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
COMMENT
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.
The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.
The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.
The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.
At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.
Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.
In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.
The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.
However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.
Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.
"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Tweets
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
The course was developed with RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, Gurpreet Gill (pictured), and aims to increase self-awareness of unconscious bias, explore strategies to reduce it, and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Gurpreet said: “Unconscious bias is an area that some within the professions may not be familiar with and so this course provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact in the workplace.
“We also explore strategies that we can all apply to help reduce unconscious bias.
"This is important in helping to achieve fairer and more equitable working environments, and I’d encourage any veterinary professional, whatever your role, to undertake the course.”
The course is accessible free via the RCVS Academy, and takes about an hour and three quarters to complete,
Building on the unconscious bias course, the RCVSA academy has also launched a course for members of the Fellowship Credentials Panels, who are responsible for assessing applications to the Fellowship.
Dr Niall Connell FRCVS, Acting Chair of the Fellowship Board, the governing body for the learned society, said: “This course explores the complexities of assessing applications, ensuring that each candidate receives a fair and thorough evaluation.
"Participants will gain insights into best practices for reviewing applications, offering constructive feedback, and identifying and addressing potential biases that may influence decision-making.
"By completing this course, participants will gain a heightened proficiency in assessing applications and managing bias, enabling them to support the RCVS’ mission of fostering equity, diversity and inclusion within the Fellowship.”
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
All MsRCVS were set an email with a voting link and a unique voter code.
The College says it will be writing to the few vets for whom it has no unique email address with further instructions.
There are 14 candidates standing this year and you can now cast your votes for up to three of them by 5pm on Friday 26 April 2024.
The candidates are:
The full biographies and statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24 where each candidate has also answered two questions of their choice submitted by members of the profession.
The three candidates who receive the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the Annual General Meeting on Friday 5 July 2024.
Any vets who have not received their voting email should contact CES directly on support@cesvotes.com.
The CMA review generated 11,000 responses from people working in the veterinary industry, including 1/5th of the country's vets and nurses. There were a further 45,000 responses from the general public.
Issues identified by the review were that:
So far, the RCVS, the BVNA and IVC have all responded to the announcement, the RCVS welcoming the call for modernising the regulatory framework and the BVNA likewise (taking the opportunity to remind everyone that this would also be the moment to protect the 'veterinary nurse' title).
Meanwhile, IVC said that for its part, it has always tried to ensure its prices are competitive and that customers are informed of costs before treatment, adding that it believes price increases in the sector have been driven predominantly by the shortage of vets, necessary improvements to pay and conditions for veterinary professionals and inflation.
The CMA has now launched a 4-week consultation to seek views from the sector on the proposal to launch a market investigation.
The consultation closes on 11 April 2023 at which point it will consider the responses received and a decision will be made on how to proceed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-proposal-to-make-a-market-investigation-reference-into-veterinary-services-for-household-pets-in-the-uk
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
For the study, the RVC interviewed 13 small animal general practitioners, exploring their experience of providing pre-purchase consultations for brachycephalic dogs.
The study revealed a number of barriers to delivering effective pre-purchase consultations and advice about these breeds.
They included limited time and resources, competition for appointment availability, a perception that vets are only there to fix things, public distrust of veterinary surgeons (often over money), fear of damaging vet-client relationships, and the conflicting influence of breeders and the Kennel Club on clients.
Many veterinary surgeons that took part in the research felt that they had little or no power to overcome these barriers which are highly intractable at an individual veterinarian level.
A resulting moral conflict in veterinary surgeons between their perceived ethical and moral responsibilities to animal welfare versus the needs and wants of their clients and businesses was expressed by many vets in the study, and was felt to compromise their professional integrity and autonomy.
The study set out a series of recommendations:
Dr Rowena Packer, Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science at the RVC and lead author of the study, said: “This is the first time that the impact of brachycephaly on the practising veterinary surgeon has been explored.
"Our concerning results highlight the importance of recognising that the brachycephalic crisis is not only negatively impacting animals, but it is affecting human wellbeing too.
“Our study highlights the conflict that vets are experiencing - bound both by their duty of care to their brachycephalic patients, but also to animal welfare at a population level.
"Trying to balance both of these responsibilities in the current working environment is proving very challenging for some, leading to moral distress.
"It is, therefore, essential that we protect the mental wellbeing of vets on this issue as well as from an animal welfare perspective.
