beyond all reasonable doubt’) when determining the facts of a case. Most other regulators used the civil standard of proof (‘on the balance of probabilities’) when making their determinations. Consideration of moving to the civil standard has also been carried over from the College’s previous Strategic Plan and the Registrar agreed to review the last six months’ cases to assess what the likely outcome of those cases would have been under the civil standard, and the cost of change. The Working Party also decided to contact other regulators about their disciplinary processes, in order to gather information about their experiences of what does and does not work, both for long-standing issues and new reforms."
The proposal then resurfaced last week in the Veterinary Record, which reported that the College is in 'advanced discussions' about adopting the lower standard (Standard of Proof for disciplinaries could change).
The College has now issued a statement to VetSurgeon.org as follows:
"The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) is currently very much in the minority of regulators still using the criminal standard of proof ('beyond all reasonable doubt') in its disciplinary proceedings, rather than the civil standard of proof ('on the balance of probabilities').
"By comparison, all nine of the healthcare regulators in the human field (as overseen by the Professional Standards Authority) have moved to the civil standard, as have other regulators such as the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
"In our last two strategic plans we have committed to considering whether or not the RCVS should change the standard of proof in line with other regulators and these discussions have been taking place as part of the ongoing deliberations around legislative reform.
"A change to the standard of proof would require an amendment of our 2004 Procedure and Evidence Rules via the Privy Council rather than new primary legislation, but we would consult with the profession before any such changes were made and, at present, this matter has not been put before RCVS Council for a decision."
COMMENT
So, as it stands now, no evidence has yet been presented to the profession which supports the need for - or benefits of - a change to the standard of proof required in disciplinaries. The idea that it should be done simply because 'that's what the other regulators are doing' does not hold water. The veterinary profession is unique. According to the College's own research, it enjoys a remarkably high level of trust amongst the public. But at the same time, it also suffers one of the highest suicide rates.
Clearly Council will need to reflect extremely carefully on whether the members of such a widely trusted profession should face an even greater threat of losing their career, particularly when they seem to be at such a risk of vexatious complaints, fear of a disciplinary is already so high, and the consequences of this change on mental health in the profession could be so profound.
It may even be true to say that lives could depend on this decision.
Linnaeus was founded in 2014 from Willows Veterinary Centre and Referral Service and a team of 120. It was acquired in 2018 by Mars Veterinary Health and has continued to grow, now employing around 3,500 staff.
The referral practices joining Linnaeus are Anderson Moores near Winchester, Dick White Referrals near Cambridge, North West Veterinary Referrals and Eye Vet in Runcorn and Veterinary Specialists Scotland in Livingston.
Linnaeus says the practices will retain their existing branding and will initially continue with business as usual, with all staff transferring to Linnaeus after completion.
Bart Johnson, CEO of Linnaeus, said: “We are delighted to welcome our new colleagues and these fantastic and highly-respected referral practices into the Linnaeus family and to grow our offering further, taking another step towards making an even better world for pets.”
Alejandro Bernal, President, Mars Veterinary Health International, part of Mars Petcare which owns Linnaeus, said: “Pet care has been an important part of Mars for over 80 years and this strategic acquisition reaffirms our commitment both to the pet care industry and veterinary profession.
For more information, visit www.linnaeusgroup.co.uk.
SRD remains a significant problem for the swine industry1. Associated production losses include 30-70% morbidity, a mortality rate of 4-6% (and even higher in severely affected units), decreased feed efficiency and reduced growth rates2.
Zactran contains gamithromycin. Merial says this bactericidal azalide rapidly accumulates in target lung tissue in less than 30 minutes, where it reaches and exceeds the MBC* for SRD pathogens for an extended period, helping to relieve clinical signs and minimise lung damage.
Zactran has a dose rate of 1ml per 25kg in pigs, administered by intramuscular injection.
The product is available in three pack sizes: 50ml glass bottle and 100ml and 250ml polypropylene shock-resistant bottles, and has a 3 year shelf-life.
