Dr Kalisz faced a total of nine charges (including 41 sub-charges).
The first was that in July 2020, she failed to carry out a clinical examination of the dog, failed to adequately interpret test results, failed to ask for help interpreting the results, and undertook an emergency Caesarean section without sufficient need to do so.
The other charges related to undertaking a colotomy without sufficient justification and without exercising sufficient clinical judgment throughout the procedure.
For both the Caesarean section and the colotomy, Dr Kalisz faced charges that she failed to obtain informed consent from the owners and failed to inform them that the colotomy had been carried out, or of the potential risks of the procedure, and also failed to provide enough information about aftercare.
It was also alleged that Dr Kalisz had demonstrated continual lapses in professional judgement, including failing to appropriately manage the spaniel’s worsening condition when it was presented to the practice again later, and that the clinical records in relation to the surgery were dishonest and/or misleading.
Dr Kalisz admitted serious professional misconduct, admitting to 29 of the sub-charges, while the remaining 12 sub-charges were denied.
The Committee found 30 of the sub-charges proven, with the remaining 11 not proven.
The Committee the considered aggravating factors, including the fact that Dr Kalisz's conduct led to the spaniel’s death, the colotomy was reckless and Dr Kalisz did not take steps to inform anybody or make a clinical record for the colotomy.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that it was single and isolated incident (albeit one that spanned a number of days), that no other members of the clinical team involved raised concerns during the procedure, and the effect Covid had upon the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that of those charges proven, the ones relating to performing the colotomy, failing to manage the spaniel’s subsequent care and failing to mention the colotomy amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding the sanction, the Committee took into account the mitigation submitted on behalf of Dr Kalisz and the written testimonials produced including the fact that she was young and inexperienced, had admitted her failings at an early stage, had made subsequent efforts to avoid a repetition of such behaviour and that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident.
The Committee also considered that Dr Kalisz had shown an exemplary level of insight, showing remorse for her actions, undertaking substantial continuing professional development, and finding appropriate ongoing professional mentorship.
The Committee was impressed by the character testimonials from veterinary co-workers, both current and at the time of these events, as well as from clients.
It was, the Committee said, apparent from those testimonials that Dr Kalisz had been open and honest with them about the charges and was considered to be an excellent, committed veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that this was a single isolated incident, which involved serious lapses of clinical judgement.
"It was therefore concluded that, despite Dr Kalisz’s actions being reckless, the extensive mitigation and the high level of insight, coupled with steps taken to avoid repetition, meant that there was negligible future risk to animal welfare.
“The Committee did not consider it necessary to issue a warning to Dr Kalisz about her future conduct, on the basis that the Committee has concluded that there is little risk of repetition, so considered that a reprimand would be an appropriate sanction in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
In a statement given to the Veterinary Record earlier this year, the College said:
"In 2017, our commitment to equality for our LGBTQ+ employees, members of the professions and other stakeholders, was cemented when we became a Stonewall Diversity Champion, with the aim of ensuring that all people in the community are accepted, without exception, within the veterinary professions.
In subsequent years this commitment has been demonstrated by the establishment of our Diversity & Inclusion Group, for which LGBTQ+ representation is a key component and has been incorporated into both our internal and external diversity and inclusion strategies.
Focusing on our internal diversity and inclusion strategy, the insight from Stonewall and our internal LGBTQ+ group, has aimed to make the RCVS a safe space for people from the LGBTQ+ community by creating a fully inclusive workplace.
These insights have also fed into the profession-facing work of the Diversity & Inclusion Group and its strategy.
After six years as a Stonewall Diversity Champion, we have decided this year not to renew our contract with the organisation, on the basis that we feel we no longer need to work with an external organisation to continue to deliver on our commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
The RCVS will continue to demonstrate allyship and be a safe space for all groups within the LGBTQ+ community, as demonstrated by the fact we are creating a staff network representing RCVS colleagues from marginalised communities.