“As the brachycephalic crisis continues to prevail, the support of leading veterinary organisations is vital in providing a united voice regarding the known harms of brachycephaly and support in facilitating PPCs to ensure vets are protected, and potential owners are fully informed when it comes to acquiring decisions.”
Dr Dan O’Neill, Assoc Prof of Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and co-author of the study, said:
“Over the past decade, the RVC has generated a vast evidence base revealing the true extent of the serious health issues of dogs with brachycephaly.
"This new study now focuses RVC research towards protecting the wellbeing of practising veterinary surgeons who are also shown as victims of the brachycephalic crisis.
"The clear message here is that we all need to ‘stop and think before buying a flat-faced dog’.”
The event, which took place in Manchester in October last year, saw veterinary mental health researchers from across Europe come together to share their insights into a variety of areas of veterinary mental health including moral injury, suicide and suicide prevention, the impact of racism, veterinary nurse mental health, and workplace stressors for autistic veterinary professionals.
There were 77 attendees, including a mix of academic researchers and veterinary professionals.
Talks included an address from Dr Leah Quinlivan on ‘Evidence-based care for people who have self-harmed: risk prediction, psychosocial assessments and aftercare’, presentations of research into the impact of racism on the mental health of veterinary professionals and the impact of moral injury on wellbeing.
Angharad Belcher, Director for the Advancement of the Professions and of the Mind Matters Initiative gave a talk about the work of MMI, including its newly published 5-year strategy and evaluation documents.
She said: “The fourth Mind Matters Mental Health Research Symposium was a massively inspiring and insightful day.
"The field of veterinary mental health research is still relatively small so it remains of utmost importance that we continue to band together to share our knowledge on this subject, so that we can continue to learn and grow together and put these important learnings into practice.
“For us, it is vital that these new ground-breaking research projects are made available to all who want to learn more about helping to improve the mental health and wellbeing of those working within the veterinary professions.
"There is some truly fantastic work going on which provides us with hope that we can all continue to work together towards a brighter future.
“There is no doubt that there is a long way to go, but improvement starts with education and research so I would urge anybody who is interested in what is being done to help improve and support the mental health of those working within the veterinary professions, and who is keen to help us keep these vital conversations going, to have a look through the report or access videos of the talks.”
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/videos-from-the-day-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2023
https://vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2023
The Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of approved educational institutions (AEIs), delivery sites and the training practices (TPs) responsible for providing the training and support for student veterinary nurses.
The College reviews the standards framework every five years to ensure that AEIs, delivery sites and TPs have the structures to best provide contemporary and innovative approaches to education for student veterinary nurses, while being accountable for the local delivery and management of accredited programmes.
The new draft framework includes updates relating to sustainability and academic integrity.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “We are looking for veterinary nurses in all walks of life – as well as student nurses and veterinary surgeons – to provide constructive and specific feedback on our proposals.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for our students, prepare them for life in clinical practice, and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
“In fact, animal health and welfare and public safety is central to our standards.
Students will be in contact with patients and their owners throughout their education and it is important that they learn in a safe and effective way.”
The consultation runs until 5pm on Wednesday 3 April 2024 and all members of the veterinary team – including RVNs, student veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons – can take part in order to provide detailed feedback on each of the six core standards and each of individual requirements within these standards.
A PDF version of the new draft Standards Framework is available to download from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations.
If you have any questions about the document or how to respond to the survey, contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Team on vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk
Of particular note is the guidance that prescriptions should no longer be written in mg/kg, as it may lead to errors when the dose is calculated.
The Standards and Advice update also answers questions about:
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/features/prescribing-pom-vs-joint-guidance-from-the-rcvs-and-vmd/
Each candidate will produce a written reply to two questions of their choice, which will be included on their candidate profile webpage ahead of the start of the election.
The 14 candidates who are standing in this year’s election for the three available elected places on RCVS Council are:
The biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24.
The three candidates with the most votes will join Council for their four-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
The College says it will only accept one question per person and questions must be decent.
Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will not be passed on to candidates.
You can email your question to: vetvote24@rcvs.org.uk
RCVS Council recommended the increase due to inflationary pressures and increased business costs.
Dr Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS, RCVS Treasurer, said: “We recognise that these are difficult economic times, so Council has endeavoured to limit the fee increase as far as possible; however, in proposing these new fees, Council has had to take account both of increased costs due to inflation, and of additional costs related to ensuring we are fulfilling our regulatory remit to the best of our abilities and meeting our strategic priorities.
