Improve International has launched an online version of its face-to-face Medical Nursing programme.  

The new course can lead to a Nurse Certificate (NCert), Veterinary Technician (VTCert) or Veterinary Paraprofessional Certificate (VPPCert) from the International School of Veterinary Postgraduate Studies (ISVPS). 

The programme will start in July 2022 and comprises eight modules covering key topics in medical nursing, including anaesthesia, analgesia, imaging, oncology and medical pharmacology, delivered every other month, spread over a 12–18-month period.

Each module consists of four sessions delivered over one month.

Sessions comprise separate lessons for learners to work through at a pace to suit them.

The fourth week of the month then provides reflective sessions.

Programme tutors include: Laura Jones, who holds the RCVS Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing, a BSc (Hons) in Advanced Nursing and is a Member of the Academy of Internal Medicine Veterinary Technicians; Abby Caine, European and RCVS-Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging; and Owen Davies, an RCVS and American recognised Specialist in veterinary oncology. 

Georgina Weston DipRVN NCert (Anaesth), ISVPS Examination Coordinator and NCert Lead (pictured right) said: “The role of the Veterinary Nurse/Technician within the veterinary practice is diverse; the skill set and knowledge required can be different to care for each patient.

"ISVPS’ ever-expanding range of certificates for Veterinary Nurses and Technicians enables our candidates to gain an internationally recognised certificate which will acknowledge their ability to provide the highest standard of patient specific nursing care and support to the veterinary team.”

For more information, visit: https://www.improveinternational.com/uk/course/medical-nursing-online-learning/ 

The organisers of the VET Festival (20-21 May 2022, Loseley Park) have published the results of research they carried out with the Veterinary Management Group which seem to show tentative signs of improvement in the wellbeing of veterinary professionals, despite some areas which still give significant cause for concern.

400 people took part in the research, of which 76% described their mental health as ‘reasonable’ or ‘very good’, while almost three quarters 71% said there was someone at work they could talk to about their mental health and 80% knew where to access information and support.

This compared to 2019, when only 50% had even recognised veterinary wellbeing as an issue. 

So far so good.

However, on the flip side, 60% felt that their work/life balance was not right and 82% were worried about their financial situation.

As is well known, the pandemic placed further strain on veterinary professionals: 78% of respondents said their workload had increased since it struck, and  44% said they were working longer hours.

What's more, 63% felt that that changes in working practices introduced during the pandemic had not been beneficial to their mental health.

The survey results showed a number of interesting variations depending on the respondent's time in the profession and their role. 

For example, people who've been in the profession for more than ten years appeared to be more resilient than those who've been in the profession for six years or less, with 66% of the older hands saying the pandemic had had an impact on their mental heath, compared to 71% of the younger respondents. 

The older crowd also reported being more aware of where to access support and information (89% vs 71%) but feel they have fewer people they can talk to at work (68% vs 76%).

Interestingly, nurses felt they had more people they can talk to at work (76% vs 62% of vets)

The organisers say that overall, the research suggests that the veterinary profession is more aware of the pressures on veterinary teams and is taking some steps to mitigate it and support staff better. 

97% said they felt supported by their colleagues, 75% said they felt that their practice had strong leaders and managers and 90% said that they loved their job. 

50% said their practice offers online resources to support wellbeing at work, 41% offer counselling and 40% offer flexible working. 

When asked what more could be done to improve their wellbeing at work, simple solutions such as taking a lunch break, having a pleasant room at work in which they could relax and receiving recognition for hard work were the most commonly proposed.  

VET Festival will be offering a Wellness Hub, supported by MWI Animal Health, in which a range of practical activities will be offered to support delegates in improving their day-to-day wellbeing, with representatives of Vetlife also on hand to offer advice and support.  

Tickets for VET Festival can be bought here: https://www.vetfestival.co.uk/delegate-info/ticket-information

Vets4Pets has produced a new film to champion the work of all vets, nurses and support teams. 

The company says it thinks the film is an industry first because it depicts veterinary professionals in a way that they have never seen themselves before: cinematically showing the highs and lows of a typical day in veterinary practice.

