The Competition and Markets Authority has unveiled a package of veterinary transparency reforms that will require practices to publish prices, give written estimates and tighten complaints handling.

Although the regulator says the changes should impose only limited administrative costs, VetSurgeon.org estimates that implementation may still run to several thousand pounds for some practices.

Under the reforms, practices will need to:

• Update signage and marketing materials if part of a group to display the practice owner.
• Ensure marketing materials and signage clearly set out out-of-hours arrangements, staff qualifications and accreditations.
• Publish a standardised price list online and in-practice for consultations and a wide range of diagnostics, treatments and procedures defined by the CMA, for five standardised pet characteristic and weight categories.
• Publish prices for commonly sold flea, tick and worm products, plus a link to the VMD Register of online retailers, both online and in-practice.
• Publish full pet care plan details, including standalone prices and an explanation of any claimed cost savings.
• Submit practice information and pricing data to the RCVS for publication via an upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform.
• Provide written estimates for treatment pathways likely to cost £500 or more and update them if costs are likely to increase by 20% or £500.
• Provide itemised bills.
• Put written clinical freedom policies and processes in place.
• Give clients written information produced by the RCVS about prescriptions and buying medicines elsewhere, including via practice websites, posters and emails, and tell owners during consultations.
• Provide written prescriptions at the end of a consultation or digitally within 48 hours.
• When prescribing own-brand medicines, tell clients about the reference product alternative and identify it in writing.
• Provide additional information to owners receiving ongoing medication about their ability to request a written prescription and potential savings from buying medicines elsewhere.
• Check any out-of-hours contract to ensure notice periods do not exceed 12 months and no termination fee applies after that period.
• Offer a communal cremation service and publish clear information about cremation options and prices, including add-ons.
• Put a written complaints procedure in place, publish it and keep a complaint log.
• Take part in mediation in good faith when required.

In total, the CMA package introduces more than a dozen new operational requirements for veterinary practices.

Practices will also have to pay a new levy to the RCVS to fund its expanded role running the price comparison service, estimated at £450-£550 annually, after a £150-£250 setup charge.

Once the Order is made — currently expected in September 2026 — most of the transparency measures will need to be implemented within three months by larger veterinary groups and six months by smaller practices.

More operational changes, such as written estimates, itemised billing and the new prescription rules, follow later, with smaller practices typically given up to 12 months to comply.

The final stage will see practices submitting data to the RCVS for its upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform once the system has been built.

Prescription fees will be capped at £21 for the first medicine prescribed in a consultation and £12.50 for each additional medicine, with both figures rising annually in line with CPI, and practices will need to assess the impact on their business model.

A new study from the Royal Veterinary College has found that Cockapoos, Labradoodles, and Cavapoos in the UK often exhibit higher levels of undesirable behaviours compared to their purebred parent breeds, offering veterinary professionals an insight for client advice and management¹.

For the study, the team at the RVC conducted an online survey of the owners of 9,402 UK dogs to investigate the behaviour of three popular designer Doodle breeds – Cockapoo, Labradoodle and Cavapoo.

Behaviours were compared between the Doodles and their purebred parent breeds, including Cocker Spaniels; Cavalier King Charles Spaniels; Labrador Retrievers; and Toy, Miniature, and Standard Poodles.

Behaviour was assessed using the validated Canine Behavioural Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) which quantifies diverse behavioural challenges including aggression, fear and anxiety, separation-related behaviour and attention-seeking.

The results show that designer Doodles differed from their purebred parents in approximately 54% of behavioural comparisons.

Where differences were identified, Doodles showed more undesirable behaviours in 82% of comparisons.

Some of these common undesirable behaviours included non-social fear (e.g. fear of traffic, loud noises); separation-related problems (e.g. vocalisation and destructiveness when left alone); and excitability (e.g. strong reactions to exciting events such as walks and doorbells).

Doodles showed less undesirable behaviours in only 18% of the comparisons where a difference was identified, for example Labradoodles scored lower for dog rivalry (e.g., conflict with dogs they live with) compared to Poodles.

Considerable variation between the three individual Doodle breeds was also identified, demonstrating that designer crossbreeds should not be treated as a single, uniform group in terms of behaviour.

For example, Cockapoos displayed a higher level of undesirable behaviours compared to their purebred parent breeds, exceeding that seen in Cavapoos and Labradoodles.

In particular, Cockapoos showed higher levels of aggressive behaviours, such as owner-directed aggression and dog rivalry, than their purebred parents.

Dr Rowena Packer, Senior Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science at the RVC and senior author of the paper, said: “Realistic expectations are key to happy dog ownership.

