Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The survey was conducted following the recent RCVS Council decision to redefine ‘Under Care’ to allow vets to prescribe remotely.
692 veterinary surgeons took part in the survey, 88.7% of which worked in practice, 8.7% worked elsewhere and 2.6% are retired.
42.4% worked in corporate practice, 42.4% at an independent practice (spooky), 9.6% locum and 2.6% at a charity.
94% worked in first opinion practice, 5.7% in referral practice.
When asked: “Do you agree with the RCVS Council decision to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe medication without having seen / examined the animal in person?”, 78.2% said no, 13.6% said yes and 8.2% said ‘ambivalent’.
This raises an interesting discussion about the role of RCVS Council, which the College has long said is ‘representative of’, but not there 'to represent’ the profession in self-regulating.
By any measure, this decision was not ‘representative of’ the wider body of opinion.
It could be argued that electorates vote for representatives to make more informed decisions than they themselves are able, and certainly MPs have voted in ways that are not representative of the wider body of public opinion.
But this is the veterinary profession. MPs have to represent a wide cross-section of society, some groups of which might struggle to field one working brain cell between them.
By contrast, veterinary surgeons are a highly intelligent, highly educated subset of the population, who you might assume are better qualified to make decisions on matters such as these.
So why this level of disagreement? We asked respondents to select any benefits and drawbacks they think remote prescribing will bring, from a list but with the option for them to write in any we hadn’t thought of.
When asked to select benefits of remote prescribing, the majority (70.9%) selected: “Reduced cost to the pet owner (driving/parking etc)’.
39.3% said it would bring an improvement to vets’ quality of life through more flexible working.
27.5% said animal welfare would be improved through increased access to veterinary services.
14.3% said it would bring an ‘Improved client/vet relationship’.
Of those people who selected a benefit, 49.9% said the biggest benefit of remote prescribing is a reduced cost to the pet owner (driving / parking etc).
Other benefits highlighted in the comments section were
Notably, in the comments section for the benefits of remote prescribing, out of the 104 comments, 33 actually commented 'no benefit' or negatively.
When asked to select the drawbacks of remote prescribing, 94.3% selected: ‘Harm to animals caused by misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses.
68% said: Worsened client / vet relationship
60.6% said: Threat to independent practice (corporates funnelling clients from online consults to their practices).
Other drawbacks identified by respondents were:
Amongst the written drawbacks, the biggest themes concerned abuse of drugs and antimicrobial resistance.
When those who had selected a drawback were then asked which was the biggest, 83.3% said ‘Harm to animals caused by misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses”
So in simple terms, in weighing up the pros and cons, it’s between the reduced cost to the owner on the one hand, cited by 70.9%, and harm to animal welfare on the other, cited by 94%. And the harm to animal welfare was selected by significantly more vets as the biggest concern, than reduced cost was selected as the biggest benefit.
In other words, vets think remote prescribing will make veterinary care cheaper, but at the overall cost to animal welfare.
British Veterinary Association President Malcolm Morley said: “New technology presents many opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services, with potential benefits for vets, clients and patients.
"However, we recognise there are concerns within the profession, particularly around the potential unintended consequences of the RCVS’s revised guidance on ‘under care’ in relation to animal welfare and access to veterinary services.
"This survey echoes these concerns as well as supporting the British Veterinary Association’s call for the RCVS to commit to a post-implementation review.”
In a statement issued this morning, the College explained that a review carried out after tea yesterday afternoon concluded that in the post pandemic world, most of its staff will continue to work from home. The need for office space is therefore limited to three meeting rooms and a kitchenette.
VetSurgeon.org understands that as a result, negotiations are already well advanced between the College and the owners of Ugland House in the Cayman Islands (pictured right) over the sale of one floor of the building, which is also home to 20,000 companies based on the tax-efficient island.
RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: “This move makes all sorts of sense. It represents a considerable cost-saving over our London premises and it puts the College at the very centre of the global veterinary community.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett was last seen browsing the beachwear section of www.harrods.com.
The RCVS has responded to the outcry sparked by the Disciplinary Committee striking off a veterinary surgeon that delayed an out-of-hours home visit to a dog that had been run over by its owner, a farmer.
The RCVS response addresses three main issues raised by the case:
However, the College has not yet responded to many of the other issues being debated, including:
For the full response, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/response-to-feedback-on-recent-disciplinary-hearing/
Locum David John Porter has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for rude and aggressive behaviour, deficient clinical standards and obstructing the Committee's investigation into the complaints against him.
Three charges were found against Mr Porter.
The first charge (charge A) concerned failure to communicate courteously and respectfully with colleagues. This charge related to four incidents as follows:
In finding him guilty of this charge the Committee referred to his “wholly unacceptable exchanges with other veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and ancillary practice staff members with whom he was working on the dates in question.”
The second charge for which he was found guilty (charge C) concerned what the Committee called “his seriously deficient clinical standards when treating animals under his care”, in particular that:
Within charge C he was cleared of two further parts of the charge – first, that he failed to discuss euthanasia with a client in relation to a kitten and failed to provide the client with sufficient advice and instructions regarding after-care; and, second, that he prescribed steroids to treat a kitten for muscle strain at a time when it was recovering from surgery.
The third charge for which he was found guilty (charge D) relates to Mr Porter’s failure, between 7 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, to respond adequately to communications from the RCVS. In particular that:
As to the conduct found proved in relation to charge D, the Committee set out its findings of fact and declared: “What Mr Porter chose to do was to attempt to obstruct the College in its attempts to investigate the complaints laid against him and, thereafter, its attempts to bring him before the Committee to answer the charges preferred against him. In short, he has directly questioned, and then disregarded and thwarted, the legitimate role of his professional regulatory body.”
The Committee’s reasons for taking a serious view of such conduct were expressed in the following words: “Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the expectation that all veterinary surgeons, as responsible professional persons, will co-operate fully and promptly to all proper enquiries made of them by the College. This is the wider public interest factor which means that deliberate attempts to thwart the College’s enquiries into complaints must, in our judgment, come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
During the course of the hearing, which began in June 2015 and was adjourned three times, Mr Porter was cleared of charge B against him which concerned alleged refusal to undertake out-of-hours work for the Clent Hills Veterinary Group having previously indicated he would undertake such work.