Vets4Pets also says it wants the film to generate greater recognition for everyone working within the industry, not just its own staff, by showcasing the passion, dedication and commitment that unites them.

Keith Leonard MRCVS, Practice Owner at Vets4Pets Leeds Birstall where some of the video was filmed, said: “While there are no words that can do justice to the sheer passion and determination demonstrated by the entire veterinary community, taking part in this campaign and seeing the result is really emotional.

“After an unimaginably turbulent few years, this campaign makes me feel incredibly proud of my whole team.

"It genuinely shows what it’s like to work in veterinary practice and I can’t thank each and every one of my team enough for their outstanding dedication to the care of our clients – both the pets we care for and their owners.

"We all live and breathe what we do, and I hope they feel a sense of pride when they see this campaign.”

Gordon Dunn, People Director at Vets4Pets, said: “The veterinary sector has experienced immense pressure following years of unprecedented challenges and as an industry we need to do our utmost to ensure that veterinary professionals are supported in their development and careers. But alongside this, we need to understand that recognition goes a long way too. 

The story of ‘Spliff' the Staffy has clinched the title of the National Office of Animal Health nationwide search for the most striking ‘it shouldn't happen to a pet' anecdote.

Submitted by Vets4Pets in Grimsby, the practice will receive a prize of £500 towards the staff Christmas party.

In a campaign to raise awareness of the importance of animal health and welfare considerations amongst pet owners and potential owners, NOAH has recently launched the new Pet Health Information website (http://www.pethealthinfo.org.uk/) to enable them to make informed decisions about their pet's healthcare.

In Spliff's case, the website could have helped solve a number of queries.

For Spliff it all started with a visit to the vet for a minor operation to cure a simple earache.

The problems started as Spliff was about to leave the practice, with a shiny new bucket collar.

However, his owner explained that Spliff is a bit of a snappy dresser, and if it isn't bling, he's not interested. Despite the practice's advice, he insisted the collar was removed so he could take Spliff home to recover.

The very next day, the phone started ringing ‘Spliff's scratching his ear - we need a collar.' Far too busy to bring him round, the owner sent his girlfriend to pick it up.

Problem solved - surely? Nope. The phone continued to ring. Spliff was ‘going nuts!' Apparently the dog was unable to walk, and was getting very distressed.

Finally, after nearly 24 hours of increasingly frantic calls, Spliff's owner brought him in. He arrived insisting that the vet came out to the car, as Spliff still couldn't walk. Not a common side effect of a minor operation on the ear, so it was a worry.

All became very clear when the vet reached the car, the ear was healing up nicely, and Spliff's paralysis was easily solved. They had put his bucket collar on the wrong way round, and every time he took a step - his front feet got trapped in the collar.

Rather than collapse in a heap, Spliff, in one of the first sensible decisions of his life, chose not to move at all. Mystery duly solved, Spliff went on to make a full recovery.

Sounds like the owner should probably smoke a bit less of it.

The Privy Council has partially upheld and partially dismissed an appeal submitted to it by Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen against a decision by the Disciplinary Committee in January 2018 to have him removed from the Register.

The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions. 

Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.

The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law. 

However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.

The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.

The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law. 

The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding." 

The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."

The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.

The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

The RVC has published a qualitative study looking at the impact of owning a dog with idiopathic epilepsy, revealing that almost all owners make substantial lifestyle changes in order to care for their dog.

The researchers say that research thus far has focused on developing treatments to manage idiopathic epilepsy and little attention has been given to the emotional and logistical challenges for owners managing their dog’s condition.

This study used semi-structured interviews to explore how owners’ lives were changed following their dogs’ diagnosis and glean in-depth insights into their lives.

The research discovered that following their dog’s initial seizure, all interviewees recalled feeling negative emotions such as being distraught, fearful or uncertain regarding their dog’s future and disease progression. Prior experience with canine epilepsy was rare, and owners were shocked and distressed by the appearance of their dog’s seizures.