*MBC: Minimum Bactericidal Concentrations. MBC is the lowest concentration of drug which reduces bacterial counts by 99.9% (CVMP/627/01)
Mr Doherty was convicted, with others (who were also convicted), in a conspiracy to deceive members of the public by passing off puppies that had been bred in puppy farms as being the home-bred offspring of domestic pets living in family homes.
Mr Doherty’s role was that he provided vaccinations and vaccination/health check cards which, the court found, materially contributed to the impression that the puppies had been home-bred locally and were in good health.
Mr Doherty was initially convicted of this offence, resulting in eight months’ imprisonment in April 2018.
However, he subsequently appealed the conviction, which was quashed and resulted in a retrial.
On retrial, Mr Doherty was convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours community service and a £100 victim surcharge.
When deciding on the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to meet the public interest.
In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account that Mr Doherty had, as part of his original conviction, already served eight months in prison before the original conviction was quashed and replaced, on retrial, with a suspended sentence.
He had therefore already, in effect, had a period of suspension from practice, which meant that the deterrent factor in a sanction of suspension had been partially met.
In reaching its decision, the Committee also took into account the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the view of the court that Mr Doherty had been motivated solely by animal welfare concerns and not financial gain, and that it was this overriding concern that had allowed others to exploit his willingness to continue to vaccinate puppies despite their source.
There were no concerns as to Mr Doherty’s skill or dedication as a veterinary surgeon and with regard to the single issue of the appropriate vaccination of puppies and their onward sale, the Committee noted the changes that Mr Doherty had made to his practice procedures to avoid any similar problems occurring in the future.
The full decision and findings from the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ross Allan (pictured right), an RCVS Advanced Practitioner in Small Animal Surgery at Roundhouse, said: "It is well recognised that French Bulldogs have breed-related problems, specifically Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS), yet they remain one of the most popular dog breeds of the moment.
"Through the work we do with French Bulldog charities and the large number of BOAS procedures we undertake, we encounter many of this breed and recognise the frequency and challenges in diagnosing lateral condylar fractures in French Bulldogs.
"We are keen to highlight the ‘red-flags’ for vets faced with French Bulldog forelimb lameness, and hope these will assist vets in diagnosing these common fractures:
Age: most lateral humeral condylar fractures occur between 3-4 months of age.
Trauma: in 90% of cases the trauma is minor; a fall from the arms, or tumble off the bed.
Non-weight bearing: a French Bulldog presents with a non-weight bearing lameness X-rays are required even if no fractures are obvious on palpation.
Physical: feel for the medial and lateral epicondyles of the humerus. If they are not in line with each other there will be a fracture (in LHCFs the lateral condyle will generally move proximally).
X-rays: perfect positioning for X-rays is essential to pick up these fractures. Slight rotation can ‘hide’ small, or incomplete fractures.
"We urge vets to be mindful of LCHFs when presented with a French Bulldog with a forelimb lameness and recommend that they add this condition to their differential list. Swift diagnosis greatly simplifies the surgery required and improves the likelihood of a successful outcome.
"French Bulldogs are well-muscled, stoical dogs, so these fractures are often problematic to detect on clinical examination. The key point when undertaking a medical examination of French Bulldogs is that vets feel for the medial and lateral epicondyles of the humerus to assess if they are in perfect alignment: if one is higher than the other, this suggests a fracture; even if a fracture is not readily visible on X-ray.
"And great care must be taken to ensure that X-rays are positioned perfectly because if the elbow is rotated – even slightly – these fractures can easily be overlooked. They are good at hiding!"
Roundhouse Referrals says it has recently treated several French Bulldogs with lateral humeral condylar fractures deploying various surgical techniques: usually a transcondylar lag screw along with a supracondylar K-wire, or additional supracondylar positional screw or plate.
To make an enquiry or refer a patient contact Roundhouse Referrals at 0141 649 1316 www.rhr.vet
The campaign – Cats deserve pain relief too – has been prompted by a recent study1 which revealed that perioperative analgesia following neutering was only given to 33% of cats compared with 75% of dogs, a statistic which ISFM says it is very keen to change.
