An equine practice in the New Forest is reporting great success using the ioLight portable microscope to diagnose intestinal parasites in horses at the stable yard.

Armed with the new microscope, New Forest Equine Vets (NFEV) has started offering a mobile equine veterinary service, including expert worming advice.

The microscope captures images with a resolution of 1 micron, with a live magnification of x200 and x400 or more, which means that the practice can carry out an accurate egg count in the yard, rather than sending faecal samples off to the lab.

This, they say, allows for a more a more accurate result, because posting faeces can lead to the sample desiccating and the eggs hatching, leading to false negative results. It also allows the veterinary surgeon to give immediate advice and treatment.

Dr. Beth Robinson BVSc Cert AVP(EP) MRCVS, co-owner of NFEV, says "One of the main aims of performing worm egg counts is to identify horses shedding low numbers of eggs so that we can maintain a low number of parasites on the pasture that have not been exposed to wormers and therefore have not been placed under selection pressure for resistance. In horses shedding high numbers of eggs, worm egg count reduction tests are a useful way of assessing whether treatment has been effective."

Andrew Monk, co-founder of ioLight, said: "The product is incredibly simple to use. By using a tablet both the owner and vet can view the image and discuss treatment. We hope that more horse owners in the New Forest will use the services from NFEV to protect their animals, and that it will encourage other equine practices to purchase a microscope so they can also offer a similar high quality service. We have made a video with NFEV to demonstrate their service and encourage other equine vets to use the ioLight microscope in their own mobile clinics."

Beth added: "We are delighted to be working with ioLight and horse owners to keep their animals healthy and improve equine welfare."

The NOAH Code of Practice Committee, chaired by Mr Guy Tritton, has found Dechra Veterinary Products in breach of three items of the NOAH Code, following a complaint.

The complaint related to an advertisement and detailer promoting Felimazole with the wording "Are you taking a heavy-handed approach to hyperthyroidism?" and "with Felimazole, you don't have to!"

The Committee took the view that by implication this referred to Vidalta because Vidalta is the only other licensed oral treatment on the market for hyperthyroidism.

As a result, the Committee found both promotions in breach of Clause 4.3 because of the implication that Vidalta is less safe than Felimazole.

The Committee did not consider the promotions disparaged the manufacturer as there is no evidence to show it is unsafe.

The Committee also found that the table in the detailer (page 4) suggesting that one dosage of 5 mg per day of Felimazole has the same efficacy as two doses of 2.5 mg, (which is contrary to the dosing statement within the SPC: "If, for reasons of compliance, once daily dosing with a 5 mg tablet is preferable, then this is acceptable although reduced efficacy can be expected compared to a twice daily regime.") was misleading, contrary to Clause 4.3 of the Code.

Full details of the Committee's rulings are on the NOAH website at www.noah.co.uk/code.  The full report of this particular case will be available shortly.

The RCVS has published two reports on the impact of the pandemic on the personal and professional lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses since March 2020.

The reports summarise the results of two surveys that were conducted between July and August last year.

Of the 28,718 veterinary surgeons who were sent the survey, 22% fully completed and submitted the questionnaire.

Some of the main findings included: 

• 67% of veterinary nurses experienced a change in shift patterns at some point in the pandemic, compared with 57% of veterinary surgeons;
• 49% of veterinary nurses worked additional hours due to others being furloughed, compared to 40% of veterinary surgeons;
• 37% of veterinary nurses were furloughed, compared with 23% of veterinary surgeons;
• Many veterinary nurses reported taking on extra responsibilities such as: general domestic cleaning (70%), clinical cleaning (65%) and reception work (63%);
• 53% of veterinary surgeons who worked extra hours did so completely unpaid or mostly unpaid, compared to 21% of veterinary nurses;
• 38% of veterinary surgeons and 40% of veterinary nurses had to self-isolate at some point during the pandemic;
• 38% of veterinary surgeons said they worked remotely at some point during the pandemic – with the peaks being in the earliest phase of the pandemic in March to May 2020. In comparison, 23.5% of veterinary nurses worked remotely during the pandemic;
• 7% of veterinary surgeons and 8% of veterinary nurses had to shield at some point during the pandemic due to being clinically vulnerable;

Around 40% of veterinary surgeons and over 40% of veterinary nurses said they had experienced concerns for their personal safety aside from catching Covid.