Whilst many owners discussed a very emotionally close dog-owner bond, owning a dog with epilepsy had a significant impact on their lifestyle. Impacts affected many aspects of daily routines, and in some cases, owners’ jobs. The unpredictable and sometimes inconvenient timing of seizures negatively impacted owners’ sleep and wellbeing. This unpredictability also made some owners feel that they were living with “a ticking time bomb”.

Other limitations included strict daily medication schedules and difficulty finding assistance in caring for their dog. This, combined with a fear of leaving their dog unsupervised, had social implications in some instances and led to increased use of the Internet and online groups for peer support. Owners also reported that friends, family and colleagues did not always understand the magnitude of commitment required.

Amy Pergande, Small Animal Intern at the RVC and primary author of the study, said: "We are sincerely grateful to the owners who participated in this study for providing us with such detailed and often emotive accounts of their experiences. Many of the participants had willingly altered many aspects of their daily routine for their dogs, both socially and professionally, and sometimes at the expense of their own quality of life."

This research highlights that further consideration of these factors by veterinary professionals and the friends and families of owners of these dogs could improve owner quality of life and facilitate the provision of additional, much needed support.

Rowena Packer, Lecturer in Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare Science and research lead in canine epilepsy at the RVC, said: "Epilepsy can be an extremely tough condition for owners to manage, where the love, time and money owners dedicate to their dogs is not necessarily matched by a significant improvement in their condition, with seizures often continuing unabated. Our study has revealed previously unrecognised or under-appreciated impacts that epilepsy introduced to these owners’ lives. Improved awareness and understanding of these challenges by veterinary professionals have the potential to improve communication with clients, to avoid owners feeling that social media is the only place they can go to feel supported and understood”.

These findings increase the understanding of the sometimes negative and often profound emotional effects and lifestyle changes experienced by owners managing a dog with idiopathic epilepsy. With better support and resources, the reported impacts could potentially be minimised to protect owner quality of life.

Zoe Belshaw, independent research collaborator, said: “The welfare of pets and their owners can be closely intertwined. This research exploring how owners’ lives change when their dogs develop epilepsy is another important piece in the jigsaw of understanding both what the veterinary profession can do to best support our clients, but also in starting to appreciate the substantial wider societal impacts of chronic ill health in our nations’ pets”.

The full paper is open access and available at: https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-020-02669-w

Reference

1. Amy E. Pergande and Rowena M. A. Packer, Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, Zoe Belshaw, PDSA Pet Hospital Nottingham, and Holger A. Volk, Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover.

Photo: The Melias Studio

The International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM) and the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) have published two new sets of guidelines for veterinary professionals and practices to promote positive, respectful interactions with feline patients and reduce the stress associated with the veterinary environment.

The ‘2022 AAFP/ISFM Cat Friendly Veterinary Interaction Guidelines: Approach and Handling Techniques’ and the ‘2022 ISFM/AAFP Cat Friendly Veterinary Environment Guidelines’ cover all aspects of a cat’s veterinary experience, including the journey to the practice and interactions with veterinary team members, as well as the clinical environment.   

The new guidelines cover things like:

• Implementing cat friendly interactions and minimal handling.
• Educating cat caregivers about how to reduce distress when travelling to the veterinary practice.
• Creating an experience that considers the cat’s natural behaviours and altering an approach to each individual cat.
• Creating an environment that considers and implements ways to reduce fear–anxiety, and promotes positive emotions and behaviours that cats find comforting.
• Ensuring the entire veterinary team understands species-specific behaviour and individual differences (and how this affects the entire veterinary visit/experience).
• Understanding how to identify the cat’s emotional state and the subsequent behavioural response (and what to do in each situation).

Dr Nathalie Dowgray, Head of ISFM (pictured right), said: "We are extremely proud of our new guidelines; they have been a lot of hard work with large amounts of literature to review and multiple time zones to work across, but the effort has been worth it.

"We hope all veterinarians working with cats will take the time to read them and apply the concepts and ideas to their clinics and to how they personally interact with their feline patients.’ 

