Krka UK has published “Bovine Respiratory Disease – Early diagnosis and effective herd management”, a webinar presented by George Lindley BVetMed(Hons) PgDipVCP MVetMed DipECBHM MRCVS (pictured).

The webinar explores the practical application of thoracic ultrasound to support earlier, more accurate identification of BRD in the field. 

The webinar demonstrates how integrating thoracic ultrasound into routine assessment can help clinicians identify cases earlier, target treatment more precisely and avoid the use of blanket metaphylaxis – supporting both herd health and antimicrobial stewardship.

George said: “Recent research suggests that nearly one third of UK dairy calves experience BRD and subclinical pneumonia, and a significant proportion may remain undiagnosed when assessed by clinical signs alone.

"One of the clearest indicators of pneumonia is lung consolidation.

"Thoracic ultrasound enables us to detect this early, grade its severity and provide a meaningful prognosis.

"It’s easy to do in the field with minimal patient preparation and gives a level of clarity that helps manage BRD much more effectively.”

Alongside the main webinar is a series of four bite-sized sessions which address common clinical scenarios, including when initiating antimicrobials is justified in BRD cases and how thoracic ultrasound can be used to monitor treatment progress.

Krka has also developed a new Vet2Vet Insight guide on creating an on-farm BRD protocol, together with a downloadable, editable template that practices can tailor to their own herd health plans.

https://www.krka.co.uk/veterinary-knowledge-hub 

SMALL ANIMAL MEDICINE SOCIETY Case Report Competition 2010

Sponsored by Vetoquinol

Do you have an interesting or unusual small animal medicine case that would be suitable to present as an oral abstract. The Small Animal Medicine Society is currently inviting submissions for the case report session during the pre BSAVA satellite meeting on April 7^th 2010.

This Competition is open to anyone with an interest in canine or feline medicine. Suitable cases should be have interesting discussion points but need not be so unusual that they would be considered publishable.

Three case reports will be selected by the SAMSOC committee for presentation during the meeting (12 minutes plus 3 minute for questions).

Successful selection entitles the author to free registration for the meeting.

At the end of the session the audience will vote by ballot for their favourite case report. Each presenter will then be awarded a prize which has been kindly donated by Vetoquinol.

1^st place £300,

2^nd place £150

3^rd place £50

 If you are interested in submitting a case report please contact Stijn Neilson ( sniessen@RVC.AC.UK )or Sheena Warmen (Sheena.Warman@bristol.ac.uk) for details. Deadline for submission is February 1^st 2010

JSAP is pleased to announce that it will provide two seminars to be held during BSAVA Congress, in conjunction with the Clinical Research Abstract sessions, aimed at providing guidance for those seeking to publish their research and wishing to critically evaluate published studies. These sessions are free to attend but numbers are limited (see below).

Friday 9 April

What makes a good clinical research project?

Understanding the standard format for writing a paper – which bits go where, and why

The peer review process – how it works and why

Handling rejection!

The seminar is intended for anyone aspiring to seeing their work published in a peer reviewed veterinary journal including interns, residents, researchers and referral clinicians but especially colleagues working in primary care clinical practice.

Willows Referral Service

Locum Internal Medicine Clinician required

During 2010 Willows Referral Service has opportunities for part-time Internal Medicine locum cover.  The successful applicant(s) should either hold an RCVS, European or American Diploma (or equivalent) or have undertaken Residency training and be ready to take their final Diploma examinations.  Candidates must share our aim of providing the best possible levels of care for clients, their pets and for referring veterinary surgeons.

We have an excellent team of support staff who give our clinicians the opportunity to concentrate on their clinical caseload and to work in a pleasant, supportive and good humoured atmosphere.  Facilities include a superbly equipped intensive care unit, kennelling for over 100 in-patients, all-new GE imaging equipment, including 1.5T MRI, top-end 16 slice CT with in-room CT fluoroscopy, two general digital X-ray rooms, mobile image intensifier, high-end ultrasound and Olympus video endoscopy. Our medicine clinicians, Jane Eastwood DSAM and Kirsty Roe DipACVIM, work alongside specialists in the disciplines of soft tissue surgery, neurology, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, imaging and anaesthesia, and our philosophy is very much one of friendly co-operation between clinicians in every specialism.