In making the decision on the sanction in this case, Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In reaching our conclusion as to the sanction which is merited in this case we have taken into account the totality of Mr Porter’s conduct and failings. We consider that the conduct pertaining to Charges D(i) and (ii), even when viewed separately, demand the imposition of a direction for the removal of Mr Porter’s name from the Register.
“When that conduct is considered in conjunction with the other misconduct found proved in relation to Charges C1 to C4, which identify his clinical failings, and Charges A1 to A4, which demonstrate unprofessional behaviour in the workplace, we unhesitatingly conclude that there is no other sanction that could be considered sufficient, other than that of erasure.”
Surrey veterinary surgeon Kumaran Kanesh has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted in the Crown Court for wounding with intent and false imprisonment.
At the one-day hearing, the Committee heard how Kumaran Kanesh, who completed his veterinary studies in Sri Lanka before moving to the UK in 2003 to undertake further studies, had been sentenced to four restriction orders under the Mental Health Act at the Kingston Crown Court on 25 March 2013, following his attack on a woman and child in August 2012.
During the summer of 2012, following a period of worsening mental illness and increasing paranoia about people, Mr Kanesh had launched a pre-planned assault against Mrs A and Child B. In what the Crown Court Judge described as an extremely violent, deeply distressing and seemingly frenzied attack, Mr Kanesh bound and gagged Child B and Mrs A, before proceeding to cut Child B's eyelids with a knife. When Mrs A managed to free herself and tried to protect the child, Mr Kanesh then attacked her, stabbing her 17 times in the subsequent struggle. Both Child B and Mrs A ultimately managed to escape, where they were assisted by members of the public, before the police arrived to arrest Mr Kanesh. The Committee noted that both Mrs A and Child B had since made a good physical recovery from their injuries, although their psychological well being was still in question.
Following the attack, Mr Kanesh was remanded in custody before being transferred to Broadmoor Hospital, where he was retained under the Mental Health Act until sentencing. Consultant psychiatrist Dr Samrat Sengupta told the sentencing hearing that Mr Kanesh suffered from paranoid schizophrenia with symptoms characterised by "persecutory and self-reverential delusional ideations" about members of his family and the wider public. He added that the degree of Mr Kanesh's illness warranted his ongoing hospitalisation and treatment, and that the possibility of relapse from failing to take his medication was a real concern. Passing sentence, his Honour Judge Price QC told Mr Kanesh: "Because of your untreated illness, your mental illness overwhelmed you and you behaved in an extremely violent and deeply distressing way ... I am quite satisfied that you committed those acts while suffering from mental illness. The tragedy is that if you had taken the medication then perhaps none of this would have occurred."
At the outset of the Disciplinary Committee hearing, which Mr Kanesh attended escorted by a mental health nurse, he admitted the convictions and that they rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. Mrs A had written to the College stating she was supportive of Mr Kanesh and that she understood his behaviour had resulted from his ill-health. Dr Sengupta also wrote to the College stating that Mr Kanesh had since responded well to medication with complete resolution of his symptoms and had been moved to a lesser secure environment for further rehabilitation.
In its submissions to the Committee, the College stated that Mr Kanesh's convictions represented some of the most serious offences that it could consider, which, had he been of sound mind, would have led to a significant period of imprisonment. His conduct was of such an exceptionally serious nature as to significantly damage the reputation of the veterinary profession and undermine the public's confidence in it, regardless of the underlying reasons. The Committee accepted the College's submissions and found Mr Kanesh unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee acknowledged that Mr Kanesh was suffering from a severe, acute psychiatric disorder and was unknown to the UK mental health services at the time of the incident, but noted that he had caused serious physical and mental harm to two individuals, and that his actions had involved a breach of trust, a vulnerable victim, premeditation and a high level of violence.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The seriousness of these offences is self-evidently damaging to the reputation of the veterinary profession and the confidence of the public in the profession. [We] accept that if [Mr Kanesh] fails to maintain his regimen of medication, there is a real risk of a possible relapse ... The only possible sanction in this case is to direct the Registrar to remove [Mr Kanesh's] name from the Register."
The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the register for three months, for not carrying out or arranging the euthanasia of a cat, and for dishonesty in his subsequent account of events.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mr Bogdanowicz admitted all the parts of the charge, which related to events occurring around 24 June 2011, whilst he was working at Best Friends Veterinary Group, Thrapston.
The Committee was asked to decide if Mr Bogdanowicz's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and to decide upon any sanction.
Mr Bogdanowicz had been requested by the owners of Jason, a 14-year old Maine Coon cat, to undertake euthanasia, rather than further treatment following abdominal surgery.
Unknown to Jason's owners, Mr Bogdanowicz instead allowed a registered veterinary nurse to take the cat home, from where it subsequently escaped.
Mr Bogdanowicz then colluded in an attempt made by the veterinary nurse to cover up what had occurred and only told the truth when discrepancies in the nurse's story were challenged by the practice.
In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied Mr Bogdanowicz's decision not to put the cat to sleep was taken without full reflection on the consequences of the decision.
It was also satisfied that there was no evidence of injury to Jason and no payment had been sought or made for putting the cat to sleep. He had apologised to the cat's owners and was truthful to the College after the complaint was made.
Mr Bogdanowicz had an otherwise unblemished career and produced impressive testimonials from his clients as evidence of the high regard in which he was held.
However, the Committee also found that despite having had several occasions to tell his employers the truth, Mr Bogdanowicz had done so only after inconsistencies were revealed in the account of the veterinary nurse.
By not asking for the cat to be brought back for a post-operative check, Mr Bogdanovicz had also abdicated his own professional responsibilities.
Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee considers that it is unlikely that Mr Bogdanowicz will put himself in a similar position again. Having heard his evidence, it has formed the view that he has learnt his lesson from these proceedings.
"The Committee considers that it would perform a disservice to the community at large to direct a lengthy suspension of Mr Bogdanowicz's name from the Register."
The Committee directed that Mr Bogdanowicz's name be suspended from the Register for three months.
The proposal seems to have its roots in the First Rate Regulator initiative announced by Nick Stace in November 2012. As part of the initiative, the College commissioned Sally Williams and Associates to conduct research amongst stakeholders and report back with recommendations for being a first rate regulator.
One of those recommendations was to move to the civil standard of proof (page 33/34 here). There is no stated rationale for this recommendation, other than: "The majority of other professional regulators have moved to the civil standard of proof".
