View all veterinary jobs
VetSurgeon.org publishes a curated feed of veterinary news for practising veterinary surgeons, with a primary focus on the UK profession.
We select stories based on their practical relevance, clinical interest, or professional significance — filtering out noise so busy vets can stay informed quickly.
Our coverage includes:
We report across all areas of practice, including companion animal, farm, equine and exotic species.
Our editorial approach is deliberately selective and concise. We prioritise clarity and relevance over volume, aiming to make each story worth your time.
You can follow VetSurgeon News by subscribing to the daily, weekly or monthly email digest, or via our channels on Facebook and LinkedIn.
The 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.
References
Dr Botes faced a total of nine charges against him, relating to performing (or recommending) inappropriate total hip replacements on five dogs without adequate investigation and without getting informed consent from the owners.
One of the charges also related to a failure to keep adequate, clear and detailed clinical records in relation to the five dogs.
Dr Botes denied the first two charges which were later dismissed because the owner did not attend the hearing and counsels agreed that it would not be in the public interest to pursue them.
Dr Botes admitted the other seven charges and that they amounted to serious professional misconduct, and they were therefore found proven by the Committee.
In considering whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee considered an expert report from Professor John Innes, RCVS Specialist in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) and Mr Midgley, RCVS Advanced Practitioner (Small Animal Orthopaedics).
Ian Arundale, Chair of the Committee, said: “In coming to its decisions, the Committee took into account Professor Innes’ opinions that it was not reasonable for Dr Botes to have carried out the THR without sufficient investigation into Kilo’s pain; that the THR undertaken in respect of Sora was not in the animal’s best interests; and that it was ‘entirely unnecessary’ to recommend the THR in respect of Penny.
"In addition, the Committee has found that both THRs performed in respect of Daisy were not in her best interests.
"Thus, in the Committee’s view, Dr Botes’ actions and omissions did not ensure the animals’ health and welfare.”
The Committee took into account that the THRs in question were a source of financial gain, that Dr Botes’ conduct was repeated over a considerable period of time and that he was in an increased position of trust and responsibility because of perceived expertise in small animal orthopaedics and its education.
However, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, that Dr Botes has indicated some insight into some aspects of the charges in his written communications to the College, in his witness statement dated 29 December 2021, and in his admissions at the start of this inquiry.
The Committee then considered what would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, hearing from several character witnesses including Dr Midgely, who was put forward as Dr Botes’ proposed supervisor if the committee agreed to a postponement with undertakings.
When making their decision, the Committee took into account the fact that Dr Botes had been suspended from the Register in 2008 for six months for serious professional misconduct over the care of a dog that had been involved in a road traffic accident.
The Committee considered a postponement of judgment with undertakings, which was submitted by Dr Botes’ counsel.
However, the Committee took the view that a postponement would not be appropriate because the failings were not in limited aspects of practice but were wide-ranging, covering the fundamental requirements of any veterinary surgeon.
In the Committee’s view, this would mean nothing less than direct supervision, where Dr Botes’ practice was directly monitored on a day-to-day basis would be sufficient to protect animals, clients, and to uphold the wider public interest.
It would be impracticable to formulate undertakings capable of effectively addressing these issues.
The Committee also noted that the disgraceful conduct was serious and there was a pattern of sustained and persistent misconduct.
The Committee therefore did not believe that no further action, a reprimand or a warning were appropriate or proportionate outcomes.
The Committee also considered whether suspension was appropriate but concluded that there was a real risk of repetition of the behaviours outlined in the charges, and so the Committee was unable to conclude that Dr Botes would be fit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
The Committee therefore decided to direct that Dr Botes should be removed from the Register indefinitely.
In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on Dr Botes both professionally and financially, and took into account his witness statement in this regard.
Ian Arundale added: “In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
Dr Botes has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The BBC has broadcast an investigation in which the RSPCA is accused of various acts of inappropriate and uncharitable behaviour towards a veterinary surgeon, a barrister, an aged pet owner and the owners of an animal sanctuary.
The accusations were broadcast on BBC Radio 4's Face the Facts, and included:
Responding to the accusations, RSPCA's Chief Executive Gavin Grant sounded by turns arrogant and defiant, dismissing accusations of harassment of vets and barristers as 'a nonsense' and saying that the idea that the police/CPS should take over prosecutions (as happens in Scotland) is 'fanciful'. When the interviewer suggested that the charity was losing its reputation as a 'helpful' organisation and becoming known as 'heavy-handed', Mr Grant seemed unapologetic, deflecting the question by talking about the values of those that founded the charity.
Ms Hill and Wilfred Wong snatched the child from their foster carer when they arrived home from school on Anglesey.