For further information about Willows internal medicine service please visit http://www.willows.uk.net/en-GB/specialist-services/specialisms/internal-medicine 

If you are interested and would like an informal chat about the position, please contact Jane Eastwood on 0121 712 7070

Willows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, West Midlands   www.willows.uk.net

The Small Animal Medicine Society is pleased to announce the launch of the SAMSOC Travel Scholarship

The scholarship, worth £250, can be awarded to any SAMSOC member undertaking CPD to study a particular aspect of Small Animal Medicine.

Applicants should describe how they would use the award in 300-400 words and are free to choose the topic to be studied. Recipients of the award are required to undertake the CPD within the subsequent 12 months.  

Following completion of their trip the winner is required to write a summary article (approx 1000 words) which will be submitted to the Veterinary press for publication and placed on the SAMSOC website.

The award is only open to SAMSOC members.

Applications should be sent to the Ian Battersby ( iab@vetspecialists.co.uk ) to arrive no later than 31^st December 2009, the successful applicant will be notified within 6 weeks. The award will be presented at the SAMSOC Meeting on 7^th April 2010.

FOUR great case reports have now been selected for the case report competition at the SAMSOC meeting (see finalised programme below), complementing an exciting & thought provoking programme.

Please note: Registration deadlines for your yearly shot of grade A medicine are approaching....if you are in any way serious about your medicine, don't get left out and register ASAP.

Pre-BSAVA SAMSOC Satellite Meeting - Wednesday April 7th 2010, Hall 10, ICC, Birmingham 

Satellite meeting fees (lunch is included if you register before March15th 2010)

Members £65, Non members £95. SAMSOC annual membership - £25

If you are interested in joining the society and/ or attending the meeting contact yvonnemcgrotty@hotmail.com

or iab@vetspecialists.co.uk. Details can also be found on the SAMSOC webpage (log onto www.vetsurgeon.org).

The Small Animal Medicine Society is pleased to announce the launch of the SAMSOC Travel Scholarship

The scholarship, worth £250, can be awarded to any SAMSOC member undertaking CPD to study a particular aspect of Small Animal Medicine.

Applicants should describe how they would use the award in 300-400 words and are free to choose the topic to be studied. Recipients of the award are required to undertake the CPD within the subsequent 12 months.  

Following completion of their trip the winner is required to write a summary article (approx 1000 words) which will be submitted to the Veterinary press for publication and placed on the SAMSOC website.

The award is only open to SAMSOC members.

Applications should be sent to the Ian Battersby ( iab@vetspecialists.co.uk ) to arrive no later than 31^st December 2009, the successful applicant will be notified within 6 weeks. The award will be presented at the SAMSOC Meeting on 7^th April 2010.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

Do you have an interesting or unusual small animal medicine case/series of cases that would be suitable to present as an oral abstract? The Small Animal Medicine Society (SAMSoc) invites submission of abstracts for short communications at the pre-BSAVA Satellite Meeting on 7^th April 2010 in the ICC, Birmingham.

This Competition is open to anyone with an interest in canine or feline medicine. Suitable cases should have interesting discussion points but need not be so unusual that they would be considered publishable.

Three case reports will be selected by the SAMSOC committee for presentation during the meeting (12 minutes plus 3 minute for questions).

Abstracts will not be published for this meeting, so cases/case series that may be presented in final form at other meetings in the future may be presented.

Cases/ case series of interest to the group that have been presented at meetings other than major internal medicine meetings (e.g. ACVIM, ECVIM, BSAVA) may be considered.