“For example, increased costs related to the additional number of veterinary degrees coming on stream, modernising our membership database, our Charter Case Committee, the trial of our private prosecutions protocol against non-vets breaching the Veterinary Surgeons Act, and much more besides.”
Vets need to pay their annual renewal this year by 1st April.
Anyone who hasn't paid by 1st May will face a late payment charge of £35.
Anyone who hasn't paid by 1st June risks removal from the Register.
As part of the annual renewal process, vets also need to confirm their registration and contact details, declare any convictions and declare they are compliant with the College’s requirements for continuing professional development (CPD).
Anyone who expects to encounter any difficulties in paying their fees is asked to contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0722.
The RCVS ERP provides an ethics review mechanism for researchers who are based in practice and don't have access to this process through university and industry connections.
The subcommittee has representation across a range of areas of veterinary expertise, including veterinary nursing, and also includes lay researchers and scientists.
Since its formation as a trial service in 2016, the ERP has reviewed more than 530 research proposals on behalf of the College.
Nicola said: “I am honoured to be offered this position.
"Having been a member of RCVS ERP for the past three years and undertaking a similar role as the Chair of the Clinical Research Ethical Review Board at the Royal Veterinary College, I felt that I had the right expertise to take on the role
“It is vitally important that all research, regardless of where it is undertaken, undergoes ethical review to ensure that robust results are produced especially when they have the potential to influence clinical practice, and so I really welcome the work the ERP has been undertaking.
“As chair of the ERP I hope to build on the success of my predecessor and continue to support those working in clinical practice that is not associated with a university to undertake valuable research and add to the body of evidence that supports our clinical decision-making.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
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
Dr Vlad Butnaru faced two charges, the first of which was that in May 2021, he had signed a passport and/or passport application for a horse and electronically signed a declaration stating that he “had read the above microchip, which had previously been implanted for the animal” when, in fact, the microchip had not been inserted into any horse and he had not read it.
The second charge was that, in relation to the matters set out in the first charge, Dr Butnaru’s signed declaration was false, and that he had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, he risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare, and failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
Dr Butnaru admitted the first charge on all counts, and that the declaration he had signed was false.
He also admitted that his conduct was misleading and that he had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
However, he denied that his conduct had been dishonest and that he had risked undermining a procedure designed to promote animal welfare.
In its decision, the committee noted that Dr Butnaru kept introducing new versions of what happened for the first time at the hearing and changed his account as he went along, as well as being evasive when answering questions.
The Committee therefore felt that Dr Butnaru could not be considered to be a reliable witness, and whilst it did not know the true reason why he was prepared to sign a false declaration on a passport application, it was satisfied that he'd made a false declaration dishonestly.
The Committee also found that Dr Butnaru had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate as, if the passport had been issued on a false premise because of misleading information provided by Dr Butnaru, then it could not function as it was meant to which, in the Committee’s view, clearly risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare.
The Committee found that Dr Butnaru had breached the parts 6.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct, as well as Principle 1 of the 10 Principles of Certification, namely that ‘a veterinarian should certify only those matters which: a) are within his or her own knowledge; b) can be ascertained by him or her personally; c) are the subject of supporting evidence from an authorised veterinarian who has personal knowledge of the matters in question; or d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP).’
The Committee found there were no mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors, on the other hand, were that Dr Butnaru had participated in premeditated misconduct, made financial gain from his actions as he was paid to make the false declaration, abused his professional position, and showed blatant or wilful disregard of the Horse Passport System and of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that all proven charges amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect.
On considering the sanction, the Committee once again considered the aggravating factors, as well as additional mitigating factors in that Dr Butnaru had no previous disciplinary history, showed limited insight by admitting to some of the charges, showed expressions of remorse, and was provided with a positive testimonial.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was cognisant of the importance of a veterinary surgeon’s signature on any document.
"This should have been obvious to any veterinary surgeon, but particularly someone of Dr Butnaru’s 11 years’ experience (at the time of signing).
"The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Butnaru of any decision to remove him from the Register, but had to weigh his interests with those of the public.
“In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, Dr Butnaru’s previous unblemished record and the need to act proportionately.
"However, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons and protecting the welfare of animals, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient.
"His actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register and thus the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register.”
The mandatory regulation of veterinary practices, including statutory powers of entry and inspection, is one of the main parts of the College's proposals for new primary legislation that would replace the current Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The working group, which is expected to present the details of a Mandatory Practice Regulation system to Council by the end of 2024, will be chaired by RCVS President Sue Paterson FRCVS.