Hill wrestled the child from the car and put them in a waiting vehicle while Wong held a knife to the foster carer’s throat before slashing one of the carer’s car tyres to stop them following.
Having made their escape, they then transferred the child into the hands of two other conspirators who had hired a car to take the child abroad.
The child was rescued four hours later when the hire car was stopped by police on the M1 in Northamptonshire.
A police investigation later concluded that the child had not been the victim of any abuse.
Ms Hill was sentenced at Caernarfon Crown Court to 19 years, 5 months, with a custodial term of 14 years and five months.
Ms Hill did not attend the RCVS disciplinary hearing as she was serving her prison sentence, and she was not represented.
In relation to the charges, the Committee was presented with the sentencing remarks from Ms Hill’s conviction at Mold Crown Court.
The judge said that Ms Hill had led the conspiracy to kidnap, and that it had caused the victim and the people responsible for their care “unspeakable misery and considerable harm”.
The judge also said that Ms Hill posed a significant risk of causing serious harm in the future.
Dr Hazel Bentall, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account a number of aggravating features when considering the sanctions.
"In particular, the Committee considered that the conviction arose as a result of careful planning over several months and involved the use of violence.
"The Committee concluded that there were no mitigating factors apart from that Dr Hill had no previous regulatory history and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that Dr Hill’s removal from the Register of veterinary surgeons be maintained.”
Dr Hill has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.
Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.
On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.
On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.
After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.
Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.
Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.
Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.
Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.
The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.
The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.
Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.
However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.
In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.
The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.
Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."
She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."
The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Virbac says there is mounting evidence of a growing change in the attitude of pet owners towards permanent castration, that research has shown that 25% of pet owners are concerned or very concerned that neutering could be harmful for their dog1. The permanency of surgery has been cited as the reason why 67% of owners with entire male dogs have not yet opted for the procedure2.
Hence the campaign to raise awareness of Suprelorin, the company's reversible alternative to surgical castration, which uses visual metaphors to explain that there is: 'more than one way to crack a nut'.
The video is also broadcast on the campaign website: www.morethanoneway.co.uk.
Veterinary practices are invited to participate in the campaign by contacting their Virbac Territory Manager to order waiting room and client materials, or to book a Suprelorin lunch meeting for their practice.
Suprelorin Product Manager Claire Lewis said: "Pet owner attitudes are definitely changing so by offering a choice when it comes to castration, veterinary practices have the opportunity to not only increase their overall castration rate, but also enhance their relationship with their clients."
The range comprises four products: Calm, Seb, Pyo and Care. All four contain a new active ingredient derived from Ophiopogon japonicus called ophytrium, which Ceva says has been shown to strengthen the mechanical skin barrier1, restore the balance of protective microbial flora2 and sooth the skin1.
The new range consists of both shampoo and mousse formulations: Douxo S3 Calm is designed to sooth itchy, irritated skin while maintaining the skin barrier. Douxo S3 Pyo contains ophytrium and chlorhexidine at 3% which is both antibacterial and antifungal. Douxo S3 Seb contains ophytrium and seboliance and includes an extract from the peel of pomegranate. Ceva says it has an anti-odour action and will help with oily or flaky skin. Lastly, Douxo S3 Care (available as a shampoo only) contains ophytrium and is designed for regular use and maintenance.
The products are all free from soap, parabens, sulphates, phthalates, colourants and nanoparticles. A new, hypoallergenic ‘summertime’ fragrance has been added to the range which pet owners apparently liken to coconut and vanilla.
The Douxo S3 range comes in eye-catching packaging with a pump that can be used with one hand, an ergonomic bottle designed to be easy to grip, even with wet hands, and a visibility line so you can see the remaining quantity of the product.
Dr Melanie Rougier, corporate marketing manager at Ceva, said: “Our new range is the result of over 10 years of clients’ experience with Douxo and a robust programme of market research with four specific studies that included more than 2,000 vets and pet owners and represented over eight months of contact with pet owners. This has allowed us to gain a thorough understanding of our clients’ needs, in terms of performance, formulas, fragrance and ergonomic packaging."
Andrew Fullerton BVSc (Hons) MRCVS, product manager for Douxo at Ceva, added: "The new Douxo S3 range has been developed following extensive market research and field studies to ensure that the shampoos and mousses are not only innovative and effective, but that they are also safe and easy-to-use."
Dr Tim Nuttall BSc BVSc CertVD PhD CBiol MSB MRCVS, RCVS Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology and Senior Lecturer in Veterinary Dermatology at The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh, said: "I like that the performance has been proven on a basic science screening level and innovative skin model and then moving on to the in-field trials. This is what we would like to see from topical products."
Douxo S3 shampoo and mousses will automatically replace the current Douxo products via veterinary wholesalers and Ceva says it is working to convert other products in the Douxo range to S3.