Abstracts should be written in Microsoft Word using Times Roman 12-point font. The first line should contain the title in all capitals; the second line all author(s); the third the institution(s) the author(s) are affiliated with; followed by the actual abstract starting as a new paragraph. The print must be black, and the abstract should be no more than 500 words in length (including title, author names and institutions). The line spacing should be 1.5.

Deadline for submission of abstracts is 1^st February 2010. Notification of acceptance will be provided by 1^st March 2010.

Abstracts may be submitted electronically to Sheena.Warman@bristol.ac.uk or sniessen@rvc.ac.uk  (Stijn Niessen)

If an abstract is accepted for presentation, the presenter will receive free registration for the SAMSoc satellite meeting.

In addition, like last year, Vetoquinol are kindly sponsoring prizes for the best abstracts. At the end of the session the audience will vote by ballot for their favourite case report (1^st place £300, 2^nd place £150, 3^rd place £50).

We hope many could contribute to this valuable part of our programme, which could also provide a valuable presenting experience to our young and talented colleagues, yet is open to colleagues of all ages and backgrounds!

Feedback Form Responses pre-BSAVA Satellite Meeting SAMSOC 2009

Below you will find feedback from people attending the 2009 SAMSOC satellite meeting. You'll find that the great majority of people had a great day. We hope to use positive and negative comments to make the 2010 meeting even more worthwhile! Do you still want to provide feedback? (even if you did not attend, i.e. why not?), please drop a line on: sniessen@rvc.ac.uk or simply respond to this news item on this website, by hitting the reply button.

Regards,

SAMSOC Programme Committee

Administration/facilities:                                                            Responses                                          (%)

Registration procedure

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            0                                                              0%

3.       Good                                                                                     7/22                                                       32%

4.       Excellent                                                                              15/22                                                     68%

Lecture room facilities

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            5/22                                                       23%

3.       Good                                                                                     13/22                                                     59%

4.       Excellent                                                                              4/22                                                       18%

Comments: too cold (6/22), noisy at times (1/22), chairs too close to screen (1/22), liked set-up with tables more (1/22)

Quality and quantity of refreshments

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            1/22                                                       4.5%

3.       Good                                                                                     11/22                                                     50%

4.       Excellent                                                                              9/22                                                       41%

Comments: nice biscuits (1/22); excellent lunch (1/22), cold tea (1/22)

Value for money

1.       Poor                                                                                      0                                                              0%

2.       Adequate                                                                            0                                                              0%

3.       Good                                                                                     9/22                                                       41%

4.       Excellent                                                                              13/22                                                     59%

Programme/lectures

1.       Thoracic CT

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     8/22                       36%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              13/22                     59%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     7/22                       32%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              14/22                     64%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     10/22                     45%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              9/22                       41%

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     8/22                       36%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              13/22                     59%

Comments: 1/22: very educational and helpful to have images

2.       Thoracoscopy for medics

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     9/22                       41%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              13/22                     59%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     11/22                     50%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              10/22                     45%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     17/22                     77%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              4/22                       18%

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            6/22`                      27%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     7/22                       32%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              8/22                       36%

Comments: 1/22 excellent images of thoracoscopy

3.       Case reports

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     15/22                     68%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              4/22                       18%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     14/22                     64%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              4/22                       18%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      n/a

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            n/a

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     n/a

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              n/a

Comments: 1/22: would like notes for this as well

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     8/22                       36%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              10/22                     44%

4.       Current management of diabetes mellitus in people

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            2/22                       9%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     12/22                     55%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              7/22                       32%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     7/22                       32%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              14/22                     64%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      n/a

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            n/a

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     n/a

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              n/a

Comments: 8/22: notes poor since missing

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            1/22                       5%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     10/22                     45%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              11/22                     50%

Comments: 1/22: very interesting

5.       A logical approach to changed mental status

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     1/22                       5%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              20/22                     91%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     2/22                       9%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              19/22                     86%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     4/22                       18%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              15/22                     68%

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            0                              0%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     3/22                       14%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              18/22                     82%

Comments: 1/22: Really excellent; 1/22: excellent presentation and case studies

6.       Interpretation of bone marrow cytology

a.       Delivery

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            7/22                       32%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     3/22                       14%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              12/22                     55%

b.      Content

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            5/22                       23%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     9/22                       41%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              8/22                       36%

c.       Notes

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            3/22                       14%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     11/22                     50%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              6/22                       27%

Comments: 1/22: very entertaining!

d.      Good choice for program?