We may in future decide to work with another accredited organisation, but until the staff network is in place, no decisions have been made. For example, we have recently brought in a staff policy regarding how best to support RCVS employees who are going through the process of gender reassignment, reiterating the current legal position, how to report experiencing or witnessing transphobic discrimination, as well as advice for colleagues supporting those undergoing gender reassignment and those who have family members going through the process. We are grateful for Stonewall for working with us over the past six years and helping us, through its Workplace Equality Index, to finesse our policies and procedures in relation to LGBTQ+ rights and issues and drive forward our agenda to be a diverse and inclusive workplace and regulator."
The 1CPD homepage now displays two progress bars: one to track the number of CPD hours currently achieved and recorded, and another to show how many hours have been reflected on.
Once the number of required CPD hours has been recorded and reflected on, a message appears to tell the user that they're CPD compliant.
This change will not affect existing CPD records, and all previously inputted activities and reflections will remain in the system.
Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Lead for Postgraduate Education, said: “We hope that the changes to the 1CPD platform will allow people to track their CPD more easily.
"A key element in outcomes-focused CPD includes reflecting on what you have learned as this is known to have a positive impact on both personal professionalism and patient-health outcomes.
“It should be noted that any CPD you have already undertaken for this year but have not yet reflected on will still remain in the system.
"However, in order to be compliant for 2023, you must reflect on every CPD activity completed.
"If you have completed your hours but have not reflected, this will show as non-compliant.
"In order to make those hours count, you simply need to go back and add your reflections.
"This doesn’t have to be a long and onerous task – uploading audio notes, adding an attachment, or writing a few notes stating what you learnt and how you will use this newly acquired knowledge moving forward will all suffice.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected.
At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.
The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.
“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded
“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.
“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mrs Grecko faced two charges.
The first was that she got a nurse colleague to order griseofulvin, a prescription-only antifungal medication, knowing that it was for human use, rather than legitimate veterinary use.
It was also alleged that she then caused a student veterinary nurse to record the order in the name of another veterinary surgeon, who was not involved in the order or prescription of the medication, and falsely record that it was for Mrs Grecko’s dog.
The second charge was that she had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, as the medication was, in fact, intended for use by her husband.
At the outset of the hearing, Mrs Grecko admitted she had asked her RVN colleague to order the medication and for her SVN colleague to record that the medication was for her dog and that doing this was dishonest and misleading.
Mrs Grecko accepted that these admitted charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
She denied asking an SVN to record it under the name of another veterinary surgeon.
However, the Committee heard from two eye-witnesses who testified consistently that Mrs Grecko had told her SVN colleague to record the medication under another vet's name, and from another witness who testified that Mrs Grecko had made a similar admission.
It therefore found it proven that she had asked her SVN colleague to make a false record, that it was dishonest and misleading, and that together, the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that Mrs Grecko’s conduct had breached her obligations as a veterinary surgeon to respect the proper protections that were in place for the control of prescription-only medications.
"She had committed a serious abuse of her position in using the fact that she could obtain medications by virtue of her profession to circumvent the protections.
"She had been prepared to involve others in the course of the conduct.
"In addition, Mrs Grecko had been prepared to engage in an attempt to conceal her actions and falsify the clinical records in the process.
“Although it was acknowledged that Mrs Grecko may have been subject to some conflicting demands, being affected by her husband’s interests and may have felt a pressure to act, the Committee considered that she had completely failed to acknowledge and respect her overriding professional responsibilities.”
The Committee considered that the offence was a serious one, taking into account the abuse of position and pre-meditated and dishonest conduct.
The Committee also took into account previous adverse findings against Mrs Grecko from 2011, which involved misconduct of a very similar nature, which meant that they could not accept her argument that she had learnt her lesson, and also meant that, in the Committee’s judgement, she presented a significant risk of further repeated errors of judgement and dishonest conduct.
Mr Morris added: “Further, the Committee considered that members of the public would be very concerned to learn that, having once been reprimanded for her previous dishonest conduct, Mrs Grecko had repeated her behaviour.
“It [the Committee] concluded that this rendered Mrs Grecko’s disgraceful conduct in a professional respect incompatible with continued registration and no lesser sanction than removal from the Register would be sufficient to protect the wider public interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.”