"When expectations and reality don’t align, both dogs and owners can struggle.

"Preconceived beliefs, such as the idea that designer-crossbreeds are naturally easy to train or are safe with children, can have serious consequences if they aren’t supported by evidence.

"Our research shows that many designer-crossbreeds do not always behave as expected, particularly regarding training, anxiety and aggression, which were more common than in their parent breeds.

"We also found that not all ‘Doodles’ are alike, with Cockapoos tending to display more undesirable behaviour compared to Labradoodles and Cavapoos, highlighting that each breed is unique.

"By providing reliable scientific data, we can help puppy buyers to make better-informed choices that support both human wellbeing and canine welfare.”

Reference

1. Bryson GT, O'Neill DG, Belshaw Z, Brand CL, Packer RMA (2026) Comparing undesirable behaviours between ‘designer’ Poodle-cross dogs and their purebred progenitor breeds. PLoS One 21(2): e0342847. The full paper is available from PLOS ONE and can be accessed at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0342847 

Dozens of independent veterinary practices across the UK still face uncertainty over their health plans following IVC Evidensia's wordmark claims for 'Pet Health Club', according to We Are Spartacus, a campaign group formed to fight the claims. 

IVC started writing to the practices at the start of last year, threatening legal action over their use of the term 'Pet Health Club', which the company says infringes its trademark rights.

In March 2025, IVC sent follow-up letters to affected practices, offering an extension until 31st December 2025 to comply with its demands, but according to We Are Spartacus, there has been no contact since the deadline passed.

Meanwhile, We Are Spartacus reports that 200 veterinary professionals have registered their opposition to IVC's claims via its website.

Dr Natalie Morris-Webb, owner of Malthouse Vets, one of the affected practices, said: “Last year was a worrying time for lots of independent practices with a ‘Pet Health Club.’

"Many of those that came forward had been using the term long before IVC registered its wordmark in 2019 and either had to face the cost and hassle of rebranding their health plans or enter into a legal dispute with IVC.

“Neither of these are appealing options for independent practices, or their owner managers.

"Although IVC appears to have ceased defending the ‘pet health club’ wordmark, with none of the affected practices reporting any further correspondence for many months, the uncertainty is still there.

"It’s unacceptable that IVC has not yet achieved a commercial settlement, or revealed whether they have given the industry a reprieve and no longer plan to take legal action.”

An IVC Evidensia spokesperson said: "We have no current plans to approach anyone we haven’t previously contacted on this matter, but of course, we reserve the rights available to the company, as trademark holder, to protect our trademarks and customers in the future, as in any sector."

"A material number of those previously infringing our trademark have now updated their branding.

"Anyone still in breach was given clear notification, so the position is unambiguous - they are required to update."

The Pet Health Club website does not currently state that the scheme is owned by IVC Evidensia.

www.wearespartacus.co.uk

BEVA has published updated Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Insured Horses, giving practising veterinary surgeons updated guidance on euthanasia decisions where horses are insured for mortality.

BEVA said the guidance is intended to help vets ensure good welfare during the necessary euthanasia of horses insured for mortality.

Led by Ian Beamish, the Association reviewed its guidance with input from vets and representatives from the insurance industry. 

Ian said: "The veterinary surgeon's primary responsibility is undoubtably to ensure the welfare of the horse, regardless of whether the horse is insured.

"The new guidelines are a modernised version of the outdated 2009 guidelines, with a carefully revised List of Conditions and their prognoses, updated language, and revised protocols on grounds for euthanasia."

He added: "It is important to note that whilst we may advise euthanasia, we may not advise on the insurance policy conditions; this is a matter for the insured and insurer to discuss."

The Equine Insurance Providers Group has approved and adopted the new guidance.

https://www.beva.org.uk/euthanasia-guidelines-for-insured-horses

VetLed has launched the Restorative Just Culture Guide for Veterinary Teams to help veterinary professionals foster a supportive environment that addresses mistakes constructively.

The guide, which is based on ten restorative just culture principles, aims to help practices move away from blame culture and improve staff wellbeing.

Dr Hannah Godfrey, VetLed Community Lead, said: "We know the positive difference that Restorative Just Culture principles could make within the veterinary profession, and we’re proud that we’ve been able to deliver such a useful tool for practice, with expertise from the Restorative Just Culture Foundation." 

VetLed is also running a 6-module online course ‘Restorative Just Culture for Veterinary Practice’, starting in May: https://www.vetled.co.uk/courses-services/restorative-just-culture-for-veterinary-practice-open-course. 

https://www.vetled.co.uk/resources/restorative-just-culture-campaign-2026 

University of Nottingham researchers have reported a biological quirk in domestic cats that may help explain why they are so prone to chronic kidney disease.