Nevertheless, the recommendation then found its way into the RCVS 2017-2019 Strategic Plan.
The proposal was then mentioned in the published summary of the Legislation Working Party's meeting in December 2017:
"In considering reform to the disciplinary process, the Registrar noted that the RCVS is one of the only regulators (and the only healthcare-based regulator) still using the criminal standard of proof (‘beyond all reasonable doubt’) when determining the facts of a case. Most other regulators used the civil standard of proof (‘on the balance of probabilities’) when making their determinations. Consideration of moving to the civil standard has also been carried over from the College’s previous Strategic Plan and the Registrar agreed to review the last six months’ cases to assess what the likely outcome of those cases would have been under the civil standard, and the cost of change. The Working Party also decided to contact other regulators about their disciplinary processes, in order to gather information about their experiences of what does and does not work, both for long-standing issues and new reforms."
The proposal then resurfaced last week in the Veterinary Record, which reported that the College is in 'advanced discussions' about adopting the lower standard (Standard of Proof for disciplinaries could change).
The College has now issued a statement to VetSurgeon.org as follows:
"The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) is currently very much in the minority of regulators still using the criminal standard of proof ('beyond all reasonable doubt') in its disciplinary proceedings, rather than the civil standard of proof ('on the balance of probabilities').
"By comparison, all nine of the healthcare regulators in the human field (as overseen by the Professional Standards Authority) have moved to the civil standard, as have other regulators such as the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
"In our last two strategic plans we have committed to considering whether or not the RCVS should change the standard of proof in line with other regulators and these discussions have been taking place as part of the ongoing deliberations around legislative reform.
"A change to the standard of proof would require an amendment of our 2004 Procedure and Evidence Rules via the Privy Council rather than new primary legislation, but we would consult with the profession before any such changes were made and, at present, this matter has not been put before RCVS Council for a decision."
COMMENT
So, as it stands now, no evidence has yet been presented to the profession which supports the need for - or benefits of - a change to the standard of proof required in disciplinaries. The idea that it should be done simply because 'that's what the other regulators are doing' does not hold water. The veterinary profession is unique. According to the College's own research, it enjoys a remarkably high level of trust amongst the public. But at the same time, it also suffers one of the highest suicide rates.
Clearly Council will need to reflect extremely carefully on whether the members of such a widely trusted profession should face an even greater threat of losing their career, particularly when they seem to be at such a risk of vexatious complaints, fear of a disciplinary is already so high, and the consequences of this change on mental health in the profession could be so profound.
It may even be true to say that lives could depend on this decision.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing "serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination, of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.
However, before the Committee considered any of the facts behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertakings.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.
"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of the heads of charge were found proven.
"We do not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of service without any adverse findings having been made against him."
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and the BVA to help the profession prepare for and shape its own future, has published a guest blog in which an academic argues that the profession needs to introduce safeguards to prevent inappropriate profit-seeking behaviour.
David Main is Professor of Animal Welfare at the School of Veterinary Sciences at the University of Bristol, with research interests in welfare assessment, animal welfare education and intervention strategies to improve welfare.
In his blog (www.vetfutures.org.uk/discuss), Professor Main says he believes the vast majority of individual veterinary surgeons and practices are not motivated by money and do have animals’ best interests at heart, but that the differences between the business structure of veterinary and medical practitioners in the UK means the profession is always at risk of standing accused of excessive profiteering.
He said: “Since we still live in the age of the media scare story, it would seem prudent for the profession to embed some anti-profit seeking safeguards in our regulatory controls before, rather than after, a problem is highlighted.” One suggestion he makes is for the prohibition of turnover-based incentive schemes in favour of incentives based on health outcomes.
He believes that such safeguards, which he says could be incorporated into the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, would be a “healthy demonstration” that the profession has animal welfare rather than profit as its main priority.
Professor Main also argues that the profession urgently needs to deliver on society’s expectation of vets as animal welfare experts: “Veterinarians could perhaps... do more at an individual level to act as animal welfare advocates. It is easy to inform clients on the technical rationale for a specific husbandry change but then walk away knowing full well the client will not action the advice. In the medical profession, advanced communication techniques are becoming more widely accepted to promote positive change within their patients. Perhaps we should be more explicit in teaching our veterinary students influencing skills.”
In response to David’s blog, this month’s Vet Futures poll asks visitors ‘Do vets always act as animal welfare advocates?’
The previous month’s poll, which was based on an article co-written by Erwin Hohn and Adi Nell from MediVet, asked to what extent vets would be willing to work collaboratively with others if it would benefit all. Of the 50 people who answered the poll, 60% said they would be completely willing to work with others, 32% a lot and 8% to some degree – no one said they would be unwilling to work with others.
Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.
Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.
On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.
On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.
After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.
Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.
Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.
Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.
Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.
The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.
The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.
Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.
However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.
In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.
The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.
Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."
She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."
The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon formerly practising in Southampton for failing to make animal welfare his primary concern.
At a hearing this week, adjourned from September 2010, the Disciplinary Committee heard charges against Michael Albring, formerly of VetCall practice, Bitterne, Southampton. Mr Albring was said to have failed to make a home visit to attend Bear, a Newfoundland dog belonging to Mrs Thacker, when he knew, or ought to have known, that there were clinical or welfare grounds making a home visit necessary.
The hearing was held in Mr Albring's absence; the Committee considered that, having postponed the case last year at his request, Mr Albring had had ample time to prepare his case and submit any mitigations, and sufficient opportunity to attend. Additional adjournment would further delay the matter's resolution and not be in the wider interests of justice, or public confidence in either the RCVS disciplinary system or the veterinary profession.
On the evening of 19 December 2009, Mr Albring had been the veterinary surgeon on duty at VetCall, a practice that provides the out of-hours emergency cover for several local veterinary practices, including the one where Bear was registered. When Mrs Thacker's daughter, Ms Davidson, telephoned VetCall to request a home visit as the dog had collapsed, she was told that it was against practice policy for the practice to be left unmanned so this would not be possible. This was despite a written policy which accepted and made provision for the rare occasions when a home visit would be necessary. Phoning again later, the information about practice policy was repeated and Ms Davidson directed to a local animal ambulance service, which attended.