These safety concerns mostly related to client interactions at the practice either during the day or out-of-hours.

Many respondents experienced conflict between their personal wellbeing and professional role, and found it difficult to juggle their work and caring responsibilities.

Many respondents also said their mental health was adversely affected by the experience of working during the pandemic.

A large majority of respondents said they had personally seen an increase in caseload due to new animal ownership.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “While many of the results of the survey may not be especially surprising and confirm what we have already been told anecdotally, it is very important that we have this hard data to hand on the overall impact of the pandemic on individual members of the professions.

“These two reports complement the six surveys that we have conducted with veterinary practices on the economic impact of the pandemic to give us as clear and holistic a picture as possible about the challenges that the professions and the veterinary sector as a whole have faced since March 2020.

"This not only provides a useful historical snapshot, but builds an evidence base to inform future temporary changes should the pandemic continue into more waves, or should future such crises arise.

“The results of the two individual surveys make it clear it has been a tough time for the professions.

"A good proportion of respondents also acknowledged that positive developments have come from the past two years, including the way the profession has demonstrated remarkable resilience, flexibility and adaptability, as well as forging a stronger team spirit under such difficult circumstances.

“However, a large number of both vets and vet nurses who responded said that the experiences since March 2020 have left them feeling more pessimistic about veterinary work and their place within it.

"I would like to reassure members of the veterinary team that the RCVS is aware and understands.

"We tried throughout the pandemic to support the professions with relevant temporary guidance changes, and we are now working with a range of stakeholders on critical issues such as the workforce crisis, which has been in part caused by Covid.

"We are also developing tools, training and resources to support the professions, via our programmes such as RCVS Leadership and Mind Matters.”

The full coronavirus impact survey reports can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications. 

The Forestry Commission, together with other agencies and landowners, is stepping up efforts to find out why some dogs have fallen ill while on countryside walks.

Over 50 cases of so called Seasonal Canine Illness (SCI) occurred during the autumn of 2009 and 2010 in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, East Anglia and Warwickshire, although there have been reports from further afield.

Symptoms include severe vomiting, diarrhoea, shaking / trembling and high temperature, and have generally been displayed by animals within 24 hours of walking in the countryside, especially in woodlands. A small number of dogs have died. The cause of Seasonal Canine Illness remains unknown.

Jo Atkinson, from the Forestry Commission, said:  "Although no cases have yet been reported this year, we are working with our many partners to get a clearer picture of the distribution and reasons behind this upsetting sickness. Both dog owners and vets can play their part too in helping protect cherished pets."

Moves to tackle the illness include:

• Agencies including the Forestry Commission and Notts County Councilhave teamed up to ensure that data collection on incidents is co-ordinated to achieve a much better picture of any outbreaks. It is likely that cases have gone unreported in previous years.
• The Animal Health Trust is asking dog owners who have walked in affected areas to fill in a questionnaire at www.aht.org.uk/seasonal_illness.html even if dogs did not fall ill.
• Nottingham University Veterinary School is to carry out two research projects to try and develop a test for a possible toxin which may be to blame.
• Landowners are seeking to work with vets to learn about cases more rapidly so they can inform people using their sites for dog walking.
• The Veterinary Poisons Information Service will monitor reports for unusual cases which could be SCI.

Veterinary surgeons are asked to:

1. Report suspected cases in Nottinghamshire to enquiries.sherwood@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
2. Report suspected cases from elsewhere in the country to the Veterinary Poisons Information Service
3. Collect and store samples for possible use by Nottingham University.
4. Encourage pet owners to complete the Animal Health Trust questionnaire.
5. Display the questionnaire prominently in surgeries.