The campaign, which includes a free webinar for veterinary professionals, highlights the reasons many cats are not receiving postoperative analgesia, and aims to encourage practices to review their policies on prescribing analgesics for routine neutering procedures.
ISFM says it already encourages the routine assessment and treatment of pain in cats. However, recognition of pain is not always straightforward and the perception that cats experience less pain than dogs with neutering may largely reflect different behavioural responses to pain between the two species rather than genuine differences in the experience of pain.
The charity says that physiologically, it makes sense that both species are likely to feel pain for several days after a surgical procedure and studies have shown that cats do show behavioural changes indicative of pain for 3 days or more after neutering.2 However we also know that cats are less demonstrative and less likely to show overt signs of pain such as vocalisation.
Additional reasons why cats receive less analgesia post-operatively than dogs, may include the following:
According to the WSAVA pain management guidelines,4 the use of preventative/multimodal analgesia, along with careful tissue handling and adherence to good surgical principles is strongly recommended.
The guidelines additionally suggest that analgesia following castration or ovariohysterectomy/ovariectomy may be required for up to 3 days after surgery using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
As part of this awareness campaign, ISFM, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim is running a free webinar on Wednesday 31st August at 8.00pm.
David Yates (Manchester RSPCA) and Jo Murrell (Reader in Veterinary Anaesthesia, Bristol University, UK) will be on hand to discuss, 'Neutering in practice: are your anaesthesia, analgesia and surgical protocols up to scratch?'
To register for the free webinar, go to: http://icatcare.org/learn/webinars and for further information about the campaign, visit: http://icatcare.org/campaigns/cats-deserve-pain-relief-too.
Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty.
Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.
The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.
Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.
The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.
"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."
In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.
Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?
Discuss here.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Dechra Veterinary Products has announced the reintroduction of Gelofusine®, a collodial plasma volume substitute used in the management of hypovolaemic shock in cats, dogs and horses. The company says that Gelofusine has the added advantage of containing no calcium and is therefore compatible with blood and blood products. Gelofusine is isooncotic (same colloid oncotic pressure) with plasma and therefore volume replacement is equivalent to the volume infused. Thus there is no danger of volume overload, as exists when using a plasma expander. Each bottle comes with a Free Dual Giving Set (worth £3.35), featuring a dual sectional dial with a 10%-40% scale for colloids.
The procedure was performed on a 13-year-old Siberian Husky called Marigold, which was diagnosed with a malignant mammary tumour last year.
Unfortunately, despite £20,000 worth of radiotherapy, Marigold failed to respond to treatment, and the tumour spread.
Marigold’s owner, Mrs Norma Pophosherti from Derby said: “We couldn’t bear to part with Marigold, she’s one of the family, so when we heard about the groundbreaking work being done at the University of Bromsgrove Veterinary School, we had to give it a go."
Unfortunately there was no realistic prospect of a donor from a matching breed of dog.
Thankfully, though, a local man with a 4-year-old Labrador stepped forward to help.
Hit by the cost of living crisis, he’d been unable to afford to keep his dog and was about to have it put to sleep when he heard about the Phophosherti family’s search for a donor.
Although he wished to remain anonymous, he said: “It gives me great comfort to think that Buddy will be able to live on, and spare the Phophoshertis from the pain of losing their beloved Marigold”
Professor Flora Olip MRCVS led a team of 6 veterinary surgeons who undertook the 28 hour procedure, which is estimated to have cost over £100,000.
She said: “This was a very tricky procedure which probably only had a 30% chance of success.
"But I’m delighted to say that Marigold’s new body has taken well, and she can now look forward to perhaps a whole more year with Phophosherti family, albeit as less of a Siberian Husky, and more of what you might call a Huskador"
Flora added: “More importantly, this heralds the way for similar procedures in humans, which I think are probably just a few years away now.”