The ambulance driver found that the dog could not be transported in the ambulance and telephoned VetCall to say a home visit was needed. This was refused by Mr Albring even, the Committee noted, when the ambulance driver offered to collect Mr Albring, drive him to Ms Davidson's home 10-15 minutes away, assist with the euthanasia, and return him to the clinic. In the interim, Ms Davidson had also sought help from a separate practice and, subsequent to Mr Albring's refusal to visit, their on-duty veterinary surgeon attended and euthanased Bear.
The Committee found that Mr Albring's refusal to visit, once it was clear Bear could not be transported, and he knew that a home visit was necessary on welfare grounds, resulted in Bear spending longer than necessary in pain and distress. This was not a case where the pressure of work or the welfare needs of other animals prevented Mr Albring from attending, and it was also relevant that Mr Albring was specifically employed to work out of hours in an emergency clinic. Serious, too, was his failure to reply promptly to communications from the RCVS, or show insight into the seriousness of his conduct.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated case, and there were no previous findings against Mr Albring. He was in sole charge of an emergency clinic covering 15-20 practices across Southampton and Portsmouth, which would make, in some circumstances, home visits difficult.
Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee is concerned that the actual policy pursued by the clinic regarding domiciliary visits was different to the written one.
"In effect, a no-visits policy existed at the VetCall clinic and this must have added to the pressure under which the Respondent [Mr Albring] was working.
"The Committee is mindful that the object of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain appropriate standards," she continued, noting that as animal welfare had knowingly been neglected and Mr Albring had demonstrated no insight, a warning or reprimand would not be enough. "A period of suspension would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards," she said.
The Committee directed that Mr Albring's name be suspended from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for ten months.
According to the College, the increase in fees is needed primarily to develop its regulatory capacity for paraprofessionals. However it also says it needs to increase fees to pay for a new, Midlands-based headquarters designed by Foster and Partners, following the announcement last year about the sale of Horseferry Road.
Brexit is another significant factor in the decision to raise fees.
As has been widely reported, the College has already been on a number of fact-finding trips to India, with a view to making up the shortage of vets in the UK with graduates from Indian vet schools. But however forward-thinking these trips were, they have not borne fruit in time for Brexit.
For this reason, the College has announced that it has set aside an emergency contingency fund of £6M in order to fly as many as twenty veterinary surgeons from India and pay them to act as OVs on short term contracts in the event of a no deal Brexit.
An RCVS spokesperson said: "Brexit has dominated proceedings over the last two years, and we have been working collaboratively with our colleagues in Defra and the BVA to make appropriate plans to ensure that vital veterinary work will continue, whatever the outcome of Brexit. However, we have been unable to persuade the government to put veterinary surgeons on the Shortage Occupation List and our only alternative is to recruit from abroad."
Dr Frill Poao from the Indian Veterinary Association Kerala said: "We are standing by to help our British colleagues in their time of need".
Photo: Could the new RCVS headquarters look something like this? Foster and Partners also designed London City Hall. Gary Knight / Wikipedia CC BY-SA 2.0
Earlier this month, the government had exempted veterinary surgeries from the requirement to close their doors during the pandemic. Strictly speaking, the exemption meant that practices could carry on offering the same level of service as before, provided they followed further government guidelines on social distancing.
However, the College then advised that non-essential treatments should not be carried out until further notice, and that animals should only be seen in emergency, or if their health was likely to deteriorate as a result of inaction.
This included vaccination, where RCVS advice stated that whilst routine vaccinations were considered not urgent, there "may be scenarios where, in your professional judgement, vaccines are being given to reduce a real and imminent risk of disease; this includes in the face of an animal disease outbreak, or in a scenario where part of a vaccine course has been given and the animal may be exposed to the disease."
The updated College guidelines, issued last Thursday evening, appeared little changed, except to say that its advice concerning vaccinations is under review. Meanwhile, its new flowchart gives a very clear framework for veterinary professionals to work within, essentially leaving it to your own professional judgement to weigh up the risks.
However, the BVA went further, declaring amongst other things, that:
Vaccinations – we are now recommending that primary vaccinations and year 1 boosters in dogs and cats go ahead due to the increased risk of disease outbreak over a longer period of time, and annual leptospirosis vaccination due to the zoonotic risk. If additional component of the core vaccine is due at the same time, it should also be administered. In addition, we’re recommending rabbit vaccinations go ahead due to the seasonal disease risks. Rabies vaccinations should be carried out if required for certification reasons
.... leading to an outcry that the BVA's advice appeared to be being relaxed at precisely the point when the government is imploring the public to stay at home, and that:
To add further fuel to the flames, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association then issued a statement to the effect that it had not been consulted during the preparation of the new BVA guidelines, which BVA past President Robin Hargreaves felt was so economical with the truth that he resigned his BSAVA membership on the spot.
COMMENTAt the end of it all, there is but one simple truth for every veterinary surgeon who is working in these difficult times, and it is this: The government and the RCVS guidance gives you the freedom to exercise your professional judgement concerning whether or not an animal needs to be seen for whatever reason. Provided you can explain why you reasonably concluded that an animal should or should not be seen, that is all that matters. It trumps everything else.
This whole farago has highlighted a number of important issues in the profession, starting with the social media conspiracy theories that the new guidance came after pressure from corporate practices when as far as I can tell, it appears to have been driven by a genuine concern that that failure to vaccinate could cause significant welfare issues in the future.
That seems a reasonable argument, and very much in line with the College advice. But that in turn raises a far bigger question, which is what on earth the BVA (a voluntary membership organisation) was doing issuing what appeared to be instructions ostensibly for all members of the profession. Notwithstanding the fact that BVA recommendations have no legal weight, having all these chefs running around with different recipe books is itself a recipe for muddled communications and confusion over leadership.
In turn, that raises the even bigger question of what the BVA's role should be. Should it be snuggling up in bed with the RCVS, issuing joint edicts? Or should it instead be holding the College to account, challenging its decisions and demanding clarification where clarification is necessary. I would argue the latter. In this situation, the ONLY organisation issuing guidelines about vaccinations for practising vets should be the regulator. And it is the role of the BVA to challenge those guidelines if necessary, or to demand clarification.