The guidelines are available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/page/jfm/collection/cat-friendly-special-issue 

Shakira Free Miles RVN has been reprimanded and warned by the RCVS VN Council Disciplinary Committee after pleading guilty last year to six counts of theft and one of the attempted theft of animals which she and her co-defendants mistakenly believed were in need of rescuing.

Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition. 

They went to steal the animals from their owners' properties after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.

Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.

The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.

Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.

In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.

In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.

The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.

However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.

"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.

"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.

“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.

"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”

When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:

• that there were no concerns about her competence or quality of practice,
• there had been a significant lapse of time since the incidents,
• her guilty plea,
• co-operation with the regulatory process,
• disclosure of the conviction to the RCVS,
• no evidence of repetition of the offending behaviour,demonstration of some insight into the seriousness and impact of the offences on public trust and confidence,
• positive personal character references,
• remorse expressed for upset caused to the owners,
• apology to the RCVS and her profession,
• compliance with the requirements of the criminal sentence,
• and low risk of repetition.

The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.

However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.

Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.

"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.

“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.

"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.

"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.

"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”

The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.

It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.

The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.

The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

VetBox, a parasiticide subscription business founded in 2016 by Will Woodley MRCVS has been acquired by the pet health insurer, Bought By Many.

The company, which now has over 20,000 monthly subscribers in the UK, saw a massive growth during the pandemic, with a reported 1000% increase in monthly recurring revenue over the past two years.

Since March 2020, VetBox has shipped over quarter-of-a-million boxes. 

Bought by Many says the acquisition is a major part of its expansion beyond insurance and into preventative wellness.

Will said: "I founded VetBox after seeing that far too many UK pets were missing out on essential parasite protection.

"I'm really proud of the progress that VetBox has made in solving this issue in just five years and can't wait to see what we can achieve as part of the Bought By Many family.

"As a vet I've seen first-hand the fantastic service Bought By Many offer pet owners, so it's been a pleasure seeing this partnership grow over the past few years."

Vetster, which bills itself as the world's fastest growing veterinary telehealth service, has launched in the UK offering pet owners consultations about non-urgent conditions. 

The Canadian company highlights research which showed that the biggest challenge UK veterinary clinics face is the volume of pets (57%), followed by being overbooked (50%) and unable to take on new patients¹.

In addition, earlier research has shown that 37%² of vets are “actively” thinking about quitting, with 80%³ of the UK profession leaving to get a better work-life balance.

Hence the company offers a service through which UK practices can divert non-urgent calls to Vetster, to relieve some of the pressure. 

Vetster says the most common cases treated by its veterinary surgeons are dermatology, gastrointestinal, respiratory, urinary tract, ophthalmology and musculoskeletal issues.

By diverting these cases to UK-licensed vets online, Vetster says it aims to relieve the pressure on clinics so that they can better serve pets in need of surgery, immunisations, bloodwork and other clinical treatments.

Mark Bordo, CEO and coFounder of Vetster said: “We are experiencing a global crisis in pet care exacerbated by the pandemic.

“Veterinarians are facing tremendous pressure to provide services to millions of pet owners.

"Vetster’s virtual care platform connects pet owners with licensed UK veterinarians to provide support when their clinic is closed, to answer a non-urgent question, and to improve the health outcomes of their pet and help ensure owners can care for their animals.” 

Veterinary surgeons in search of a better work life balance can also join Vetster to create a virtual care practice that provides teletriage and addresses non-urgent issues. 

Mark added: “Veterinarians are able to incorporate a new modality of practice to improve their work-life-balance, serve pet owners outside of a clinic environment, and hopefully practice for longer avoiding burnout and stress associated with this much-needed profession.”

Vetster is not available as a white label service at this time, and VetSurgeon.org understands that when it is clear an online consultation requires hands-on care, the owner is referred to the local practice on the platform, which may or may not be their normal practice.