For the study¹, which was led by Professor David Gardner and Dr Rebecca Brociek and published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, researchers analysed opportunistically collected kidney samples from 58 domestic cats, seven domestic dogs, 24 Scottish wildcats and three zoo wildcats.

Using chemical analyses, the team discovered that cats accumulate a rare group of modified triglycerides, some with unusual chemical bonds or branched structures, that are very rarely observed in other mammals.

Dogs did not show this pattern at all, and the feral Scottish Wildcats showed it only occasionally. 

Dr Brociek said: "Why these types of unusual fats accumulate in domestic cat kidneys, even from an early age, may offer an important clue as to why domestic cats are particularly prone to chronic kidney disease, one of the most common and serious illnesses affecting older cats."

The researchers say that this distinctive lipid buildup inside kidney cells could be an early sign of long‑term stress within the kidney, potentially contributing to tissue damage over time.

Professor Gardner added: "We are hopeful that soon we will understand why these unusual fats accumulate in domestic cats - we just have to collect the evidence to find the proof.

"If true, we believe we could develop a supplement or modified diet to help prevent these unusual lipid structures from accumulating, ultimately benefitting the long-term health of our companion animals."

The discovery opens a new area of investigation into feline biology, suggesting that cats’ unique metabolism may predispose them to kidney problems. It could eventually lead to better diagnostic tools, improved diets, and new treatments for protecting cats' kidney health.

Reference

1. Brociek RA, Alborough R, Kotowska AM, Ferreira A, Martinez-Jarquin S, Walczak M, Di Bari V, Beaudoin F and Gardner DS (2026) Lipid droplets in felid kidneys: prevalence and composition by lipidomics. Front. Vet. Sci. 13:1711591. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2026.1711591

The annual renewal fee to remain on the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons is now due.

The standard annual fee has increased to £431 from last year’s £418, which is due for payment on or before Wednesday 1 April 2026.

RCVS Treasurer Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS, said: “This is a small increase in our fees largely in line with current inflation levels.

"The unique set-up of the RCVS means it remains good value for money compared to other professions where separate fees would have to be paid to a regulator and royal college.

“The small fee increase will be used to help deliver both our everyday activities and our new ambitious Strategic Plan, which includes aims such as achieving new legislation, reviewing the Codes of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance, and continuing to support the professions through activities such as the Mind Matters Initiative, RCVS Academy and career development.”

The Privy Council also approved a further 3% increase in the annual renewal fee for 2027/28.

www.rcvs.org.uk/fees

The BVA and the BSAVA have updated their guidance on neutering, advising vets to move away from early neutering in dogs and take a case-by-case approach.

The policy pulls together current research on potential long-term health and welfare impacts of neutering and ways these may be reduced, including different methods, delaying the procedure, or not neutering.

It recommends assessing male dog castration on an individual basis, taking factors such as age, breed and lifestyle into account.

Advice for cats is unchanged, with male and female cats still recommended for neutering at around four months of age, before sexual maturity.

The Associations say the general consensus is that male and female dogs should be neutered at around 12–24 months, when many breeds are considered to have reached skeletal maturity, to reduce the risk of developing orthopaedic conditions.

A joint FAQs resource has also been produced to summarise the conclusions and recommendations for practice teams.

BVA Senior Vice President Dr Elizabeth Mullineaux said: "The updated policy position brings together the latest evidence to support small animal vets with making context-based decisions on a case-by-case basis and what that might mean for discussing neutering options with clients."

BSAVA President Julian Hoad added: "The evidence base underpinning decision-making continues to evolve and although the policy position covers many key research outputs, ambiguities still exist.

"BVA and BSAVA have made recommendations based on existing knowledge and how best this can be applied in practical scenarios.

"The resulting aim of the policy is to support veterinary professionals in clinical practice by equipping them with the tools that help them in offering tailored neutering advice to pet owners."

https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/neutering-of-cats-and-dogs/

An online tumour risk dashboard built from more than one million canine and feline cancer diagnoses has been published by the University of Liverpool to help vets examine how tumour risk varies across breeds, ages and sexes.

The tool forms part of a national tumour registry built by Liverpool’s Veterinary Data Science Group with the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria using pathology records from veterinary diagnostic laboratories.

The registry aggregates more than one million tumour diagnoses across more than 200 breeds and 150 tumour types.

Users of the dashboard can select a tumour type and species and view how relative risk varies across demographic groups within the dataset.

Results are presented as odds ratios against a reference group.

The platform is publicly accessible and designed to allow vets, researchers and owners to explore patterns in the data.