Mrs Grecko now has 28 days from being informed of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal.
The decision was made after Council heard increasing reports that practices have not been keeping records of POM-V parasiticide prescriptions within patient records as has always been required by the VMD.
This created a bit of a problem when the new 'under care' guidance came into force at the start of this month, which requires that veterinary surgeons must perform a physical examination as part of their initial clinical assessment of an animal before prescribing POM-V anti-parasitics.
Failing a record of an existing prescription, that would have meant re-examining large numbers of animals at a time when resources in the profession are already stretched.
RCVS President, Sue Paterson, said: “While it has been both surprising and disappointing to learn of such widespread non-compliance with legislation that has been in place for many years, Council decided to postpone the implementation of this one aspect of our new under care guidance to allow practices additional time to bring their prescribing protocols into line."
The delayed implementation date of 12 January 2024 relates only to the prescription of POM-V anti-parasitics.
The rest of the new under care guidance remains in effect from 1 September 2023
The Committee has been named after the Supplementary Royal Charter 2015 which broadened the functions of the RCVS and allowed for a more flexible approach when dealing with complaints about professional conduct.
The Charter Case Committee can resolve cases where the conduct of a veterinary surgeon or nurse has fallen far below the level of conduct expected of them, but not so far as to warrant a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The Committee can deal with such cases without the need for a public hearing and can give veterinary surgeons or nurses either a confidential or a public warning about their future conduct.
A warning issued by the Charter Case Committee does not affect the individual’s registration status or their right to practise.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The establishment of the Charter Case Committee plays a vitally important role in balancing our statutory role of upholding professional conduct standards and protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the professions, with our mission to become a compassionate regulator.
“The Charter Case Committee Protocol allows for the alternative resolution of certain cases where a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse has engaged in behaviour that amounts to serious professional misconduct or has been convicted of an offence, but where it is not in the public interest for the matter to be referred to a hearing of the Disciplinary Committee because it is at the lower end of seriousness.
“The type of cases we envisage being dealt with by the Committee are those where the Code has been breached but where there is no ongoing risk to animal welfare or public confidence, and where the level of insight and personal reflection regarding their conduct is such that it can be resolved without the need for an onerous, stressful and expensive Disciplinary Committee hearing.
"We estimate that the CCC will deal with around 20 such cases per year.
“The most serious cases of professional misconduct will, of course, continue to be referred to Disciplinary Committee hearings.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/committees/charter-case-committee.
Miss Herdman faced three charges.
The first was that she indicated to a friend that she would supply diazepam and/or tramadol for use by their husband.
The second was that she supplied diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
The third was that she gave advice on the dosages of diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Miss Herdman was not present at the hearing and was unrepresented, but the Committee determined that it was appropriate to proceed in her absence as she had been notified, was aware that the hearing was taking place and her absence was voluntary.
However, Miss Herdman had been in contact to indicate her pleas to the charges.
She admitted the intention to supply diazepam and/or tramadol and that she had provided advice on the dosages.
She also admitted that she had supplied diazepam but strongly denied that she had supplied tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Taking all the evidence into account (including messages sent by Miss Herdman and her admissions), the Committee found proven the charges in relation to the intent to supply and the advice on dosages.
The Committee also found proven the charge in relation to the supply of diazepam, but found not proved the charge relating to the supply of tramadol and gabapentin for several reasons, including the fact that the messages sent by Miss Herdman did not point unequivocally to her actually suppling each of the drugs to which she referred.
There was no suggestion that the diazepam was stolen from her place of work.
The Committee found that Miss Herdman’s actions had breached paragraphs 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The committee judged that there were a number of aggravating features of Miss Herdman’s conduct, including that she was not qualified or authorised to prescribe medication to animals, let alone to human beings and that providing a controlled drug to a person who was already taking various painkilling medications was reckless.
The Committee also felt that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a veterinary nurse had supplied a controlled drug to a friend for their personal use.
Regarding the sanction for Miss Herdman, Paul Morris, chairing the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Drawing all the material together, and considering the matter as a whole, the Committee had to impose a proportionate sanction for an isolated incident of serious professional misconduct which arose out of a misguided attempt to help a friend.