For further information, contact cevauk@ceva.com, your local territory manager or visit https://www.douxo.com/uk/Pet-Skin-Care/douxo-s3.
In a letter to Danny, RCVS President Christopher Tufnell wrote:
"As the regulator of the veterinary profession, we place an emphasis on the importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine. We therefore recommend that there should be a cautious approach to homeopathy for animals and that normal evidential standards should be applied to complementary treatments."
Danny said: "A cautious approach? What, like this claim by the BAHVS that homeopathy cures cancer?. Or would you say that this claim on national TV represents a cautious approach?
"Talking about homeopathy and normal evidential standards in the same breath is oxymoronic. If you apply normal evidential standards to homeopathy, it is completely ineffective and should not therefore be used in animals."
Mr Tufnell wrote: "We believe it is also essential that such treatments, until they can be proved, are complementary rather than 'alternative' and that they are therefore used alongside conventional treatment."
Danny said: "This argument makes sense whilst evidence-gathering for new treatment modalities. Homeopathy, however, has been with us since 1796. In that time, there has been no good evidence that homeopathy is effective for any condition. Against that, we now have the benefit of an increasing body of meta analyses that show it isn’t. How much more evidence does the RCVS require?"
Mr Tufnell wrote: "Whatever views there may be within the veterinary profession, it is clear that there is a demand from some clients for complementary therapies for their animals."
Danny said: "That may be true, but client demand is not an argument for prescribing medicines shown not to work. Nor should ill-informed client demand trump animal welfare"
Mr Tufnell added: "It is better that they [clients] should seek advice from a veterinary surgeon - who is qualified to make a diagnosis, and can be held to account for the treatment given - rather than turning to a practitioner who does not have veterinary training."
Danny said: "It makes no difference to the animal's suffering whether effective treatment is withheld by a layperson or a qualified vet. At what point do we trust the clinical judgement of vets who subscribe to this magical thinking? In the case of hyperthyroidism in a cat, at what point do we trust them to start giving proper treatment? Maybe when the T4 levels reach a certain number? Or when renal failure kicks in? Or when the cat loses a certain percentage of its body weight?"
Finally, Mr Tufnell wrote: "homeopathy is currently accepted by society and recognised by UK medicines legislation and does not, in itself, cause harm to animals."
Danny said: "I'm not sure how it is possible to claim homeopathy is 'accepted by society'. What constitutes 'societal acceptance'? The NHS says that: 'The ideas that underpin homeopathy are not accepted by mainstream science, and are not consistent with long-accepted principles on the way that the physical world works'; the Australian Government says: 'Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious.' Clearly homeopathy is far from being accepted by society.
"Even if it was, the argument that we should prescribe medicines because they are 'societally accepted' is no different to the argument that we should do so because there is 'consumer demand.' Both are plainly wrong. Presumably the RCVS wouldn't approve of veterinary surgeons prescribing antibiotics just because there is 'consumer demand', or because they are 'societally accepted'.
As to the veterinary medicines regulations, homeopathic remedies were ‘grandfathered’ and have not had to prove efficacy to become authorised. So their recognition by UK medicines legislation is meaningless.
"Lastly, homeopathy does, in itself, cause harm to animals when given ahead of, or in place of proven treatments."
At the same time as Danny was running his petition for banning homeopathy, the Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine has been running a petition which instead asks that the RCVS takes steps to allow animal owners to make a more informed decision, thereby limiting the harm that homeopathy causes animals.
This petition, which is for the veterinary profession only, has so far gathered over 400 signatures, and the campaign organisers are now inviting anyone who signed the petition to ban homeopathy to consider signing this one as a pragmatic alternative.
It is thought that the main reason for the cutbacks is a shortage of veterinary surgeons caused by Brexit, which is making it both harder and more expensive to recruit.
The company has given an undertaking that the joint venture partners of the practices it offers to buy back will not be expected to repay outstanding borrowings to any parties and Pets at Home will settle any liabilities for third party bank loans and leases on behalf of the JVP.
Chief Executive Peter Pritchard said: "Since becoming the Group CEO in May, I have had the opportunity to take stock of the wider group and shape my view of our future.
"What I have found fills me with confidence. Pets at Home is a healthy business and customers are loving what we do; responding to our price repositioning, investment in digital and the amazing service delivered by our vet partners. We have the ability to offer almost everything a pet owner needs, giving us opportunities our competitors simply don't have. Which is why my vision is to develop a complete pet care company, uniting our retail and vet businesses.
"Reviewing our Vet Group has been a priority. I recognise we have grown at pace and more recently, have seen the pressure that rising costs and our fees are placing on this young business. We will need to recalibrate the business to deliver more measured growth, whilst maintaining our plan to generate significant cash profits.