A consortium of seven academics has been awarded a £1.75 million grant to understand how better diagnostics can encourage responsible antibiotic use in animals.

The award, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) working in partnership with the Department of Health and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), is part of the cross-council 'Tackling antimicrobial resistance: behaviour within and beyond the healthcare setting’ call, part of the antimicrobial resistance cross-council initiative supported by the seven research councils in partnership with other UK funders including the Medical Research Council (MRC). 

The research team will be led by social scientists at the University of Exeter and includes two veterinary surgeons from the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Sciences, together with colleagues at the Innogen Institute of the University of Edinburgh, the British Veterinary Association and leading farm animal veterinary surgeons across the UK. 

The researchers say that better, smarter, more rapid and more accessible diagnoses - driving shifts in behaviour associated with diagnostic decision making - represent a critical step to delivering more effective uses of antibiotics in animal health. But improvements in diagnostic development and their relationship to prescription and treatment requires social, governance and technical innovations.

Professor Henry Buller, project lead from the University of Exeter’s School of Geography, said: "This is an exciting opportunity to provide a current assessment of diagnostic and treatment decision practices in the livestock sectors of the UK. Novel and innovative diagnostic tools are currently in development, and our research will generate better understanding of their development as well as the marketing and regulation of these new technologies."

Dr Kristen Reyher, Senior Lecturer in Farm Animal Science, who is the lead on the project at the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Sciences, added: "Our research team – the AMR Force – has a track record of working closely with farmers, veterinarians, retailers and government bodies to encourage responsible use of antibiotics. We are excited to have this amazing opportunity to collaboratively generate, evaluate and analyse behaviours and strategies around animal disease diagnosis and to show how innovation in the development of diagnostic tools along with diagnostic regulation and governance can lead to more sensible use of antibiotics across farming systems. 

"Working with our partners, we will identify pathways and possibilities for improved diagnostic practice and will trial new diagnostic tools on a series of farms. We are very excited to take our ideas beyond the UK as well, and will conduct pilot and capacity-building research in Tanzania and also partner with a project working in Bangladesh that is co-funded by ESRC and the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science."

Professor Buller added: "Employment of new diagnostics doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Our team will evaluate the implications these innovations will have for the organisation, cost-effectiveness and efficiency of veterinary practice, as well as for veterinary training. We will identify the changes in behaviour, practice and knowledge necessary to accompany the more widespread adoption of practices that are deemed effective and will assess the regulatory and governance support necessary to encourage use of beneficial practices."

The interdisciplinary team will work alongside diagnostic tool developers and regulators, veterinary practices and professional bodies, farmers and treatment decision makers, veterinary laboratories, the food industry and government regulatory authorities to develop durable and innovative strategies for facilitating and advancing smarter approaches to the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

The work will cover the major livestock species, and will involve seeking opinions from veterinary surgeons across the country, through collaboration with the BVA. 

David Barrett, Professor of Bovine Medicine, Production and Reproduction at the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Sciences, said: "This is a fantastic opportunity to assess the adaptability and responsiveness of the different animal production sectors - poultry, pigs and cattle - along with a variety of veterinary structures to the trialled innovations in diagnosis and diagnostics, and will determine the likely benefits of these innovations for prescription practice, for animal health and for sustainable livestock production."

Photo: University of Bristol

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.

James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.

All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.

The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.

The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.

The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.

Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The RCVS has published the results of a survey of UK practices to gauge the impact of the coronavirus and the associated government restrictions on veterinary businesses.

532 veterinary practices responded to the survey, which was sent to 3,096 veterinary practices for which the RCVS had a unique email address, on 3rd April.