"The conduct in question was entirely out of keeping with Miss Herdman’s usual practice and there is no real risk that it will be repeated.
"However, this case was much too serious to take no further action and no useful purpose would be served by postponing a sanction.
“The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand would not be sufficient to satisfy the public interest as veterinary nurses are trusted by the public to deal with medication responsibly and failure to do constitutes a severe breach of trust.
“The Committee therefore considered a period of suspension sufficient to meet the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for members of the profession.
“The Committee also considered whether a removal order would be appropriate but concluded it would be disproportionate and that such a step would remove from the profession an experienced, competent and valuable veterinary nurse for no discernible benefit.
“It was decided that Miss Herdman’s registration be suspended for a period of three months – a period which is sufficient to mark the gravity of the misconduct while taking into account the circumstances in which it arose.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The webinar was hosted by RCVS Senior Vice-President Dr Melissa Donald, with Standards Committee Chair and Junior Vice-President Linda Belton, Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The panel gave an overview of the main changes for the guidance, which comes into effect on 1st September, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
The webinar also dealt with issues raised in a previous webinar, including a query about prescribing under the cascade and an update on the position when prescribing based on cultures and sensitivities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTZKdbVD8g
For further information about the new guidance, including a range of practice-based scenarios and FAQs, visit: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/under-care-new-guidance/
Questions about the under care guidance can be sent to advice@rcvs.org.uk
Mr Paschalidis faced three charges.
The first was that he failed to carry out an examination or vaccinate a dog called Beluga, but made entries in the clinical records for the dog indicating he had.
The second charge was that, on the same day, he failed to carry out an examination or vaccinate a cat called Simba, but made entries in the clinical records for the cat indicating he had, and told a veterinary nurse colleague that he had vaccinated the cat.
The third charge was that the conduct of Mr Paschalidis in relation to the other two charges was dishonest and/or misleading and that he was therefore guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee found the charges relating to the failure to carry out an adequate examination and vaccinate Beluga and Simba proven.
The Committee also found that Mr Paschalidis had been dishonest and misleading in relation to his clinical records for Beluga.
Although Mr Paschalidis admitted the charge that he had failed to examine Simba, he denied that the record was misleading or dishonest as he said he'd been interrupted by a colleague whilst making the notes, rendering them an incomplete draft.
The Committee found it unproven that Mr Paschalidis had dishonestly made entries in the clinical records for Simba indicating that he had vaccinated him when he hadn’t.
Nor did it find that that Mr Paschalidis had been dishonest in his entries which indicated that he'd examined Simba, instead finding that his conduct was misleading.
However, having found that Mr Paschalidis was dishonest in his recording of his examination/vaccination of Beluga and that he was dishonest in relation to his communication of vaccination of Simba to a colleague, the Committee found that his conduct amounted to conduct falling far below that to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.
The Committee took into account eight testimonials, which were all positive about Mr Paschalidis’ character.
The Committee also noted his Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record, which, from February 2020 to February 2023, totalled over 170 hours.
It also considered that there was no evidence of actual harm to either Beluga or Simba, no evidence of any gains for Mr Paschalidis, and that the episode lasted no longer that one hour.
Against that, the Committee considered the risk of injury to the animals from not being vaccinated or examined adequately and the breach of client trust.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee assessed that the conduct of Mr Paschalidis, which included dishonesty, was in the upper middle range on the scale of dishonest conduct as the breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct were committed deliberately and for dishonest reasons, rather than through inadvertence or mistake.”
"The Committee decided that all of the mitigating factors, combined with an absence of any further incidents or similar behaviour having been drawn to the College's attention, alongside the positive testimonials, led it to conclude that the risk of any repetition of similar conduct was reduced such that Mr Paschalidis no longer poses a significant risk to animals or the public."
"The Committee considered that the misconduct found proved was sufficiently serious to require suspension from the Register, which would have a deterrent effect and would satisfy the public interest in this case.