"We are focused on maximising our unique assets and delivering a plan for sustainable cashflow and profit growth. Given the success of the changes we have made in Retail, I'm confident we can do this."
The study1 was led by the RVC’s VetCompass Programme and is the largest study using anonymised veterinary health records to explore dry eye in dogs. The study included 363,898 dogs that were followed for a year to identify 1,456 dogs affected with dry eye.
The study found that one in every 250 dogs overall is affected by the condition, but certain breeds are especially prone.
The worst affected breeds were: American Cocker Spaniel (5.90%), West Highland White Terrier (2.21%), Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (1.91), Lhasa Apso (1.86%), English Bulldog (1.82%), English Bull Terrier (1.65%,) and English Cocker Spaniel (1.60%).
Other findings included:
The authors of the study have recommended that vets help reduce the frequency and impact of KCS by testing for the adequacy of tear production as part of the annual physical examination of all dogs but especially for the list of predisposed breeds as they approach advanced age.
Dr Dan O’Neill, Senior Lecturer, Companion Animal Epidemiology, at the RVC, and author of the paper, said: "We all love those glossy puppy dog eyes, but this study shows that sadly not every dog enjoys good eye health. This research identifies that flattened faces in some breeds makes these breeds more prone to this painful dry eye condition. Work is urgently going on to improve the health of many of these flat-faced breeds, but in the meantime the message from everyone who cares about dogs is to ‘stop and think before buying a flat-faced dog."
Rick Sanchez, European Specialist in Veterinary Ophthalmology says: "Taking a fresh dip into an old, dull looking disease like KCS has shown us there is more for us to learn than we thought. Ultimately, all of us, clinicians, nurses, researchers, breeders and dog owners are, in one form or another, care givers for our beloved animals. All of us need whatever new information we can set our eyes on to inform our next steps in improving canine ocular health. There’s no better eye opener than evidence-based scientific findings. I hope this research helps all of us raise awareness about canine KCS and that it helps us keep those animal eyes looking fresh and healthy, as they should.”
Bill Lambert, Health, Welfare and Breeder Services Executive at The Kennel Club commented: "These findings are important to help us to identify which dogs are most at risk of developing dry eye. Ultimately, this should help owners that may need support in spotting the initial signs, as well as ways to treat affected dogs and how to prevent it occurring in the future. The data from this fascinating research will also be used to collaboratively create strategies to tackle health priorities with the breed clubs of affected breeds."
Reference
Photo: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel with KCS. By Rick F Sanchez BSciBiol DVM DipECVO CertVetEd FHEA.JPG
In his first year of what would normally have been be a four-year term, Colin served on the College’s Education Committee, PIC/DC Liaison Committee, and on the Advancement of the Professions Committee as Council Deputy Lead for the ViVet innovation programme.
VetSurgeon.org caught up with Colin, who explained: "I've never had any problem with the idea of respecting Council decisions, even those I disagree with.
"However, I questioned the interpretation of collective responsibility when I first joined Council, and was told that in the event of disagreement, it was OK for councillors to say publicly that there was a 'split vote', or 'opinions varied'.
"This new statement would mean that if I disagree with a Council decision, I would now either have to lie in public and say I supported it, or run away and hide.
There were two other aspects of the new statement which Colin was not prepared to sign up to.
The first was a new requirement that councillors "support the College’s vision".
Colin said: "People who actively disagree with the College's vision should be free to stand to join Council, and if the profession disagrees with the College's vision, they'll get elected!"
The second was a requirement for councillors to "Live the College’s values"
Colin said: "Although perhaps inline with a corporate ethos, I think it represents quite a conflict.
"The values someone lives by are a deeply personal matter, and shouldn't be imposed by the majority vote of a committee they happen to sit on - however much they may or may not be likely to align."
Colin's resignation prompted VetSurgeon.org to carry out a quick analysis of the percentage of RCVS Council meeting agenda items marked as 'Confidential' from November 2015 to June 2022, to see whether the requirement to tow the party line reflected a broader lack of transparency at the College.
In the four Council meetings from November 2015-2016, 12% of the agenda items in the Council minutes were marked 'Confidential'.
By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 36% (see graph right).
The new RCVS 'How we work' statement can be read in full in Annex One of the June 2022 Council Papers.
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.”
David Grant MRCVS, Director of the RSPCA's Harmsworth Animal Hospital and one of the stars of the BBC's hugely successful Animal Hospital series, is to retire this month.
To mark his outstanding service, David will be presented with the prestigious Queen Victoria Gold Medal - the Society's highest meritorious award for staff and volunteers - at the RSPCA Honours awards event on 8 September. It is reserved for the most exceptional servants to the RSPCA and its cause.