                                                               i.      Poor                                                                                      0                              0%

                                                             ii.      Adequate                                                                            3/22                       14%

                                                            iii.      Good                                                                                     11/22                     50%

                                                           iv.      Excellent                                                                              8/22                       36%       

Comments: 1/22: very entertaining, excellent pictures of cytology; very helpful; 1/22: good choice for program but turned into a list

General individual comments

1.       I wonder if too many topics were quite specialist this year; ie maybe great for us academics but not so attractive for practitioners?

2.       Later start (10am – or even 9.30am); reduced registration fees for interns/residents; no lunch in place of reduced rate

3.       Really liked the human presentations; please continue with this tradition

4.       Might be worth concentrating on 1 or 2 themes for the day? Consider shorter talks? 45 minutes long enough per speaker?

5.       Enjoy the human presentation and comparative aspect – please continue this tradition! Excellent day – thank you!

6.       Superb meeting, all the practical tips and information were really useful and the speakers were all excellent – more of the same standard next year please!

7.       Appropriately pitched for medicine certificate level, would be great to have a specialist day.

8.       Initially dubious about the heterogeneous nature of the lectures but actually it worked very well. The case reports are a very good thing – enjoyable to give residents a forum to present cases.

Stijn Niessen 26 June 2009

See attachment for info on discounted rates for BSAVA manuals at pre congress meeting

Best wishes

Yvonne

Membership renewal information attached.

The Small Animal Medicine Society is pleased to announce the launch of the SAMSOC Travel Scholarship

The scholarship, worth £250, can be awarded to any SAMSOC member undertaking CPD to study a particular aspect of Small Animal Medicine.

Applicants should describe how they would use the award in 300-400 words and are free to choose the topic to be studied. Recipients of the award are required to undertake the CPD within the subsequent 12 months.  

Following completion of their trip the winner is required to write a summary article (approx 1000 words) which will be submitted to the Veterinary press for publication and placed on the SAMSOC website.

The award is only open to SAMSOC members.

Applications should be sent to the Ian Battersby ( iab@vetspecialists.co.uk ) to arrive no later than 31^st December 2009, the successful applicant will be notified within 6 weeks. The award will be presented at the SAMSOC Meeting on 7^th April 2010.

Researchers from the Royal Veterinary College are asking vets to take part in a survey to gather the views of people working in the UK ruminant sector on how to tackle the challenge of demonstrating responsible antibiotic stewardship.

The survey is part an initiative designed to bring together the UK ruminant sector to co-develop a roadmap which will champion animal health and welfare solutions that promote and demonstrate responsible antibiotic stewardship.

It is also designed to find out  exactly what ruminant antibiotic use data is needed at both farm-level and national reporting level so that data collected delivers value to farms and vet practices.   

Mark Jelley, Chair of Cattle Antibiotic Guardian Group (pictured) said: “Farmers are already required to record their purchase and use of veterinary medicines but turning this requirement into evidence of responsible use while also being confident that data is being used responsibly is challenging.  

“Other food producing species in the UK can demonstrate their medicine use with confidence and many competitor nations are now legislating for this data collection too - the ruminant sector is at risk of being left behind.”  

Anyone working in the UK ruminant sector - from vets and farmers to government employees and academics - is encouraged to complete the survey, which is open till 28th February 2026.

https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/rvc/uk-ruminant-antibiotic-stewardship-roadmap