"However, because Mr Paschalidis had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon for two years since these events without complaint and had shown some insight, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension would not serve a useful purpose and would therefore be disproportionate. "
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that, as a deterrent, Mr Paschalidis’ registration be suspended for a period of six months.”
Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.
Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.
The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.
It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.
“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.
"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.
"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.
“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”
He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was removed from the Register after his Kent practice was found to have unhygienic and unsterile conditions as well as poor record keeping, although he has always disputed this, maintaining that he was not actually practising at the time of the inspection.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for restoration on the basis that he did not want to be restored to the Register in order to practise veterinary surgery, but so that he could more easily achieve recognition from academics and drug companies for his work on herbal and natural remedies.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's dispute over the original findings of the 1994 case was ruled inadmissible.
In considering his application, the Committee took into account the fact that he had not accepted the original findings from 1994 nor had he, over the course of his various applications for restoration, shown any insight into his original conduct or the serious concerns about his fitness to practice raised in previous restoration hearings.
It also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had been off the Register for 29 years and would need to have demonstrated prolonged, intensive and formal training to ensure he met the Day One Competences required of a veterinary surgeon.
The College submitted that he had made no such attempts and so would pose a significant risk to animal health and welfare if he were allowed to practice again.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France – and had used his own animals to try out new and untested ‘herbal remedies’.
The College submitted that this indicated someone who didn’t have due regard to the importance of the current level of skills, experience and qualifications required in order to undertake veterinary surgery competently, and therefore posed a risk to animal health and welfare.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The College invited the Committee to consider that where, as here, some 29 years have passed since this veterinary surgeon has practised, there has been no intensive, and prolonged re-training, no acceptance of the original findings and no insight into concerns about his fitness to practise, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals and the wider public interest if the applicant is restored to the Register.
The Committee agrees, and considers that the applicant has not shown the required insight as to the steps he needs to take to return to safe veterinary practice.”
Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register.
She said: “My theme will be focussed on recruitment and particularly widening participation, as one of the three themes of the RCVS Workforce Action Plan.
"I want to get out during my presidential year and talk to school children and teachers, especially head teachers at their conferences, to make them aware of the opportunities that are available to a veterinary science graduate.
“I want to continue to work with the Veterinary Schools Council’s Widening Participation Vet Schools Network to make school children from all backgrounds aware, whether they are from a large, single-sex private school, or a mixed-faith inner-city comprehensive, that veterinary science is accessible to them.
“A veterinary science degree equips graduates with the appropriate skillset to follow a myriad of different career paths.
"For example, in clinical practice caring for people’s beloved pets or working with farmers to produce high-welfare food in an economical and sustainable way. Not to mention groundbreaking research into human and animal diseases, public health to help safeguard food security, the pharmaceutical industry to develop new and innovative treatments, and the armed forces to maintain the health and welfare of military working animals. I could go on.
“As professions, and this means not just veterinary surgeons but veterinary nurses, we need to get out there and sell ourselves to the wider public.
"We have made a start, but we need to become more inclusive and diverse.
"We need to do some myth-busting about the real requirements needed to be a vet or vet nurse.
"There is no doubt you do need to have good A levels to study veterinary medicine, but, beyond that, bright students from any background can join our professions.
"You can be a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse if you are black or white; Muslim or Christian; and from any socioeconomic background.”
Sue's speech is available to read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/features.
Mr Antonovs faced three charges.
The first was that in September 2020 whilst in practice at Beverley Vets4Pets, he attended work when under the influence of alcohol.
The second was that between September and December 2020, whilst at Peel Veterinary Clinic, he attended work on two occasions when under the influence of alcohol.
The final charge was that between February 2021 and February 2023, Mr Antonovs failed to respond adequately to requests from the RCVS regarding concerns raised about his conduct and/or health.
Mr Antonovs admitted the facts of the charges and the Committee decided that the facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstances of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning as to his future conduct on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
During the webinar, which took place earlier this month, senior officers and staff from the College explained the new guidance, what it will mean for the profession, and answered questions submitted by delegates.
The webinar was chaired by RCVS President Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS with a panel comprising Standards Committee Chair Linda Belton MRCVS, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, and RCVS Head of Standards Gemma Kingswell.