The popular figure, who began his veterinary career in the late sixties working in farm practice, has looked back on his time with the RSPCA as part of the charity's latest podcast.
David said: "25 years seems like 25 weeks. It is quite scary when you look at it that way. Joining the RSPCA was the best professional decision I ever personally made in my career. I look back and I don't regret one single day."
David recounts many of the stories from his career in the podcast, such as the time he came face to face with one of the world's most venomous snakes, which was found in a box on Regent's Canal. He also looks back on the unexpected fame that followed his starring role on Animal Hospital.
He said: "It has just been tremendous fun. It hasn't felt like work.
"It has worked out that in the last 25 years I haven't had a single boring day. I've had some really exciting days. I've had the most amazing things happen, such as Animal Hospital. The only bad thing about the past 25 years is that they have gone in a flash."
The podcast is available to listen to at www.rspca.org.uk/podcast. It is also available to download from iTunes.
Photo courtesy RSPCA
Vetemex has a 56-day broached shelf life and uses benzyl alcohol as the excipient, rather than metacresol.
Virbac points to a study in which benzyl alcohol achieved a 78% reduction in pain score immediately post-injection, and a 53% reduction in pain score in the 2-minute period post-injection, compared to Metacresol1.
Vetemex is presented in a 20ml bottle and is available from the veterinary wholesalers now.
Claire Lewis, Product Manager at Virbac said: "Vetemex is a valuable addition to the already extensive Virbac portfolio. We are pleased to be able to offer vets this new, and more comfortable to administer, antiemetic option."
For more information on Vetemex, speak to your Virbac Territory Manager.
The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.
Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.
The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.
There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.
At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest.
The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.
As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.
The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.
The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.
However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.
In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.
The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.
The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.
Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.
In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.
"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.
"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.
"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."
The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.
The Daily Mail has today published an interview with the 'nurse' who worked undercover at Medivet for tonight's Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets (tonight, BBC1 9pm).
Looks like the communications departments at the RCVS, BVA and BSAVA will be run off their feet today. So far, the following radio stations and newspapers have run stories:
BBC Online has published a longer trailer for the programme here.BBC Radio 4 Today - interview with the mole, followed by Sandy Trees (in the recording of the entire programme, it starts at 1:09:05 on the iPlayer timeline)BBC Radio 5 live - interview with Jacquie Molyneux (not available on iPlayer)BBC Radio Tees - 7:50am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)BBC Radio Somerset - 8:00am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)BBC Radio Shropshire - 8:40am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)Aberdeen Press & JournalBBC TwitterChina News (in Chinese)BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine interviews Steve Leonard (starts at 1:10:56 on the iPlayer timeline. Continues through at least a couple of songs. At one point, Jeremy Vine says there are lots of reports coming into the show of good vets too!).dogmagazine.netThe Guardian (TV Review)
I'll be updating the list of news reports over the course of the day.
And reaction to the story elsewhere on the Internet ...
UK Labradoodle forumDigital SpyYahoo AnswersPet forumshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MgikMLneU (well worth watching, this one).Horse & Hound forums
Incidentally, in case anyone is asked for an interview, BVA has produced an advice sheet on the subject for its members, plus a briefing document. The association has also published a response to the Daily Mail story on its website.
The first charge was that in April 2016, having examined a horse named Alfie on behalf of his owner, Mr Villar gave an opinion to the potential buyers but failed to make it clear that he had not undertaken a pre-purchase examination; failed to declare to the buyer that he had a conflict of interest with regard to the owner; and, failed to explain the pre-purchase examination process to the buyers.
The second charge was that, in July 2016, during a telephone conversation with the buyer, Mr Villar was dishonest and failed to provide clear and accurate information because he told the buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie to check he was sound when he had, in fact, carried out a more substantial examination.
The third charge was that Mr Villar had offered to either the owner or the buyer, or both, that he would prepare a veterinary insurance certificate in relation to Alfie when he knew he did not have sufficient records (eg the microchip or passport number) to do so.
The fourth charge was that Mr Villar failed to respond adequately to communications from the buyers about Alfie.
The Committee found that Mr Villar had not in fact carried out a pre purchase examination (“PPE”) and referred to guidance from the British Equine Veterinary Association which identified that pre-purchase examinations are carried out on behalf of buyers. It noted that in this case, Mr Villar had undertaken an examination on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, it did not find that Mr Villar had failed to explain the PPE process to the potential buyers.
However, the Committee did find that Mr Villar had failed to declare that he had a conflict of interest in regards to Alfie’s owner. The Committee said that Mr Villar should have told the buyer that he had been acting on behalf of the owner and was not a neutral party in the potential sale.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge not proven, on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Mr Villar had told the potential buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie and check that he was sound.