The survey found that: 

• The majority (71%) of premises remained open but 5% of respondents had closed their main premises and 24% had closed branch premises
• 66% of practices reported their weekly turnover being reduced by more than half
• Around 30% of practices reported being impacted by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses self-isolating/or with Covid-19, whilst almost 35% have ‘other support staff’ self-isolating
• 97% of practices reported limiting the service they provide to emergencies or emergencies and urgent cases (in accordance with RCVS guidance at the time)
• 62% of respondents had furloughed or intended to furlough veterinary surgeons, compared to 64% for veterinary nurses and 78% for other support staff
• Only 6% of respondents had made, or had immediate plans to make staff redundant
• All respondents answering the relevant question (n=451) reported that their practice was using remote consulting for existing clients/animals, whilst 45% were using it for new clients/animals
• 14% of respondents said they had donated Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to the National Health Service for use by those tackling the pandemic on the frontline

Three-quarters of those who responded to the survey answered a question on how the RCVS could better support veterinary practices through the crisis. The most frequent response (27%) was that the RCVS needed to provide clearer guidance, in particular as to what services it was permissible for veterinary practices to provide [the College published its updated guidance and flowchart on 9 April].

Of those who responded to the question, 15% felt that the RCVS was doing a good job or that there was nothing more it should do, while just 2% of responses expressed negative sentiment towards the RCVS.

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: “I would like to thank all those practices who took the time in what is already a very fraught situation to respond to our survey and provide the evidence we need to gain a holistic picture of coronavirus’ impact on the business and economics of veterinary practices. We plan to continue running these surveys on a regular basis in order to gauge impact over time and the findings will feed into our policy and decision-making.

"This ongoing research will also be a vital tool when we are talking to Government and other bodies about the impact of policy on the veterinary sector. On this note, we are aware of the challenges of a minimum furlough period of three weeks given the need for practices to take steps to offer 24/7 emergency and critical care, and have written to government on this with some case studies around the impact this is having.

"To those on the ground it won’t come as too much of a surprise that the impact of the coronavirus has been profound in areas such as practice turnover and staffing, with many vets, veterinary nurses and other support staff being furloughed with the aim of signing them up to the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

"There are some bright spots in the data we’ve gathered – very few practices reported that they had made or were planning to make staff redundant, and many practices reported mitigating the challenge of social distancing by carrying out consultations with new and existing clients remotely.

"Since the survey took place we have also taken steps to meet some of the requests for greater clarity and guidance from the RCVS with the publication of our flowchart helping practices to decide what treatments it is appropriate to carry out safely amidst the COVID-19 pandemic."

The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.

The next practice impact survey is planned for early May.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored Joseph Lennox Holmes to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, two years after he was originally struck off.

Mr Holmes was removed from the Register in February 2012 after the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of multiple charges of serious professional conduct. Mr Holmes lodged an appeal against the decision, which was heard and dismissed by the Privy Council.

The original charges related to two separate complaints; the first involved numerous charges in respect of Mr Holmes' treatment of a King Charles Spaniel between October 2007 and March 2008; the second, several charges in relation to his treatment of three cats in 2008.

The Committee found that the majority of the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In removing Mr Holmes from the Register, the Committee found that "aggravating factors in both... cases included actual injuries to the animals... and a serious breach of the trust which Mr Holmes' clients had placed in him to make the welfare of the animals his primary consideration according to the standards to be expected of the profession". In addition, the Committee cited 10 further aggravating factors including lack of reference to continuing professional development (CPD) in clinical policies and practices; lack of reference to accepted practice; lack of appreciation of the importance of adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures; reluctance to consider referral as an option; and lack of understanding about what information is required by a client to enable fully informed consent to be given.

Following the dismissal of Mr Holmes' appeal by the Privy Council, his first application for restoration was heard by the Disciplinary Committee in February 2013. The Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored to the Register, citing the fact that his application was "premature" and that he had failed to truly appreciate the seriousness of the findings against him. The Committee was also unimpressed with the efforts he had made to keep up-to-date with skills and developments in practice and with his CPD, noting in particular that he had made very limited attempts to observe the function and experience the culture of a modern first opinion practice.