The webinar included an overview of the main changes, the considerations to take into account when prescribing POM-Vs remotely, the circumstances under which POM-Vs cannot be prescribed remotely, the prescription of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and antivirals, and how the guidance will be enforced.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “We have also now published a range of practice-based scenarios to help explain how the new guidance should be followed in various circumstances, and in relation to different species.
"These scenarios cover a variety of different situations, including how the guidance applies to two or more practices with mutual clients, consultancy services and the prescription of long-term controlled drugs.”
A second webinar will be held on Monday 17th July, with priority for those who wanted to attend the June webinar but were not able to do because it was over-subscribed.
www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare
They include the launch of the RCVS Academy, reforms to the RCVS concerns investigation process, the publication of the Workforce Action Plan and guidance for universities on supporting Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic veterinary students, ongoing work on new under care guidance, the development of new sustainability standards for the Practice Standards Scheme, and the purchase of the future headquarters for the RCVS.
The report also contains an update from the College’s charity partner RCVS Knowledge, details of RCVS financial management policies, and an independent auditor’s report on the College.
The Annual Report and Financial Statements will be formally adopted by RCVS Council at its Annual General Meeting on Friday 7th July at One Great George Street.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses are able to submit questions about the Annual Report.
The College says that subject to time, submitted questions will be answered by the College on the day, or followed up in writing after the event.
Questions should be emailed to Deborah Rowlanes, RCVS Events Manager, on d.rowlanes@rcvs.org.uk no later than 5pm on Tuesday 4th July.
If you want to attend, register at: www.rcvs.org.uk/events.
The symposium will be launched by Dr Leah Quinlivan (pictured right), a research fellow and chartered psychologist at the University of Manchester.
Her talk ‘Evidence-based care for people who have self-harmed: risk prediction, psychosocial assessments, and aftercare’, will outline the importance of improving mental health services for patients who have harmed themselves, via discussion of evidence, policy, and practice for risk prediction, psychosocial assessment, and aftercare.
Leah's talk will be followed by presentations delivered by veterinary mental health researchers from across the UK and Europe.
Topics will include post-Covid wellbeing amongst veterinary professionals, the impact of companion animal euthanasia, workplace stressors and how they change with career stage, and the quality of mental health support received by veterinary nurses.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative project manager, said: “This year, the event promises once more to be a supportive and thought-provoking event, where we can gather to share findings, information and best practice for the good of the professions.
“The recent publication of MMI’s five-year strategy has outlined our recognition that we need to expand the conversation beyond mental health awareness and into looking at more systemic and cultural issues, as well as exploring how the insights gained from research might be implemented in practice.
"These ambitious aims are reflected in the breadth of the talks and presentations at the symposium and so I look forward to hearing more from those who share our values and aims, and to continuing the conversation about how and where we can do more.
“The symposium is very much open to all members of the veterinary team including vets, vet nurses, practice managers and academics."
Tickets cost £45 per person although the event is free for students, people with lived experience of mental health problems, and people who are unwaged, who would not otherwise be able to attend.
www.vetmindmatters.org/events
Linda, who was first elected to Council in 2019, will take up the post at the RCVS Annual General Meeting in July.
She is currently Chair of both the RCVS Standards Committee and the Riding Establishment Subcommittee and also sits on the Primary Qualifications Subcommittee and the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Liaison Committee.
Outside of the RCVS, Linda is a Director at The George Veterinary Group in Wiltshire, an independently owned practice providing equine, farm, pig and small animal veterinary services.
Linda has been part of The George since 1992, having started her career in practice in Winchester after graduating from Bristol University Vet School the previous year.
She is a member of the British Veterinary Association, the British Equine Veterinary Association and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and is also a Trustee for Brooke – an international equine animal welfare charity.
Linda said: “Having recently been re-elected to Council for another term by fellow members of our profession, I am really looking forward to joining the Officer Team in my role as Junior Vice-President and I thank my colleagues on Council for their endorsement and support.