The Committee found all aspects of the third charge proven on the basis that, in an email sent to the College in March 2016, Mr Villar admitted that he did not have the sufficient records to prepare a veterinary insurance certificate.
The Committee found the fourth charge not proven on the basis that the buyers were not his clients. The Committee therefore concluded that he had no obligation to respond to them, and indeed could not do so in certain respects in order to preserve the confidentiality of his client.
The Committee then determined that the charges found proven, when taken individually or in combination, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The following mitigating factors were present in this case: the circumstances of the incident, the fact that there was no premeditation, the fact that he was requested by his client to advance an opinion to [the buyers] concerning Alfie and that his ill judgement was on the spur of the moment and the fact that he had no financial gain. These are all important factors. Likewise, the fact that he did not know that the [buyers] regarded him as their pre-purchase examination vet is an important matter.
"The respondent’s conduct was clearly against the principles of behaviour articulated by Mr Morley [who acted as an expert witness for the College] in his expert report and in his evidence. Nevertheless, the Committee does not find that in the particular circumstances of this case, namely being asked to speak to a potential purchaser without warning and without being made aware of the contractual arrangements which had been made between the respondent and [the owner], the respondent should not properly be the subject of a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
In what researchers say was the largest study of its type to date, dogs with Cushing’s syndrome were identified from the electronic patient records of practices participating in the UK VetCompass programme during 2016.
Both pre-existing and incident cases of Cushing’s syndrome during 2016 were included to estimate the one-year period prevalence.
Available demographic data for study dogs included date of birth, sex, neuter status, breed and mean lifetime bodyweight above 18 months.
Multivariable binary logistic regression modelling was used to assess the associations between risk factors and Cushing’s syndrome.
Dr Imogen Schofield, corresponding author for the paper, said: “A total of 1527 Cushing’s syndrome cases were identified in this study, from a population of 905,544 dogs in 2016.
"The estimated one-year period prevalence for Cushing’s syndrome in dogs was 0.17% (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.07).
“The findings of this study provide evidence from primary-care clinical records on the epidemiology of Cushing’s syndrome which can help primary-care veterinarians during diagnosis.
"Seven breeds were associated with increased odds of Cushing’s syndrome; the Bichon frise (OR=6.17, 95% CI 4.22 to 9.00), Border terrier (5.40, 95% CI 3.66 to 7.97), miniature schnauzer (3.05, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.57), Lhasa apso (2.52, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.28), Yorkshire terrier (1.82, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.70), Staffordshire bull terrier (1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.13) and Jack Russell terrier (1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.08).
"Four breeds were at decreased odds of Cushing’s syndrome: the Golden retriever (0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.98), Labrador retriever (0.3, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54), Border collie (0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.78) and cocker spaniel (0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90), which could help vets in practice lower their index of suspicion for Cushing’s syndrome for these breeds.
"Dogs with a bodyweight higher than their breed-sex mean had 1.44 times the odds of Cushing’s syndrome than those within their breed mean (95% CI 1.17 to 1.78), suggesting either overweight dogs or larger examples of the breed are at increased risk of this condition, or that dogs with Cushing’s syndrome gain weight.”
Nicola Di Girolamo, Editor of JSAP, said: “When we look at risk factor analysis in previous studies, the generalisability of their findings to the general population of dogs in the UK have typically been limited due to studying dogs from referral populations or due to a lack of multivariable analysis.
"The findings of this study help to address that knowledge gap, supporting some of the risk factors previously reported, and by identifying novel associations, such as that in the Border terrier.
"Awareness of breeds with high or low risk could help to enhance the index of suspicion for veterinary surgeons working in primary-care practice where Cushing’s syndrome is predominantly diagnosed and managed.”
Photo: BSAVA
The new ingredients include pomegranate, which Virbac says helps clean and control dental plaque1,2,3, Inulin to balance intestinal microflora and reduce foul smelling intestinal gas emissions4,5, and Erythritol to freshen breath with a cooling and anti-plaque effect6,7.
Dan Johnson, Product Manager at Virbac, said: "Bad breath is a common complaint by pet owners8, but some pets do not accept any brushing, especially cats, so Vet Aquadent FR3SH is an easy way to help control bad breath and plaque at home
"The benefit of water additives as part of passive homecare is already recognised by the WSAVA Dental Guidelines, meaning Vet Aquadent FR3SH plays a trusted and proven role in any proactive dental care routine".
For information, contact your Virbac Territory Manager.
IDEXX Laboratories has unveiled the Angio Detect Test, a world-first diagnostic test which allows veterinary surgeons to detect the lungworm Angiostrongylus vasorum in clinic, with almost immediate results.