It will include Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS and Practice Standards Group Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, alongside veterinary, veterinary nursing, lay and external representatives.
Sue said: “With over 70% of practice premises currently under its ambit, our Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) has shown how keen practices are to maintain high standards.
"However, it is a voluntary scheme and, as a result, there is no mechanism to ensure standards across all practices, or to ensure change in those rare situations where it is needed.
“At present, the RCVS only regulates individual veterinary surgeons and nurses, and the veterinary sector does not have an equivalent to the Care Quality Commission, which considers human healthcare premises.
"This means that the onus for maintaining standards within the workplace falls on regulated individuals rather than the business structure.
"We will consider what a scheme that puts more statutory responsibility on business owners to maintain standards should look like.
“I look forward to working with colleagues in RCVS Council, VN Council and other veterinary organisations via this group to really flesh out what this regulatory system might look like in the future, to make sure it is appropriate, robust, proportionate and enforceable.
"Establishing these details will also prove invaluable in our lobbying work with government, ministers and MPs.”
Dr Briggs faced four charges and admitted to her conduct in the first three at the outset.
They related to three official Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) clinical investigation report forms she submitted following three official avian flu surveillance visits she'd undertaken as an Official Veterinarian (OV).
The three surveillance visits all took place during an outbreak of avian influenza in North Yorkshire and were on behalf of the APHA.
Dr Briggs admitted that she'd certified on each of the three forms that she had inspected specific poultry, that she had seen no clinical signs of avian influenza in the poultry and that in her opinion avian influenza did not exist and had not existed in the previous 56 days.
Dr Briggs also admitted that that she had subsequently submitted the three forms to the APHA.
The fourth charge alleged Dr Briggs conduct in certifying the three forms had been dishonest and that her actions risked undermining procedures, regulations and rules designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs denied that she had been dishonest in any of her actions but admitted that her conduct had risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs explained that in two cases she had relied on information given to her by the keepers of the poultry and in the remaining case it was possible that she had not visited the correct location of the poultry, had posted a letter through the wrong door and had then accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form to APHA.
Having heard evidence from the relevant poultry keepers, fellow Official Veterinarians, officials from the APHA and Dr Briggs herself, the Committee gave its determinations on dishonesty.
In relation to the first two charges, which concerned the visits that did take place, the Committee found Dr Briggs had been dishonest both in submitting the inspection forms to the APHA and also in certifying that she had seen no clinical signs or history of avian influenza in both cases.
The Committee concluded that an ordinary decent person would regard the submission of a signed form which contained false information as dishonest.
It also concluded that Dr Briggs had deliberately signed an official form which contained information which she knew to be untrue.
However, the Committee found that Dr Briggs was not dishonest in asserting on these forms that she was of the opinion that disease did not exist based upon the information provided to her by the poultry keepers.
In relation to the third charge, where Dr Briggs did not visit the property concerned, the Committee did not find it proven that she had been dishonest, having heard her evidence that, in this case, she had accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form.
The Committee next considered whether the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “In considering the seriousness of the misconduct, the Committee took into account the fact that the misconduct had involved dishonesty, that there had been a risk of injury to animals and humans (though this risk had not materialised), and that the misconduct had occurred when the respondent, as an Official Veterinarian, occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility.”
He added: “The Committee considered that honest, accurate and careful veterinary certification was a fundamental component of the responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon.
"The matters which the Committee had found to be proved fell far short of the standards expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and amounted, in the Committee’s judgment, to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Briggs the Committee heard positive character testimonials from former employers and clients, as well as a representative from the APHA who said that Dr Briggs had shown contrition for the breaches while recognising that there was unlikely to be a repetition of the conduct and that Dr Briggs was a relatively new and inexperienced vet at the time of her actions.
Mr Morris said: “In the Committee’s judgement the circumstances of the incident were a mitigating factor in the sense that the respondent was working in a pressurised environment, and in a field of practice which was unfamiliar to her.
"The Committee had heard a considerable amount of evidence from various witnesses that the surveillance system created, to monitor the prevalence of avian influenza was one which placed considerable pressure on OVs and, perhaps inevitably, had some shortcomings.
"The respondent had not worked with poultry before so her inexperience in this area fed into this situation.
“The Committee took into account the fact that no actual harm had occurred and there was no financial gain to the respondent.
"The matters with which the Committee was concerned formed a highly unusual, and short-lived, episode in the respondent’s career.”
The Committee also considered that Dr Briggs had made open and frank admissions regarding most of the charges against her and had also shown genuine contrition over her failings.