Photo: Marigold, now one-third Siberian Husky, two-thirds Labrador.
107 dogs completed the randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which concluded that: "Treatment with anti‐diarrheal probiotic pastes (ADPP) compared to placebo in dogs with acute, uncomplicated diarrhea led to a decrease in the duration of diarrhea and a decrease in the requirement for additional medical intervention because of non‐improvement or deterioration."
Sophie Nixon, Veterinary Research Manager at Protexin Veterinary said: "Dogs with acute diarrhoea are presented to veterinarians on a daily basis yet the evidence base on which to identify appropriate treatment for these cases has been lacking."
James Kyffin, Veterinary Director at Protexin Veterinary said: "We are delighted to have published such a strong clinical study in one of the most well-respected veterinary journals, the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine (JVIM).
"At ADM Protexin, we believe it is important to have products that are supported by published studies and the Pro-Kolin Advanced study represents one of the first of its kind looking at the benefit of a probiotic paste in dogs with acute diarrhoea.
"We hope this study will provide vets with the evidence they need to prescribe Pro-Kolin Advanced for their cases and give them the confidence not to dispense other medical management, like antibiotics, that may not be necessary."
The study can be viewed by following the link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jvim.15481
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off Suffolk vet Oliver Fraser Lown after finding him guilty of five separate charges relating to the possession of extreme animal pornography and sexual activity with animals.
Mr Lown, who graduated from Szent Istvan University in Hungary and has stated that he has never practised in the UK, did not attend the Disciplinary Committee hearing but was represented by Mr Jo Cooper, a solicitor-advocate. He was accused of five charges of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect:
On the first day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to the Disciplinary Committee that the hearing should be held in private on the basis that any publicity about the case 'would offend public morality' due to the nature of the allegations and because the respondent's father suffers from ill-health, which could be adversely affected by any publicity. The Committee rejected the application on the grounds that the nature of the allegations was already in the public domain and that public justice in the context of professional regulation outweighed the private concerns of the respondent regarding his father.
On the second day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to adjourn charges 2 - 5 on the basis that he had already admitted, and received a conditional discharge, for the first charge and would, therefore, not oppose removal from the Register and an undertaking never to re-apply. The respondent also argued that the original decision of the College to register him in July 2013 was flawed because it was unfair to admit him, in awareness of his conditional discharge, apparently for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. He also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute him in respect of charge 4.
This application was dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee on the grounds of the gravity of charges 2 - 5 and the fact that the respondent chose to apply to join the Register and had been advised to seek legal advice regarding his conditional discharge beforehand. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee heard that there was no error at the time of his registration because the conditional discharge was not a conviction and therefore, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there was no option to refuse registration.
The respondent then made a final application to have the case adjourned on the grounds that new documentation he had received the previous day regarding his registration had led his lawyers to conclude that the decision to register him may have been unlawful. However, the Disciplinary Committee said that, in its understanding, the RCVS Registrar had no option but to register Mr Lown. The Disciplinary Committee then dismissed the application on the grounds that any challenge of the validity of registration could and should have been made within the three month time limit for judicial review and that no significant new documentation about Mr Lown's registration had come to light that could reasonably be said to have triggered a judicial review and warrant an adjournment. It also again highlighted the gravity of the charges.
The Disciplinary Committee then heard evidence in relation to charges 2 -5, including that of two officers from North Yorkshire Police who took part in the original investigation, who the Committee found to be credible and reliable witnesses, and, after reviewing the evidence, found that all four charges were proven.
The Committee then considered the appropriate sanction for Mr Lown, and took into account a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, premeditated misconduct, sexual misconduct, misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time and his lack of insight into the offences or his overall conduct.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In these circumstances, the Committee has no doubt that the respondent's conduct was of the utmost seriousness. The material found in possession of the respondent and his own conduct in charge 4 involved the abuse of animals and a total lack of respect for their welfare. In the judgement of the Committee each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct and the charges certainly amount to disgraceful conduct when taken cumulatively."