“Since joining Council four years ago, I have learned a lot – one of the difficulties I have observed is the tension of our profession having a Royal College which regulates.
"Wearing two hats is never easy, and being both our leadership body and our regulator can position the College in a difficult place in the eyes of its members.
"There are, however, advantages for us as a profession in being self-regulating.
“As Junior Vice-President, I look forward to increasing Council’s direct contact with vets working in first-opinion practice.
"Working as part of a large independently owned practice, I am aware of many of the day-to-day issues currently facing the different species sectors.
"I understand what it takes to be a good workplace delivering veterinary care in a commercial environment and want, through my contribution to Council and the governance and regulation of our profession, to support others to have a successful and fulfilling career in practice.”
Photo: Linda (right) shaking hands with current President Melissa Donald MRCVS
Developed in partnership with the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), the course uses practical examples based on real-life experiences.
The course shows how to assess complaints from a client’s perspective and how building client relationships can help defuse complaints.
Jennie Jones, Head of VCMS, said: "Leveraging insights from the VCMS and involving our entire team with its production has enabled us to develop highly effective materials that ensure veterinary professionals are well-equipped to manage complaints."
The course takes one hour to complete.
academy.rcvs.org.uk
The group is being set up to ensure that the College meets its objective of working in the public interest, initially as a 12-month pilot.
Louise Allum, RCVS Council Member and Chair of the Public Advisory Group, said: “Animal owners and keepers play an essential role in supporting animal welfare, and it is therefore not only right, but necessary, that we actively seek to inform the public of our activities and take their opinion into account when making wide-reaching decisions.
“With the profession's help, we are inviting animal owners and keepers from all backgrounds - from companion animal, to equine and farm – to be a part of our Public Advisory Group to help us actively engage with members of the public and to ensure that the veterinary profession continues to meet the needs of clients and animals alike.
"We also hope that, by involving animal owners and keepers in our work, we can improve the ways in which we communicate our messages to veterinary service users."
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, added: “Through the Public Advisory Group, we hope to gain greater insight into the experiences and opinions of animal owners and keepers to determine how we can work together to achieve what is essentially, a joint goal.
"We all care deeply about animal health and welfare and should therefore be united in our mission to uphold high standards.
“We are looking for a pool of around 30 individuals, including, but not limited to, owners and keepers of companion animals, and equine and production animals, to join our group.
"We are asking veterinary professionals to help us recruit animal owners and keepers from all walks of life, by kindly sharing information about this initiative with anyone they feel would be an appropriate, enthusiastic and engaged member of the Group.”
For more information on the Public Advisory Group, including terms of reference and how to apply, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/pag or email Lisa Moffatt on l.moffatt@rcvs.org.uk.
The deadline for applications is 7 June 2023.
Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
The aim of the survey is to provide a better understanding of the views, experiences and challenges faced by disabled and chronically ill people within the veterinary profession and provide an insight into how the profession and educational institutions can be more inclusive.
You do not have to be disabled or chronically ill to complete the survey, which will take you around 20 minutes to complete.
Claire Hodgson, director and co-founder of BVCIS, said: “Working in the veterinary professions with a chronic illness or disability can be hugely challenging, but there is currently a knowledge gap in terms of understanding exactly where the problems lie.
“A 2019 RCVS survey of the professions found that around 6.7% of vets and 7.4% of RVNs have a disability or medical condition that limits work that they can do, but the true figures are likely to be much higher.
"No reliable data for veterinary students currently exists.
“The purpose of this survey is to close that knowledge gap and help us understand how we can better support disabled and chronically ill people in the workplace and education to create a more inclusive working culture.\
“Those living with disability and chronic illness are often hugely resourceful and fantastic problem solvers because of the day-to-day challenges they have had to learn to overcome.
"They have a great deal to contribute to the sector, and it is important that they feel valued and respected and have access to the tools they need to thrive.
“Diversity makes the workforce stronger, so we are calling on as many different people as possible from across the veterinary community to complete our survey so that, together, we can help create a more inclusive workplace for all.”
The survey will be circulated by email to all RCVS registered veterinary surgeons in the near future.
Details will be circulated to students via their educational institutions.