Until now, vets have had to rely on the Baermann method to detect A. vasorum, which can present with varied and confusing clinical symptoms. However, the Baermann test has had limited use because it requires faecal samples from the same dog to be collected on three successive days, and the results can be compromised by the intermittent shedding of larvae. IDEXX says this leads many experts to believe that A. vasorum is widely under-diagnosed.
The Angio Detect Test works by detecting an A. vasorum specific antigen in the animal's blood. The test can be used in-clinic using a serum or plasma sample and returns results within 15 minutes. Depending on results, you can offer a licensed treatment or talk about a preventative treatment regime and refer the client to a source of further information, such as lungworm.co.uk.
IDEXX suggests that because the test is inexpensive, it can be used for the diagnosis of A. vasorum suspect dogs and in those with non-specific signs. Indeed, in market research1, 94% of veterinary surgeons said they would use the test in dogs presenting with A. vasorum signs.
In endemic areas, it can be considered as an additional pre-surgical measure to avoid complications associated with coagulopathy.
This test comes at a time when concern about A. vasorum has been growing. A survey of 150 veterinary practices across the UK in January 2013 recorded a total of 952 suspected cases (157 laboratory confirmed), with 81 deaths thought to have been caused by the parasite2. The Angio Detect Test should help to improve the picture, as confirmed cases are logged onto incidence maps so vets can check prevalence in their area.
Ian Wright from the European Scientific Counsel Companion Animal Parasites (ESCCAP) said: "In recent years, there has been spread of the A. vasorum parasite across the UK with cases now being reported as far north as Scotland. It was initially thought this may be due to increased reporting rather than genuine spread, but this pattern in the UK has been mirrored in many other countries and would appear to represent a true emergence of disease. Although the cause of this spread is not known for certain, increasing slug and snail numbers combined with increased pet movement and urbanisation of foxes are all likely to have played a significant part. These factors make A. vasorum a year round rather than seasonal threat.
"Any new diagnostic test that can quickly confirm a case of lungworm is a fantastic development and will help save dogs' lives and give us even greater insight into the extent of the spread of the parasite."
Graham Bilbrough, veterinary surgeon and European medical affairs manager for IDEXX Laboratories, said: "Up until now, testing methods have been time consuming to the client and costly, so the launch of the Angio Detect Test, together with recognition of clinical signs and early treatment will really help to prevent A. vasorum related fatalities in dogs. We also know that some dogs have subclinical angiostrongylosis, and this new test will help uncover this hidden problem before the surgical blade makes a cut. Difficulties in diagnosis have also meant that the full prevalence of A. vasorum in the UK has been relatively unknown. This test will allow veterinary surgeons to quickly identify the parasite and treat it if found. They shouldn't forget that other dogs in the household and the area are also at particular risk from the parasite."
The Angio Detect Test is available now in the UK, and will be launched in other European countries later this year. For more information on the test, visit www.idexx.co.uk/angio or speak to your IDEXX sales representative. For further information and free CPD on A. vasorum and other parasites, visit www.jungleforvets.co.uk or speak to your Bayer territory manager.
The company's teleradiology and education services are not affected, and will continue as normal.
VET.CT's CEO, Victoria Johnson said: “We are deeply sorry to have to close our teleconsulting specialist case advice service.
"Despite many loyal clients loving it and using the service to the full, wider adoption of teleconsulting has been variable globally since its launch in 2018.
"We have continued to consult, invest in, iterate and adapt the service over the past 7 years to unlock the demand.
"However, despite our efforts, we now have to take the painful and difficult decision to close our client-facing service.
"There are a multiplicity of factors that contribute to the issue and sadly, the ongoing economic pressures mean that the teleconsulting service is no longer sustainable.
"We want to reassure our clients that our quality-focused radiology reporting and education services are unaffected by these changes and continue to grow.
https://resources.vet-ct.com/statement-about-teleconsulting-service
Dechra says the combination of triamcinolone acetonide and salicylic acid works to provide effective symptomatic treatment, particularly for certain types of otitis externa that are not caused by a bacterial or yeast infection, such as flare ups caused by allergies.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: "Otitis externa is a condition that causes inflammation of the external ear canal and it can have a debilitating effect on cats and dogs.
"Recicort is a moderately potent steroid with an anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive action that works by suppressing the inflammatory response and the symptoms of various disorders often associated with itching. It doesn’t contain an antibiotic or antimycotic so it won’t contribute to antimicrobial resistance either.
"This prescription-only treatment is an important addition to our dermatology portfolio for veterinary professionals who are looking for a suite of highly effective and cost effective treatments."
Recicort is available in 20 ml bottles. For more information visit: www.dechra.co.uk
Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The study also suggests that encouraging the idea that client-orientated behaviours make for a 'good vet' will help many vets improve their mental wellbeing.