Which leads me on to the next thing, which is that increasingly, members of the profession seem to demand explicit rules or guidelines to operate within. There are lots of hypotheses for why this might be true. Perhaps because we live in a more (or seemingly more) litigious world and veterinary professionals like the reassurance rules provide. Perhaps it is because the younger cohort of vets lack the self-confidence needed for decision-making. Perhaps corporatisation has a part to play, in that employees of larger organisations tend to play more by the rules. Or perhaps it is a consequence of the growth in the 'refer everything’ culture which means vets take fewer clinical risks.
Whatever the reason, it seems clear that in some cases, the RCVS tack of "you're a professional, decide for yourself" is perfectly reasonable, whereas on other occasions, such as Schedule 3, more explicit guidelines are demonstrably necessary. Once again, surely the role of the BVA as the "Voice of the profession” is not to issue its own advice, but to press the College for more explicit guidelines as necessary.
Lastly, there is the role of Facebook in all of this. Quite obviously vets are no more immune to conspiracy theories than members of the public who think that coronavirus is spread by 5G telephone masts. Sadly, the truth is usually far less exciting. However, the problem at the moment is that the growth in social media and Facebook groups has left the regulator and the representative associations on the back foot, such that it is often left to individuals from those organisations who 'happen to come across OK online' (rather than having any properly defined role) to firefight.
Photo: https://www.scientificanimations.com/wiki-images/
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The overall aim of this event is to gather stakeholders' thoughts and insights on the need for GP specialty training, the potential impact and advantages to the profession as well as any potential risks.
"Those in attendance will also discuss what appropriate content for this training should be and explore potential learning environments, and prerequisites for how the training might be implemented”.
“After an introduction to the VCCP project, we will then be asking participants to consider some of the key questions around the development of this curriculum.
"This includes: establishing the overarching purpose of the training programme with reference to the needs of the workforce, the profession and veterinary care services; identifying appropriate areas of content for the training; identifying suitable learning environments; and establishing consideration of the required mechanisms of supervision and support.
“In terms of attendees, we are very keen to have a good mix of people including those working in independent veterinary practices as well as corporate environments, those working in general practice, Advanced Practitioners, Specialists and those who work in the education sector.
"The focus groups will be on interactivity, finding solutions and building engagement – we want all voices to be heard and all ideas to be shared.”
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/rcvs-veterinary-clinical-career-pathways-stakeholder-focus-group-tickets-873231397617?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Given the above-inflation rise in the cost of veterinary care, leading to the Competition and Markets Review and the proposed Formal Market Investigation, is now really the moment to be adding yet another layer of training and qualification, with attendant costs which will ultimately be borne by the pet-owning public?
And where is the need for a Specialist status for general practitioners?
Isn't one of the biggest issues facing general practitioners today the referall (sic) culture which has developed in recent years, leading to the deskilling of GPs, reduced job satisfaction and increased costs for pet owners?
Isn't it now the time to call a halt to further specialisation and instead focus on cutting costs, reducing the regulatory burden, and encouraging all GPs to regain lost skills so they can all deliver first class, affordable, pragmatic care for the masses?
Just a thought.
Amongst the proposals agreed by Council was to move towards an independent appointment system for Council membership to replace the current election system.
In addition, Council voted:
Council was tied on whether to separate the position of RCVS President and the Chair of RCVS Council, meaning that this will come back for decision at a later date following the consultation.
RCVS President susan paterson, said: “The unique way that RCVS Council is currently constituted with annual elections to Council is an old model of self-regulation which is no longer found in other professions including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, solicitors and social workers, among others.
“As a responsible regulator we have a duty to operate in a way that recognises modern principles of regulation, and best meets our objectives to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare by setting, upholding and advancing the educational, ethical and clinical standards for the veterinary professions.
"The College’s recommendations would see us retain self-regulation in the sense of independence from government, and maintain registrants within our governance framework, while better assuring the public that we are acting on their behalf.
“It is our firm belief that, among other things, moving to an all-appointed Council member system, whereby those who serve on Council are selected via an independent process based on their knowledge and experience to ensure input from all parts of the veterinary sector, will better serve our aims, as will having a better balance of professional and lay members.
"Of course, veterinary expertise, knowledge and experience will also remain a vital part of any future arrangements throughout our committee structure, so the veterinary voice will be as important as ever in our policy and decision-making processes.
rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/18-january-2024/
Further details about the consultation process will be published in due course.
Discuss here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/non-clinical-questions/30878/what-do-you-think-about-the-rcvs-proposals-to-stop-council-elections-and-move-to-appointed-members-with-equal-or-almost-equal-number-of-lay-members/243481
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off the Register a veterinary surgeon who delayed attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, causing her to suffer unnecessarily.
Following a two-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending Mitzi, a fourteen-and-a-half-year-old Labrador cross, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.
On 9 September 2011, Mr Chikosi had been working as a locum veterinary surgeon at the Vets Now out-of-hours emergency service in Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, when Mitzi's owner telephoned him to say that his dog was severely injured and to request a home visit for the purpose of euthanasia.
At Mr Chikosi's request, the owner attempted to bring Mitzi into the practice using a blanket. However, it was not possible to get Mitzi into a Land Rover, and she uncharacteristically bit the owner's son, so her owner called the practice again.
Mr Chikosi repeated the request to bring the dog in, saying that he was unable to leave the practice because he was looking after other animals, but that he could possibly organise another veterinary surgeon to visit "probably within the next hour or two".
The Committee considered Mr Chikosi's actions in context of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2011, which listed a number of factors for veterinary surgeons to consider when deciding whether to attend an animal away from the practice premises.
These included the likely treatment needed, the possibility of the animal being safely conveyed to the veterinary surgery, the health status of the animal and ability of the owner to manage the animal's pain until veterinary attention could be sought during normal hours, and travelling time for the veterinary surgeon.
However, the Committee found Mr Chikosi had made no enquiries to determine whether Mitzi was in a fit condition to be moved, and offered no advice as to how her condition could be alleviated whilst waiting for the home visit. Further, his advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back.
The Committee concluded that, from the outset, Mr Chikosi took the stance that he was unable to leave the practice because he was the only veterinary surgeon present.
However, the Committee noted, from the information available, that there were only three in-patients, no critical cases and a qualified veterinary nurse was present. The Committee found there was no good reason why he should not have attended the farm, which was only 10 to 15 minutes' drive away.