In light of this, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction.
Mr Morris added: “False certification can never be acceptable.
"Veterinary surgeons should never certify any matter which they know, or ought to know, not to be true.
"However, the Committee considered that this case was at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity of false certification cases, that there is no future risk to animals and that the respondent has demonstrated insight.
"In relation to the public interest, the Committee considered that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would recognise that, in all the circumstances of this particular case, a reprimand and warning as to future conduct would be sufficient to satisfy the public interest.”
The two surveys, for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively, ask the professions a wide range of both quantitative and qualitative questions, covering everything from what they do in a typical working day, to career aspirations, to levels of mental and physical wellbeing.
The surveys are confidential and anonymous.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Our Surveys of the Professions are not just a useful and interesting snapshot of the veterinary professions at a particular moment in time, but are really consequential in terms of what we do with the results.
"For example, information from the previous surveys were used to inform our current Strategic Plan, including our mission to be a compassionate regulator, ongoing support for the Mind Matters Initiative, and a focus on workforce-related issues.
"In a similar spirit, this year’s results will inform the forthcoming RCVS Strategic Plan.
“Of course, the quality of the results of the surveys really depends on hearing from as many of you as possible – so we would like veterinary professionals from all parts of the UK as well as our overseas members, from all backgrounds, of all ages and working on all different disciplines to feed into all areas of the surveys and help us with our research.
"Please don’t miss out on having your say, and a huge thank you for taking the time to support this important work.”
The deadline for completing the survey is on or before Friday 16 February 2024.
The RCVS said: "We understand that there are very strong opinions about the ban, and we respect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.
"However, expressing these opinions can never justify or include the harassment and abuse of individual vets, vet nurses or their practice colleagues."
The BVA added: “The Government’s XL Bully ban is also placing additional pressure on veterinary teams who are doing their best in very challenging circumstances to help keep responsible XL Bully owners with their pets wherever possible.
"Their commitment extends to supporting clients with any decision-making around euthanasia in individual cases.
"It’s simply unacceptable for these professionals to face additional challenges through abuse, intimidation or threats.
"Such actions can have a hugely negative impact on individual vets and the wider team."
Resources:
Photo: Dlexus
Designed with the RCVS Standards and Advice team, the ‘Client confidentiality’ course explains the steps veterinary teams need to take when deciding whether or not to make a disclosure, and how to remain compliant with their professional obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct.
Senior Standards and Advice Officer, Victoria Price said: “Deciding to breach confidentiality is often a difficult decision with no right or wrong answer.
"The course should help learners to feel confident about what to consider in order to make justified and well-supported decisions.”
The course takes around one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
Vets who want to stand as election candidates must submit their nomination forms by 5pm on Wednesday 31st January 2024.
There are places for three elected candidates on Council.
This year, the RCVS has put together downloadable information packs for prospective candidates.
The pack explains the role of an RCVS Council member and the candidate nomination process, and contains the candidate nomination and candidate information forms.
The RCVS Council pack is available to download from rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil24.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons of all backgrounds, at all career stages, and with all levels of experience are eligible to stand in the elections.
"So, if you want to help shape the future of veterinary regulation and our Royal College initiatives and activities, please consider standing in next year’s elections.”
Veterinary surgeons who are interested in standing for RCVS Council and who have any further queries should contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk
The course, which is led by Mental Health First Aid England, comprises of two day-long sessions, the first of which will take place on Tuesday 9th January 2024 from 9am – 5pm and the second on Thursday 11th January.
The course costs £40 per person, and is open to all those working in the veterinary professions.
Advancement of the Professions and Mind Matters Director, Angharad Belcher, said: “This day long training session will help people to gain an understanding of what mental health is and how to challenge stigma, to gain the knowledge and confidence to advocate or mental health awareness, provide them with the ability to spot the signs of mental ill health and the skills to support positive wellbeing, as well as give people the confidence to support someone who is in distress or may be experiencing a mental health issue.
“While these sessions are open to all working in the veterinary professions, we are particularly encouraging vets working in rural areas or in ambulatory work to get involved.
"All veterinary work has its challenges, but we know from MMI funded research conducted by Scotland’s Rural College that rural and ambulatory veterinary work comes with its own set of challenges which is often compounded by working alone or having relatively limited contact with colleagues.