In order to safeguard animal welfare, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, the Disciplinary Committee directed the Registrar to remove Mr Lown's name from the Register.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
More on this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348
At the start of the hearing the RCVS applied for it to take place in the absence of Mr Dobson, who had failed to respond when informed about the hearing. The application was granted by the DC on the basis that Mr Dobson, by refusing to respond to communications from the College – including by letter, telephone and email – had voluntarily waived his right to attend.
There were three sets of charges against Mr Dobson. The first charge was in June 2018, while he was not on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, Mr Dobson had carried out an equine pre-purchase examination (PPE) and used the postnominals MRCVS to sign the associated PPE certificate and covering letter.
The Committee found this charge proven after it was presented with evidence of the certificate and covering letter alongside the fact that Mr Dobson had been removed from the Register on 1 June 2018 for non-payment of the annual renewal fee needed to remain on the RCVS Register. He was only restored to the Register upon paying his outstanding fee in late November 2018.
The second charge was that Mr Dobson did not have any professional indemnity insurance (or PII) or other equivalent arrangements in between June 2018 and August 2020. He also failed to provide adequate details of his PII when requested by the RCVS.
The Committee was presented with evidence that Mr Dobson had failed to confirm that he had PII arrangements or other equivalent arrangements in place prior to August 2020 and that he had failed to respond to numerous requests for evidence from the College. On this basis the Committee found the charges proven.
The third and final charge was that Mr Dobson had failed to respond to numerous requests from the RCVS, including: failing to provide written comments on concerns relating to the equine PPE; failing to provide written comments on the concern that he had carried out the PPE and used the postnominals MRCVS while not on the Register; failing to provide details of his continuing professional development (CPD) for the previous three years; and failing to provide copies of his Day Book and/or Controlled Drugs Register. All elements of this charge were found proven when the Committee was presented with evidence of numerous attempts to contact him that went unacknowledged and unanswered.
Regarding the first charge, the Committee recognised that Mr Dobson had not intentionally allowed his registration with the College to expire and that it was down to administrative error. However, it also considered that he had not responded to or taken action upon receiving numerous reminders to pay his fees. It considered that Mr Dobson had therefore acted recklessly in not only allowing his registration to expire but in continuing to practise veterinary surgery while not registered, a criminal act in contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The Committee therefore found that the first charge amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that the remaining charges constituted serious professional misconduct.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: "The respondent demonstrated a pattern of behaviour in not responding, which was sustained and persistent. He asked for extensions of time but did not make good on his assurances that he would provide information. Due to the length of time during which the respondent failed to comply with the requests, as well as the proliferation of issues in respect of which he did not comply, the Committee was of the view that he demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes. This was particularly serious in light of the reliance which the RCVS places upon its members to cooperate with providing it with information relating to their professional practice which is relevant to the RCVS’s regulation of the profession.
"There was no harm caused to animals or the public, and the Committee acknowledged that practice circumstances have been made more difficult in general by the Covid-19 pandemic. However… the respondent’s failures to comply were serious and undermined the functions of the RCVS. The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s failures fell so far below what was expected as to amount to serious professional misconduct."
Having found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Mr Dobson. In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s recklessness in failing to renew his registration and practising while it was lapsed, his pattern of not responding to the RCVS, the fact that financial gain was obtained as a result of misconduct, a wilful disregard to the RCVS and regulation, and limited evidence of insight. In mitigation the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s previous good character, a long and otherwise unblemished career, the fact that no animals were harmed and increased demands on time and processes due to Covid-19.
However, taking all of the information into account, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction due to the sustained and prolonged nature of the misconduct.
Cerys Jones said: “The respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes by way of his disgraceful conduct. In addition, his lack of engagement with the hearing process indicates to the Committee that he is not engaging with his regulator and, along with the limited insight and lack of remediation with respect to the disgraceful conduct, this demonstrates a lack of insight into the seriousness of his actions or their consequences.”