The Committee said that, by the time Mitzi's owner called a second time, it was clear that the out-of-hours service was experiencing difficulty finding a second veterinary surgeon but, instead of going to the farm himself, Mr Chikosi waited another hour until the second veterinary surgeon arrived at the out-of-hours service.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that the delay caused Mitzi unnecessary suffering, which was evidenced by her uncharacteristically biting [her owner's] son. [Her owner] had recognised the severity of the injuries and the need for euthanasia as soon as was practicable. [Mr Chikosi's] failure to attend a seriously injured dog promptly in the circumstances described falls far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon."
He directed that Mr Chikosi's name be struck off the Register.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week directed that the name of a man who had been illegally practising as a veterinary surgeon in the North West of England be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of fraudulent registration.
In March 2008, Russell Lewis Oakes had been charged with fraudulent entry onto the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, on the basis that he had (either (A) knowingly, or (B) unknowingly) submitted a fake degree certificate and letter of 'good standing' from Murdoch University, Australia. Mr Oakes agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence provided the Committee confined itself to consideration of charge B alone.
The hearing commenced on 18 April 2008, but the Committee decided to adjourn, as Mr Oakes was also subject to a police investigation which required that the hearing be held in private. The Committee felt that it was in the public interest for an open hearing to take place in respect of both charges at a later date. Mr Oakes' bail conditions prevented him from practising as a veterinary surgeon at this time.
On 16 October 2009, Mr Oakes was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court, on a guilty plea, of a substantial number of offences, including those under consideration by the Committee: he was sentenced on 11 January 2010 to two years in prison.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee's hearing resumed and concluded on 5 February 2010. Mr Oakes was not present.
The Committee was provided with evidence from RCVS staff regarding the registration process, and received statutory declarations from representatives at Murdoch University. The latter confirmed that signatures on the certificate submitted by Mr Oakes were fake and that there had never been a student with his name at the University. Furthermore, a letter purporting to be one of support from Professor Edwards of Murdoch University contained text he would not have written and was signed with a false signature.
The Committee was also provided with evidence from equine veterinary surgeon Seamus Miller, who had become suspicious of Mr Oakes' qualifications and membership of the College. He outlined incidents which had cast doubt on Mr Oakes' competence. Mr Miller's complaint had initiated enquires which led to the charges against Mr Oakes by the College, and the Committee recorded its commendation of Mr Miller, and his colleagues.
Having found that Mr Oakes knowingly submitted fraudulent registration documents, the Committee was bound, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and paragraph 17 of the 2004 Rules, to direct that his name be removed from the Register.
Alison Bruce, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Even if it retained any discretion by virtue of Section 16 of the Act in respect of sanction, the Committee would have had no hesitation in directing Mr Oakes' name to be removed from the Register in this case. This was a deliberate and dishonest offence by a man without the necessary qualifications to practise as a veterinary surgeon, and it had the effect of exposing members of the public to his fraud, and their animals to harm."
The College has revised its registration procedures in the light of this case, and now requests that all registrants produce original copies of certificates and letters of 'good standing' at the registration ceremony.
The organisations say that the RCVS position is that it expects veterinary surgeons to offer treatments "underpinned by a recognised evidence base".
However, what the RCVS position statement actually says is: "we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles".
As yet, neither the Faculty of Homeopathy nor the BAHVS have explained which sound scientific principles homeopathy may be based on.
The Faculty of Homeopathy and the BAHVS go on to say that misinformation concerning the efficacy of homeopathy has been promulgated by a small minority opposed to homeopathy.
However, a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and Alex Gough MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Group in 2013 found that 83% of veterinary surgeons opposed homeopathy, 78% to the degree that they felt it should not be practised under the the professional title of MRCVS.
The BAHVS response claims there is quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, in direct contradiction to the many and various bodies and studies that have concluded the reverse, including the NHS, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and more recently, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an organisation representing the 29 national academies in Europe including the Royal Society, which recently declared in a statement that: "homeopathy is implausible" and "there is no rigorous evidence to substantiate the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine."
The BAHVS claims there is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners, "as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects". It says: "this is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance".
However, the recent EASAC statement specifically singled out the use of homeopathy in farm animals, saying that the lack of evidence is: "particularly worrying when such products are used in preference to evidence-based medicinal products to treat livestock infections."
The BAHVS response says that if the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria it is using for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession; that the RCVS is limiting veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom. However, it doesn't substantiate this claim with examples of any clinical treatments used by veterinary surgeons which are not based on scientific principles and which would be limited if the same evidential standards applied.
VetSurgeon.org supports the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine.
Photo: Multicolored homeopathy tubes isolated on a white background. Lush. Shutterstock.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off Suffolk vet Oliver Fraser Lown after finding him guilty of five separate charges relating to the possession of extreme animal pornography and sexual activity with animals.
Mr Lown, who graduated from Szent Istvan University in Hungary and has stated that he has never practised in the UK, did not attend the Disciplinary Committee hearing but was represented by Mr Jo Cooper, a solicitor-advocate. He was accused of five charges of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect:
On the first day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to the Disciplinary Committee that the hearing should be held in private on the basis that any publicity about the case 'would offend public morality' due to the nature of the allegations and because the respondent's father suffers from ill-health, which could be adversely affected by any publicity. The Committee rejected the application on the grounds that the nature of the allegations was already in the public domain and that public justice in the context of professional regulation outweighed the private concerns of the respondent regarding his father.
On the second day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to adjourn charges 2 - 5 on the basis that he had already admitted, and received a conditional discharge, for the first charge and would, therefore, not oppose removal from the Register and an undertaking never to re-apply. The respondent also argued that the original decision of the College to register him in July 2013 was flawed because it was unfair to admit him, in awareness of his conditional discharge, apparently for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. He also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute him in respect of charge 4.
This application was dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee on the grounds of the gravity of charges 2 - 5 and the fact that the respondent chose to apply to join the Register and had been advised to seek legal advice regarding his conditional discharge beforehand. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee heard that there was no error at the time of his registration because the conditional discharge was not a conviction and therefore, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there was no option to refuse registration.
The respondent then made a final application to have the case adjourned on the grounds that new documentation he had received the previous day regarding his registration had led his lawyers to conclude that the decision to register him may have been unlawful. However, the Disciplinary Committee said that, in its understanding, the RCVS Registrar had no option but to register Mr Lown. The Disciplinary Committee then dismissed the application on the grounds that any challenge of the validity of registration could and should have been made within the three month time limit for judicial review and that no significant new documentation about Mr Lown's registration had come to light that could reasonably be said to have triggered a judicial review and warrant an adjournment. It also again highlighted the gravity of the charges.