However, in this week's two-day hearing, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes was now fit to be restored to the Register. It heard that Mr Holmes had made a concerted effort to engage in CPD and bring his skills and knowledge up-to-date. During a period of observation at a veterinary practice, he had gained insight into modern practice and the need for veterinary general practitioners to be aware of the advantages in referring patients to specialists.

Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee has concluded that, in the course of genuine efforts to do what was necessary to address the deficiencies identified during the original Inquiry and at the last restoration hearing, the Applicant has at last understood the seriousness of his previous misconduct and has learned new skills and, most importantly, to recognise his limitations from the extensive course of study, reflection, and other training that he has undertaken."

Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes had gained a proper understanding of the importance of securing the informed consent of his clients and building a relationship of trust with them and, in addition, recognising the importance of maintaining close relations with fellow professionals and engaging with CPD opportunities.

Additional factors considered when making the decision included: that he had been off the Register for two years; that, through self-improvement, he had equipped himself to treat animals appropriately; the impact that being removed from the Register had in both personal and financial terms; his conduct since being removed from the Register; and, a number of positive testimonials from previous clients and professional colleagues.

The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

The RCVS has announced that five new members have been elected to RCVS Council for four year terms following a record voter turnout in this year's elections. 

22% (6,785) of veterinary surgeons eligible to vote did so, compared to the previous record of 18.8%. 

The votes were as follows:

• ELECTED - Dr Caroline Allen: 3,073
• ELECTED - Sarah Brown: 2,799
• ELECTED - Danny Chambers: 2,634
• ELECTED - Chris Tufnell: 2,430
• ELECTED - Cheryl Scudamore: 2,087
• ELECTED - Martin Peaty: 1,909
• Thomas Witte: 1,833
• David Leicester: 1,756
• Matthew Plumtree: 1,648
• Trevor Whitbread: 1,594
• James Yeates: 1,549
• Huw Stacey: 1,449
• Kevin Watts: 1,229
• Chris Gray: 977
• Tom Lonsdale: 496
• John Davies: 428

For the two places available on VN Council one new member was elected and one existing member re-elected for four year terms. Andrea Jeffery was re-elected with 1,293 votes, while Susan Howarth was elected with 1,064 votes.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Congratulations to all those elected to RCVS Council and VN Council and thank you to all those who stood as candidates in both elections. 

"We would especially like to thank Jerry Davies, Peter Jinman and Bradley Viner who are standing down from RCVS Council this year after deciding not to seek re-election, in addition to Chris Gray and Tom Witte for their contributions to RCVS Council and Marie Rippingale for her contribution to VN Council.

"Thank you also to all those who took the time to ask questions of our candidates and cast a vote. This year we made a concerted attempt to make it even easier for the electorate to vote, with secure links to the voting websites sent by email and regular email reminders to those who hadn’t yet voted. The fact that both record numbers and proportions of the professions voted this year is testament to our efforts to further increase engagement with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.

"However, while we welcome these significant increases, we recognise that it is still a relatively small proportion of the profession voting in these elections and so will continue to think of new ways to engage with the professions not just at election time, but across our many activities."

All the successful candidates will take up their positions at RCVS Day – the College’s Annual General Meeting and Awards Day – on Friday 7 July 2017 at the Royal Institute of British Architects where the formal declaration of both election results will also take place.

npower has released the results of a survey of 2000 pet owners which revealed that 33% say their pet has alerted them to danger.

Given the improbability of anyone being alerted by a goldfish: "blub-blub-behind-blub-you-blub-blub-the-blub-frying-blub-blub-pan-is-blub-on-fire-blub", one has to presume the respondents were talking about dogs.

But no, according to npower, 10% of the participants in its survey reported that their cat or dog had directly saved their life, or the life of someone they know. 

Really? Saved by a cat? I should have thought a cat would be more likely to turn on it's heels and strut out of the room nonchalantly. 

Still, the point of the npower's research was to highlight the dangers of carbon monoxide. In its press release, the company pointed out that pets can suffer CO poisoning symptoms of vomiting, tiredness and erratic behaviour before people. 