Liz found examples of new graduates who value their client-oriented skills, such as being able to tailor clinical plans to individual clients' needs, but still couldn’t shake the feeling that a 'better vet' would offer a more academic or specialist approach to cases.
Even when they skilfully adapt a plan for an owner who is unable to afford advanced tests to find out what is causing their pet's illness, this jars with the vets' beliefs that by reaching a specific diagnosis they would be doing a better job. Thus they chronically feel like a 'bad vet', despite demonstrating high-level skills in communication and clinical problem-solving.
The paper argues that learning to form positive client relationships in difficult situations leads to vets who are more resilient and have greater mental wellbeing.
However further analysis found a clear sentiment of 'the client is the enemy' in colleagues' discussions and social media.
During a difficult case, with complex conflicting pet and pet owner needs, vets who choose to emphasise the client as difficult and unreasonable can receive temporary solace when talking to similarly-minded peers or by accessing social media. However, this thinking prevents them from developing client empathy, impacting their mental health negatively in the long-term.
Liz therefore believes everyone in the profession has a responsibility to frame the strengths of the 'good vet' as being as much about the pet owner as the pet.
Liz said: "It's really important not to think of this as a message that we must all be 'nicer' to our clients. I have heard vets say clients' limited finances or not wanting to put their pet through treatment have forced them to go against their 'professional code'. This simply isn’t true: the RCVS Code of Conduct emphasises a need to work alongside clients to problem-solve these complex situations. Animal welfare can be supported through palliative or symptomatic treatments, which may be offered after difficult negotiations with very upset pet owners. This should therefore be a skill that is celebrated, rather than being considered not 'gold standard'.
"Being able to work with a client who is highly troubled by their financial limitations or the impending loss of a pet is difficult, particularly when these anxieties manifest as anger and accusation. The social media message of the client as the enemy obstructs this skill, as it becomes easier to rant about the 'difficult client'. Unfortunately, where this becomes embedded, it prevents the career satisfaction that comes from working with clients."
Photo courtesy RVC
The proposals put to Council by the Education Committee included six key recommendations for changes to CPD policy:
To change the CPD requirement – as stated in the Codes of Professional Conduct – to 35 hours per calendar year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours in the same period for veterinary nurses, from the start of 2020. This replaces the previous requirement of 105 hours and 45 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively.
Making the use of the new CPD platform (currently in development) for recording learning and development mandatory from 2022.
Giving veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who, upon renewing their registration, have confirmed their compliance with the requirement, the opportunity to download a certificate demonstrating this.
The introduction of an administration fee (which is currently yet to- be determined) that will be charged to any veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who continually (defined as two or more years in a row) fail to confirm their compliance with the requirement and/or fail to respond to requests from the College for their CPD records.
Changing the words of the Codes of Professional Conduct to include the fact that CPD should be ‘regular’ and ‘relevant’.
The continuation of the RCVS CPD Referral Group, which meets to consider what further steps should be taken in cases of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who continually fail to comply with CPD requirements and/or respond to requests.
RCVS Council agreed, by a majority vote, to approve the above recommendations.
RCVS Council member Dr Sue Paterson (pictured right), who introduced the paper and is the incoming Chair of the Education Committee, said: "While the majority of both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses do recognise the importance of continuous learning and development for their professional practice, their clients and, ultimately, animal health and welfare, it’s clear that there has been a cohort of people in both professions who take a more lax view of undertaking CPD.
"The changes to our CPD policy are intended to tighten up our processes and are targeted at those who, when challenged about why they have not undertaken sufficient CPD, say that they will meet the requirement one or two years down the line as part of the rolling three-year system. The administration fee also recognises the amount of time and effort spent by staff in the College in contacting and chasing up those people who aren’t compliant.
"However, we also recognise the fact that some members of the profession may have personal circumstances that means they are unable to meet their CPD requirement in a given year – whether that’s because of parental leave or other caring responsibilities, or long-term sick leave. So we will be retaining flexibility within the system and will be considerate and compassionate when taking into account individual circumstances when considering non-compliance.
"Furthermore, in light of the fact that the majority of vets and vet nurses do meet the requirement but also often go above-and-beyond it, we also thought it would be a good idea to introduce a downloadable compliance certificate in recognition of their achievement. This could be displayed, for example, in the practice and would be particularly useful for Practice Standard Scheme assessments.
"Over the coming months we will be fine-tuning the details of these policies and will be making further decisions about how they will work in practice in due course."
Veterinary surgeons and nurses who feel they will struggle to complete their CPD requirement within a 12-month period due to personal circumstances can contact RCVS confidentially at any time to discuss their difficulties on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
For full details about the decision, you can download the RCVS Council paper at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-council-papers-13-june-2019/