The RCVS says all survey responses will be completely confidential, and results will only be analysed and reported at a level that does not allow identification of individuals in any way.
Completed surveys will not be seen by anyone at the RCVS or BVCIS – the IES will send through a report with key research findings to both the RCVS and BVCIS after the survey has closed.
There were ten candidates for the three available places.
6,087 veterinary surgeons voted, representing a 16.7% turnout.
This continued a decline seen since 2020, when there was a 26.2% turnout.
Alice McLeish scored 3,465 votes, Linda Belton 2,725 and Tim Hutchinson 1,571 votes.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “Congratulations to all our successful candidates in this year’s elections and thank you to all those who stood for election this year.
"We look forward to welcoming our successful candidates to their elected places at this year’s AGM.
“While the turnout for the VN Council election improved slightly on last year, it was a shame to see the turnout for vets fall again.
"As part of our wider Council culture project, we are looking at how to increase engagement with our election processes across the board, from candidate nominations, to how we present information about the candidates, to how we encourage greater election turnout.
"We will be consulting with the group set up to look specifically at this issue in due course to see how we can improve turnout going forward.”
The full results for the RCVS Council election can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote23.
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee considered whether she had accepted the findings of the Committee at the original inquiry hearing, the seriousness of those findings, whether she had demonstrated insight into her past conduct, and the protection of the public and the public interest.
In her restoration application, Dr Burrows included continuing professional development (CPD) certificates for the courses she had completed since her removal from the Register, letters/informal witness statements from the veterinary surgeons and nurses she had worked who had expressed a willingness to employ her again, together with character references and reflection statements.
She also made a detailed opening statement in support of her application, in which she said that the period since her name was removed from the Register was extremely difficult and also that she now unconditionally accepted all the Committee’s original findings in May 2021, some of which she had previously denied and had failed to acknowledge.
Dr Burrows went on to state that she only had herself to blame for her actions and that she now understood and accepted that the original sanction of removal from the register had needed to be severe given the serious breach of trust to the public, to the veterinary profession and the insurance industry that was a direct consequence of her dishonest actions.
Since removal from the Register, Dr Burrows had taken on the role of receptionist in a Vets4Pets practice in Cardiff, which required her to deal directly with the public and their insurance requests and entitlements.
She stated that as a result of her involvement over the past 18 months in processing insurance claims, she acknowledges the “delicate” relationship between veterinary surgeons, clients and insurers.
Additionally, working as a receptionist, had allowed her to recognise the need for contemporaneous and clear clinical notes.
She also highlighted her CPD, which was relevant to insurance, as well as the fact she’d undertaken a professional ethics course to assist her rehabilitation, reflection, and insight.
In support of Dr Burrows’ restoration to the Register, the Committee took into account three witness accounts from people who work at the Vets4Pets branch where Dr Burrows works as a receptionist.
All witnesses gave positive reflections on Dr Burrows’ character and assured the Committee that they would provide the correct level of support to allow her to return to work safely and that they would have all the necessary safeguarding measures in place to ensure that the public’s and the profession’s interest is always at the forefront.
Judith Way, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was impressed by the fact that busy professionals chose to give up their time to provide witness statements and give evidence in support of Dr Burrows’ application.
"All witnesses were clearly supportive of Dr Burrows’ request for restoration to the Register.
“The Committee found Dr Burrows to show remorse and she does now accept the findings of dishonesty that were made against her in the original enquiry hearing and stated that her conduct was dishonest.
"In the Committee’s view, the evidence given by Dr Burrows on affirmation was very believable and she now accepts her dishonesty together with the gravity of her dishonesty.
“The Committee also formed the view that the steps she has taken to address her dishonesty serve to confirm that she is passionate about the prospect that she be allowed to return to practise.
"The Committee was impressed by Dr Burrows and the evidence given and is now satisfied that she will ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in the future.
“Having taken all evidence into account, the Committee is satisfied that the future welfare of animals under Dr Burrows’ responsibility will be properly protected, and that her future dealings with insurers will be honest in all respects and that the interests of the public will be met.”