So perhaps that's what the cat owners meant when they'd been saved by the cat: like a miner would say they were saved by a canary. 

A new study¹ published in Scientific Research has concluded that Vetoquinol's Phovia fluorescent light energy (FLE) therapy system can improve the quality of life for dogs with skin conditions, and their owners.

Phovia, which was launched in the UK last year, is a two-part FLE system consisting of a chromophore gel that is applied to the affected skin and a blue light LED lamp.

Vetoquinol says that when used together they produce light of varying wavelengths that penetrates the skin to different depths, helping to control bacteria and reduce inflammation on the surface of the skin and stimulating regeneration in the epidermal and dermal layers.

The unit is portable, and applications take four minutes once a week.

The authors of the Vetoquinol-funded study say that FLE has already been shown to support and accelerate natural skin healing, but this latest research shows that the benefits go beyond improvement in clinical signs.

The study looked at 35 dogs with a diverse range of skin conditions: 13 had interdigital furunculosis, 10 had deep pyoderma, 6 had wounds, 4 had pyotraumatic dermatitis, and 2 had perianal fistula on presentation.

Eight of 35 dogs were new cases, whereas the remaining 27 were undergoing recrudescence of a prior episode, including pyotraumatic dermatitis, wounds, deep pyoderma, interdigital furunculosis and perianal fistulae.

Thirty dogs (86%) achieved a clinical resolution: 18 with the Fluorescent Light Energy alone and 12 with the concomitant use of FLE and topical antiseptic shampoo.

Five dogs (14%) had a partial response and needed other therapies.

92% percent of owners attested to their pet’s enhanced quality of life, with 74% of dogs displaying at least a 50% improvement in owner-reported behaviour, mood, sleep and playing activities. 

The study also reported a 46% reduction in caregiver burden.

Felicity Caddick, Technical Services Manager at Vetoquinol said: “Managing skin conditions often requires the long-term use of shampoos or topical therapies.

"Many owners find this aspect of pet ownership challenging, especially with larger dogs, or less cooperative animals.

"FLE can reduce or in some cases eliminate the need for topical therapies at home, not only simplifying the treatment process but also enhancing convenience and compliance.

"Sharing responsibility for administering ongoing treatment with their vet practice also removes some of the worry associated with their pet’s health.”

Vetoquinol also highlights that Phovia can offer vets a drug-free management option for skin disorders that aligns with the principles of antibiotic stewardship. 

Reference

1. Mosca, M. , Briand, A. , Carrasco, I. , Luciani, L. and Fantini, O. (2023) Impact of Fluorescent Light Energy on the Quality of Life of Dogs with Dermatologic Disease and Their Owners. Open Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 13, 122-135. doi: 10.4236/ojvm.2023.137011.

The Chief Veterinary Officer Christine Middlemiss has reassured pet owners that there is no cause for alarm after a cat was diagnosed with coronavirus last week.

Christine said: "Tests conducted by the Animal and Plant Health Agency have confirmed that the virus responsible for COVID-19 has been detected in a pet cat in England.

"This is a very rare event with infected animals detected to date only showing mild clinical signs and recovering within in a few days.

"There is no evidence to suggest that pets directly transmit the virus to humans. We will continue to monitor this situation closely and will update our guidance to pet owners should the situation change."

Yvonne Doyle, Medical Director at Public Health England, said: "This is the first case of a domestic cat testing positive for COVID-19 in the UK but should not be a cause for alarm.

"The investigation into this case suggest that the infection was spread from humans to animal, and not the other way round. At this time, there is no evidence that pets can transmit the disease to humans.

The pet cat was initially diagnosed by a vet with feline herpes virus, but the sample was also tested for SARS-CoV-2 as part of a research programme at the Centre for Virus Research at Glasgow University. Follow-up samples tested at the APHA laboratory in Weybridge confirmed the cat was also co-infected with SARS-CoV2 , the virus known to cause COVID-19 in humans.

BSAVA advice for practising vets about coronavirus is here and further information about testing is available here.