Vets interested in offering consultations through Vetster can visit: https://vetster.com/en-gb/for-vets 

Veterinary practices that are interested in having Vetster provide OOH support to clients, can visit: https://vetster.com/en-ca/for-vet-clinics 

References

1. Vetster commissioned research through 3Gem with 150 vets in March 2022.
2. Research from Exeter University  - https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_691468_en.html
3. CM Research from a panel of more than 600 vets working in the UK 

Avacta Animal Health has launched a new streamlined allergy testing portfolio: Avacta Allergy +.

According to the company, the new Avacta Allergy+ offers:

• Simplified allergy testing options with improved performance including CCD blockers.
• A new visual test results format to make clinical interpretation easier.
• Smaller sample submission boxes and a streamlined submission form, which is quicker and simpler to complete. 
• Faster standard turnaround times for samples of 2 – 4 working days. 

Existing customers will be getting a launch pack this week, which comes with a box of Yorkshire teabags (as that's where Avacta heralds from) and a pack of chocolate biscuits so practice staff can take break whilst they peruse details of the new portfolio and accompanying support materials. 

To encourage the reuse of the old Avacta submission boxes, the company is also running a competition where practices can win a £100 Amazon gift voucher if they come up with the most practical and imaginative reuse idea. Full details can be found at avactaanimalhealth.com/news.

For more information visit www.avactaanimalhealth.com.

Independent Vetcare (IVC) has now officially unveiled 'Online Vets', its veterinary consultation service for pet owners, claiming to offer them a saving of nearly £100 a year on veterinary bills.

A 15-minute consultation with Online Vets on the IVC-owned www.myfamilypet.co.uk website costs £16, compared to the three other players in this marketplace: Pawsquad, Vet AI and Firstvet, which all charge £20.

The other significant difference is that Online Vets is backed by IVC's extensive network of 800+ bricks and mortar practices, so they have somewhere to refer cases that need treatment and they undertake to deduct the online consultation fee from the final bill if that happens. 

Douglas Veitch MRCVS, Head of Online Vets (the affable-looking chap pictured right) said: "In human healthcare, an online doctor can prescribe medication to their patients. However under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) legislation, vets cannot do that. This impacts the wallets of our clients, as it will often mean they pay twice; once for the online consultation and then for the subsequent consultation in practice. That’s why we have launched our Online Vets service as the digital vet team can refer into one of our 800+ practices and ensure the initial online fee is deducted from the bill."

That sounds like a bit of a pop at the RCVS being responsible for legislation that impacts clients' wallets, so it might be worth reflecting whether the GMC would allow doctors to prescribe medication online if their patients were all deaf, mute and had a mental age of less than one, which I assume is the intellectual capacity of the average dog.

That's by the by. It is this ability to offset Online Vets' consultation fee against any treatment needed offline that forms the basis of IVC's claim to save pet owners nearly £100 per annum on veterinary bills.

Of the other online service providers, only one (Vet AI) undertakes to refund the fee if offline treatment is then required. Online Vets says pets typically need 5 consultations per annum, and if they all need a subsequent consultation (and presuming none use Vet AI), £20 x 5 would therefore be down the drain, or, as the French would say, hors de la fenêtre. 

I think that claim is a bit punchy myself. It would be interesting to see the research that shows pets need 5 consultations per annum. My dog rarely sees the vet more than once in a year. And even if it did, I'll bet at least a couple of those consultations could be handled online.

But really, isn't this a bit of a red herring? The truth is that all these services are still in their infancy, and online consultations still make up only a tiny fraction of the overall number of veterinary interactions. So really, whether you'll actually save a few quid using Online Vets vs one of the others is probably not the point.

The really big savings for pet owners will surely come when bricks and mortar veterinary practices, IVC included, offer online consultations between clients and their normal vet, who can already prescribe medications remotely if the animal has been seen recently enough. That'll save me a lot more than £20 a visit.

In the meantime, if I was using one of these services to consult about my dog (and I might), the bigger deal for me would be to have the reassurance of knowing the advice was backed by a bricks and mortar practice, which is why I find it curious that the only mention of IVC (and all its resources) on the www.myfamilypet.co.uk website is, er, in the cookie policy.