Professor David Killick, veterinary oncologist at the University of Liverpool, said most veterinary cancer diagnosis data historically sits in private laboratories and is not easily accessible for research.

“It is important to understand risks for cancers — and this applies to pets too.

“But for dogs and cats, most cancer diagnosis data sit in private veterinary labs, inaccessible for research.

“Working through SAVSNET, our Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network, we wanted to see whether we could bring together large volumes of these data into one meaningful, research-ready database.”

The dataset enables analysis of tumour risk across large numbers of breeds and cancers that have previously been difficult to study due to fragmented reporting.

An analysis of four major canine tumours using the registry has been published in the Veterinary and Comparative Oncology¹.

The registry will continue to expand as additional laboratories contribute data.

The project is funded by the Petplan Charitable Trust.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/savsnet.at.liverpool/viz/SAVSNETtumourregistry/frontpage

Reference

1. J. Rodríguez, A. E. de los Monteros, Á. Santana, et al., “ Epidemiology of Four Major Canine Tumours in the UK: Insights From a National Pathology Registry With Comparative Oncology Perspectives,” Veterinary and Comparative Oncology (2026): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/vco.70056.

The Equine Veterinary Journal editors have compiled 30 papers from international collaborations for a March 2026 special focus on equine infectious disease and microbiology, free to view for 12 weeks.

Science in brief: Equine Infectious Disease and Microbiology is edited by Julia Kydd and Celia Marr with guest editors Macarena Sanz, Tessa LeCuyer and Laura Peachey.

The issue groups papers around national disease surveillance, the need for definitive diagnosis in some infections, and cross-species comparisons for pathogens affecting multiple species.

Diagnostics papers cover techniques for equine fever, equine influenza and equine gastrointestinal parasites, with the editors noting these developments should help speed biosecurity implementation to limit transmission.

Gastrointestinal papers include metabolic profiling for earlier insights into equine proliferative disease in foals, potential colitis aetiology, and the importance of additional testing for chronic hepatitis and liver failure in hepacivirus cases.

Two antimicrobial papers address resistance, one suggesting that prophylaxis beyond 24 hours is unnecessary to prevent post-surgical complications after colic surgery.

Respiratory studies include multiple strangles papers concluding prevention needs thorough screening, consistent quarantine, close monitoring and interconnected reporting.

The section also includes a special collection on the equine microbiome, updating EVJ’s 2019 collection and flagging progress over the past seven years.

Julia Kydd said: “The considerable and diverse research efforts within this Special Focus will ultimately improve the detection, diagnosis, treatment and control of many pathogens.

“The eventual aim is to prevent or minimise the impact of future outbreaks.”

https://beva.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/20423306/2026/58/2 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application for restoration to the Register from a former Scarborough-based veterinary surgeon, Mr Matthew Makepeace.

Mr Makepeace was removed from the Register in 2024 after being convicted of assaulting his ex-partner in 2022.

He then submitted a character reference to the RCVS which purported to come from his partner, stating they were “still happily together”, and forged her signature.

It also found he sent offensive, insulting, abusive and threatening WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner between December 2022 and January 2023.

The committee said removal was the only proportionate sanction, citing the public interest, deterrence, and maintaining confidence in the profession and regulatory process.

During the restoration hearing, the committee was also told that since removal Mr Makepeace had continued to hold himself out as a vet, including emailing a practice seeking work experience with the opening line: “I’m a vet”.

The committee found the email used deliberate and careful wording and was a calculated attempt to mislead, omitting his removal from the Register and creating a distorted impression of no disciplinary concerns.

It concluded the email and lack of transparency with potential employers were further examples of dishonesty alongside the earlier forgery, and found the conduct misleading and dishonest.

The committee accepted Mr Makepeace understood he had assaulted his ex-partner, but was not convinced he understood the impact of previous manipulative and coercive behaviour.

It found nothing to suggest he would be of harm to animals, but concluded he was more likely to put his own interests first, including through recent communications stating he was a vet.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee recognises Mr Makepeace’s desire to advance his career and that his prospects would be enhanced by restoration of his name to the Register, that is not a factor relevant to his application.

"The Committee’s obligations and duties are to ensure that the interests of animal welfare are properly protected by ensuring that those whose names are on the Register are properly trained, knowledgeable and experienced in the treatment of animals and that public confidence in the standards of the profession is maintained.

“The Committee cannot restore someone to the Register who is not fit by virtue of their repeated dishonest and unacceptable conduct, without insight into the impact of the lack of probity by a vet."

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/conduct-and-guidance/concerns-for-veterinary-professionals/disciplinary-committee-hearings