The Disciplinary Committee then heard evidence in relation to charges 2 -5, including that of two officers from North Yorkshire Police who took part in the original investigation, who the Committee found to be credible and reliable witnesses, and, after reviewing the evidence, found that all four charges were proven.
The Committee then considered the appropriate sanction for Mr Lown, and took into account a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, premeditated misconduct, sexual misconduct, misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time and his lack of insight into the offences or his overall conduct.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In these circumstances, the Committee has no doubt that the respondent's conduct was of the utmost seriousness. The material found in possession of the respondent and his own conduct in charge 4 involved the abuse of animals and a total lack of respect for their welfare. In the judgement of the Committee each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct and the charges certainly amount to disgraceful conduct when taken cumulatively."
In order to safeguard animal welfare, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, the Disciplinary Committee directed the Registrar to remove Mr Lown's name from the Register.
More on this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348
The RCVS is encouraging veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team to respond to a government consultation on changing the law to introduce English language testing for veterinary surgeons who have qualified from elsewhere in the European Union.
Under the proposals outlined in the consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the test would apply before an individual joined the Register and only where the RCVS had ‘serious and concrete doubts’ about their English language abilities. The plan to consult on this issue had been welcomed by RCVS Council at its June 2015 meeting.
Every year, around half of all new veterinary surgeon registrants are from outside the UK, the majority from other EU or European Economic Area (EEA) countries. These individuals fall within the scope of the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (MRPQ) Directive, which applies to all EU nationals wishing to practise in a regulated profession in another member state.
Last year, a revised version of the MRPQ Directive came into force, which made a number of changes, including clarifying and reinforcing the role of competent authorities such as the RCVS. One of these changes is that language testing is expressly permitted, but only where serious concerns have been identified.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “Under the current legislation the College is not able to bar someone from joining the Register, and therefore practising, on the basis of language ability, even where we may have serious concerns.
“I would encourage all veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team to engage with this consultation and consider whether the College should have the right to impose a language test where it has serious doubts, more in line with medical doctors, and the form such testing would take.”
Under the proposals, applicants would be asked a series of questions concerning their language qualifications, experience and general ability to use the English language before registering. Depending on how they answer the questions they may then have to pass a language test before registering, or delay their application while they improve their language skills.
The consultation results will inform the College’s work with Defra to determine whether to proceed with implementation and, if so, to develop the most appropriate system of language testing. The College would implement language testing for veterinary nurses in parallel with any changes for veterinary surgeons.
Those who wish to take part in the consultation can do so at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare/vet_language_controls. The deadline for responses is Wednesday 30 September 2015.
RCVS President Neil Smith has issued a statement in response to the petition by Devon vet Jo Dyer which called for the removal of mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct and received just shy of 1300 signatures over the past 48 hours.
The statement reads:
"I am delighted to see that so many veterinary surgeons are taking seriously our call for views and evidence on all aspects of the provision of 24-hour emergency cover, including those who have signed up to veterinary surgeon Jo Dyer's petition calling for the removal of 'mandatory house visits' from the Code of Professional Conduct.
"However, I am concerned that the petition is working on a misunderstanding. Veterinary surgeons are not mandated to attend away from the practice just because an owner has requested a visit. It is a professional decision based on a range of factors.
"In fact, paragraph 3.13 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct states 'Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else, to provide the service.'
"I appreciate that recent disciplinary hearings, especially that of Mr Chikosi, have increased concerns in the profession that vets will be disciplined for not turning out to every single request for a home visit. This is not the case. In order for someone to be taken to a disciplinary hearing for refusing to attend away from the practice, first there needs to be a complaint, and second, the Preliminary Investigation Committee needs to be convinced that the veterinary surgeon could not justify their decision. Such cases are rare. In fact, last year, only 3% of the complaints we received were about 24-hour cover, and not all of those related to home visits.
"Having said this, the number of signatures received on Jo Dyer's petition, and the comments of the signatories, will be fed into the material reviewed by the Standards Committee, alongside formal responses to our call for evidence, and views gathered from animal-owner research. Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances, the wording of our guidance needs to be reviewed, at the very least.
"It is likely that any recommendations for change in our 24/7 policy would go to the June meeting of Council, although this timetable is subject to change, depending on the nature of the report from the Standards Committee."
ITV's Tonight programme broadcast last night portrayed a veterinary profession in which overcharging is commonplace.
Researchers for the programme took three healthy animals (a cat, a dog and a rabbit) to a number of different vets, telling them that the animals were off their food. The advice they were given varied. In the case of the rabbit from no treatment necessary, to dental work under general anaesthetic.
TV vet Marc Abraham then looked at each animal and told viewers that the correct advice in each case would have been the least expensive.
The programme also highlighted the substantial savings that pet owners can make by buying drugs online, and questioned whether the penalty meted out to a vet that had committed malpractice was sufficient (the vet had been struck off for 14 months, where presenter Jonathan Maitland argued it should have been for life).
Veterinary business consultant Mark Moran said: "So often, vets rely to a large degree on what owners are telling them, and the degree to which they insist the animal is ill, or off its food, will affect the advice and treatment given. Marc Abraham had the luxury of being presented three animals that he knew to be perfectly fit and well."
However he agreed wholeheartedly with the response from RCVS President Jill Nute this morning, that the thing both vets and pet owners need to learn from the programme is "the importance of communicating with each other".
Mark said: "It's a question of managing people's expectations. There'll always be a variance in the advice being given, but being up-front and open will help mitigate the risk of being accused of overcharging".
Click here to watch the programme. Click here to read the reactions to Marc Abrahams' blog
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended two veterinary surgeons from the Register after finding them guilty of lying to clients and the College about the circumstances of a castration procedure which led to the death of a dog.
The Committee suspended Mr Mpho Donald Lesolle and Mr Georgi Cheshmedzhiev from the Register for four and two months respectively, following surgery undertaken on Benson, a two-year-old male Labradoodle belonging to Mr and Mrs Grayson.