"Those working in rural areas often play integral roles within their local communities and it is therefore important to provide people with the skills to not only look after their own mental health, but with the opportunities to learn how to best support their friends and colleagues too.”
https://vetmindmatters.org/training
The nurse, who admitted the charges against her, successfully applied for anonymity at the outset of the case, on the basis that the shock factor of the removal of the animals' heads could greatly upset members of the public and veterinary staff, leading to a backlash which would present a threat to her safety.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the nurse, who was working as a locum, asked a permanent member of staff if she could take a couple of skulls from the strays, because she had a friend who 'cleaned up' dead strays and wildlife and displayed the skulls at home.
The College’s case was that the nurse’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct because she failed to afford the dead animals with the respect and dignity they deserved, there was a risk to human health because she failed to comply with biosecurity measures, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession.
Although she admitted that her conduct fell short of what was expected, the nurse countered that her actions were not intended to be disrespectful to the animals, that she was an animal-lover who had three cats of her own, and that her actions were not malicious but misjudged.
Weighing up the case, the Committee found that the aggravating features of her conduct were around biosecurity and abuse of her professional position, while in mitigation it found that there was no financial gain in her actions and that it was a one-off incident.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct represented a biosecurity risk.
"Any body part would be in some degree of decomposition.
"As the cats were strays, it was unclear as to whether or not they had been in good health.
"Although the respondent transferred the body parts to her home and kept them in the freezer in cadaver bags, there was a risk that they could leak.
"In short, her actions were not without risk to human or animal health.
“The respondent abused her professional position.
"She had an obligation to treat the cadavers with respect.
"Her professional position gave her access to the cadavers.
"She abused her professional position by severing the cats’ heads and, using a scalpel, body bags and other equipment she pursued an interest of her own, rather than performed the role she was employed to undertake.
"Although she may say that she obtained permission to remove the cats’ heads from a permanent member of staff, she was a Registered Veterinary Nurse and therefore an autonomous professional.
"Whatever permissions she received should not have made her believe she had a licence to act as she did.”
Considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account her relative youth and inexperience, the fact she made open and frank admissions at an early stage, the fact she made efforts to avoid a repetition of the behaviours, the insight she had shown into why her conduct was wrong, and the amount of time that had passed since her conduct relative to the total length of her four-year veterinary nursing career.
The Committee also considered positive character references from fellow veterinary nurses with whom she worked and trained.
Kathryn added: “The Committee considered that a reprimand was the sanction it should impose.
"A reprimand marks the Committee’s view of the respondent’s behaviour, thereby satisfying the public interest.
“The Committee did consider issuing a warning as to future conduct, but it had no concerns that the respondent would fail to follow the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses in the future.
"It therefore rejected a warning as an appropriate alternative.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The first is the introduction of Specialist training and status for general practitioners in primary care, for which the RCVS project will now develop a new five-year curriculum and an implementation plan.
The RCVS will also be looking closer at the definition of veterinary clinical roles and developing guidance for the profession and wider public on the different clinical career statuses available to veterinary surgeons.
Thirdly, the College will identify different ways in which vets can access the teaching and learning opportunities, clinical experience/cases, supervision and support that is required for them to complete specialist training and obtain RCVS Specialist status.
This will include looking at how access to specialist training can be widened beyond the typical internship/residency model, to include training models more accessible from primary care practice, and for those at different career and life stages.
Kate Richards MRCVS, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, said: “These exciting and progressive proposals are visionary as far as the career and development structure of the veterinary clinical profession is concerned.
“It means there will be new prospects for those in general practice and those who want to achieve Specialist status by different means, as well as a more defined career structure for the profession that will be clearer to the profession and general public alike.
"With around 75-80% of veterinary professionals working in clinical practice this project will deliver a substantial positive impact.
“These are the early pages of a very exciting new chapter for veterinary clinical careers, and we will be asking for your help to write it, as we will be holding a number of consultations in the coming years, including on the programme for Specialist in Primary Care and the definition of clinical roles.
RCVS President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS added: “There are two aspects of the project that I particularly welcome.
"First is the impact this could have on both recruitment and retention as vets are offered additional, and more diversified, career options and expanded roles in a variety of clinical settings.
"Second, as a specialist dermatologist myself, I really value the fact that we will be looking at ways to widen participation and increase accessibility to specialist training from primary care practice, as the residency/internship route is very intensive and not necessarily suitable for everyone.
A similar process to develop and enhance clinical career pathways for veterinary nurses is now also being considered, this would include the development of an ‘Advanced Veterinary Nurse’ status and clearer information on the veterinary nursing role and what it entails.