During the proceedings, the Committee heard that, on 6 August 2013, Mr and Mrs Grayson brought Benson to the Swinfen Veterinary Centre in Stafford, where Mr Lesolle is the practice principal and Mr Cheshmedzhiev was his assistant, for the operation which was undertaken by Mr Cheshmedzhiev. Mr Lesolle did not directly supervise the procedure telling the Committee that he was confident that his colleague could carry out the castration, having permitted him to do so on previous occasions.
The Committee heard that, after the operation, a nursing assistant, Ms Bell, had noticed that there was blood on the bedding and that Benson had a swollen scrotum. Mr Lesolle then performed a scrotal ablation on Benson, who was discharged later that day.
However, on the morning of 8 August 2013, Mrs Grayson discovered that Benson had died during the night. An independent post-mortem concluded that he had probably died of intra-abdominal bleeding which caused circulatory collapse. Mr and Mrs Grayson raised a concern with the RCVS in September 2013.
The charge against Mr Lesolle relates to his actions following the operations and during the investigation. The four parts of the charge were that he failed to be sufficiently open with Mr and Mrs Grayson on the circumstances of Benson’s surgery; that, in September 2013, he wrote to the College indicating that he had in fact performed the castration and failing to state that there had been two operations; that, on 23 January 2014, he informed Pam Mosedale, a Veterinary Investigator employed by the College, that he had carried out both procedures; and that, on the same day, he also encouraged his veterinary nursing assistant Ms Bell to be dishonest with the College’s investigators.
Mr Lesolle, who was present at the hearing, admitted all parts of the charge against him. He told the Committee that he decided to take responsibility for Mr Cheshmedzhiev’s operation out of a desire to protect his colleague whom he regarded as vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. He also accepted that he had encouraged Ms Bell to lie during her interview. He told the Committee that he had persisted with the deceit until 15 January 2015, when he gave a full account of what had occurred.
The three parts of the charge against Mr Cheshmedzhiev, who was not in attendance or represented at the hearing, were that in a letter to the College sent in September 2013, he indicated that he had not undertaken the castration procedure on Benson; that on 23 January 2014 he had denied carrying out the operation while being interviewed by Pam Mosedale; and that, on 19 June 2014, while being interviewed by a solicitor instructed by the College, he said that Mr Lesolle had carried out both procedures.
The Committee found the charge against Mr Lesolle amounted to serious professional misconduct, falling far short of what is expected of a professional. The Committee highlighted the protracted nature of his deceit and the fact that he encouraged another member of staff to participate in it. However, it did accept that his motivation was to protect Mr Cheshmedzhiev.
In deciding on the sanction for Mr Lesolle, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having taken the calculated decision to deceive the College as to what had occurred, he abused his position of responsibility to obtain support for his deceit by involving a junior employee, without any proper consideration of the effect of that decision upon her. Instead he continued with the deceit until he was presented with incontrovertible evidence that he had not carried out both procedures on the dog. In the Committee’s view he showed a wilful disregard for the College’s investigatory process.”
However, in mitigation, it also accepted that he was protecting a colleague and that there was no financial gain. It also considered his personal circumstances, the fact that he is sole principal of a small mixed practice which provides his sole source of income and that the rented accommodation also provides a home for his wife and two children. Taking all factors into account, the Committee imposed a sanction upon Mr Lesolle of four months’ suspension from the Register.
In regards to Mr Cheshmedzhiev, the Committee did not find the part of his charge relating to the letter sent in September 2013 to be proven but, in respect of the other two parts of his charge, found that his conduct fell far short of what is expected of a professional. It highlighted his willing participation in the deceit over a protracted period and his failure to take responsibility for his own involvement in the operation on Benson.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee said that the fact that Mr Cheshmedzhiev had lied to the College’s investigators on two occasions and did not admit that he had carried out the castration and apologise for his actions until February 2015, after he had returned to his native Bulgaria, was an aggravating factor.
Ian Green added: “The Committee accepts that he allowed himself to be persuaded by Mr Lesolle to provide a dishonest account of what had taken place to the College’s investigator Mrs Mosedale, and solicitor, Mr Hudson. It also accepts that he has been described by Mr Lesolle as a vulnerable person, lacking in self-confidence in his ability to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom.
“Nevertheless, Mr Cheshmedzhiev accepted the obligations contained in the Code of Professional Conduct when he registered as an MRCVS, which included an obligation to cooperate honestly with the College’s investigatory process. It has also noted that he has expressed a present intention not to work in or visit the United Kingdom again.”
Taking into account all factors, the Committee decided the appropriate sanction was to suspend him from the Register for two months.
Results for the 2010 RCVS Council elections have been released today and, following a slight increase in turnout for the second year running, four existing Council Members and one former Member have been returned for another four years. However, new to Council this year and securing the most votes was Preston-based veterinary practitioner David Catlow.
4,232 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,541 cast their votes this year, an increase of 0.6% from 18.2% in 2009. The results of the voting are as follows:
CATLOW, David Frederick. 2,383. Elected. TAPSFIELD-WRIGHT. Clare Joan. 2,352. Elected.SHIELD, Christine Fiona. 2,133. Elected.MOLYNEUX, Jacqueline Rosina. 2,111. Elected.SMITH, Neil Christopher. 2,089. Elected.PARTRIDGE, Robert Duncan. 1,971. Elected.NELL, Adi. 1,781. ANDERSON, Roy Paxton. 1,455. GODDARD, Philip Campbell. 1,385. LONSDALE, Thomas, 380.
Terms of office for the six successful candidates will (re)commence at RCVS Day on 2 July 2010.
Following a successful partnership last year, the RCVS again teamed up with this website to allow voters more opportunity to quiz the candidates directly and find out more about their views.
Once again, this seemed to prove popular with the electorate although it presented candidates with a large increase in their workload during the voting period. Page views in the election section rose 23% to 28,347 this year; 48 discussion threads were started (slightly down from 53) and total responses rose dramatically by 47% to 988.
A new incentive for members to vote this year was a pledge to donate 20p per voter to the DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal. A donation of just over £845 will therefore be made shortly.
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "An increase in turnout, if only a small one, is to be welcomed and I hope we can continue to increase members' interest in the composition and activities of RCVS Council. I'd like to thank all ten candidates who stood for election this year; my congratulations to those elected and my commiserations to those who weren't successful this time."
Note: there was no VN Council election this year as only two nominations were received for the two available places. These will be filled by Suzanne May RVN and Hilary Orpet RVN.