Anna was nominated by senior vet, Charlotte Botham, and vet, Hayley Stenning, from Pennard Vets.
Charlotte said: “Anna is a rare find, she brightens the lives of all she meets, including our furry and feathered friends!
"For the clients she serves and the team she works with, she is not just a friendly, smiley face when they walk in, she’s a safe place, a friend, a confident and a fabulous sounding board.
"She laughs and smiles with joy during the happy times and she’s a supportive shoulder to lean on during the sad times.
“Anna is not only manning the front desk and answering phones but doing the stock take, ordering food and prescriptions, dealing with insurance queries, keeping the place spick and span, sorting blood and other samples - the list goes on!
"She is also a feisty cat wrangler, a bouncy dog distractor, or is simply there to hold an anxious paw or hand, with treats or a cup of tea at the ready!
“Our clients, staff and suppliers, as well as every pet that walks through the door, is treated like family, any concern big or small is acknowledged with compassion and empathy and she finds an efficient and fair solution to every problem.”
CEO and founder of the British Veterinary Receptionist Association (BVRA), Kay Watson-Bray, said: “Anna's nomination instantly stood out and impressed the judges.
"She is clearly an exceptional receptionist who goes above and beyond for both her colleagues and her clients, and she truly deserves this award.”
Anna said: “I really love what I do, it’s more than a job, it’s a way of life and I find helping my team, our clients and their pets incredibly rewarding.
"As part of the award win, I will now have a place on the BVRA Council for the year, which means I will help shape the training courses and the support veterinary receptionists receive.
"I will also be part of the judging team for next year’s awards so it’s a very exciting role.”
https://www.bvra.co.uk
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
Miss Morris faced three charges.
The first was that she left the post-operative German Shepherd unattended between 12.15pm and 2.30pm, made clinical records entries before leaving the practice indicating she’d made these entries at 2pm when she had not, and at 1.41pm sent a message to a veterinary surgeon colleague in which she purported to be providing contemporaneous updates about the dog’s condition and circumstances when she was not, in fact, with the animal.
The second charge alleged that her conduct from the first charge was potentially detrimental to the dog’s welfare, while the third charge alleged that the same conduct was dishonest and/or misleading.
Miss Morris admitted the majority of the charges, although she denied that she had made the clinical record dishonestly, saying that she had innocently omitted to correct a time entry she had earlier made in the records as a “prompt”.
After considering the evidence, the Committee found that she had been dishonest as she knowingly pre-entered the incorrect time in order to cover up for a period of absence from the practice.
The Committee then considered whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that there was a real risk of injury to the animal caused by leaving it unattended when it was recovering from a serious emergency procedure, dishonesty, recklessness regarding the dog’s welfare, pre-meditated misconduct, breach of client trust and, breach of the position of trust and responsibility placed in her.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that this was a single isolated incident, that it concerned one animal, and that, although there was a risk of harm in leaving a vulnerable animal unattended, her actions did not directly lead to any harm coming to the animal.
Overall, it found that Miss Morris’s conduct would undermine the public trust and confidence placed in the veterinary nursing profession as a whole as well as bring the profession into disrepute and so found that her actions amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding the most appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account a number of further mitigating factors. These were Miss Morris’s youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct, her previously unblemished career, her open and frank admissions to the majority of the charges, her efforts to avoid repeating such behaviours, her efforts to remediate past misconduct, the significant lapse of time between the incident and the disciplinary hearing, her demonstration of insight into her misconduct, together with and positive personal character references and testimonials.
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In deciding the proportionate sanction, the Committee considered the nature and extent of the dishonesty it had found proved.
"When considering where the dishonesty fell on a scale of dishonesty, it noted that the respondent had acted dishonestly within her practice as a veterinary nurse, on three clinical records, but that the dishonesty related to a single incident and one patient with the aim of extending her time away from the practice on Christmas Day.
"It therefore concluded that this could be described as middle ranging dishonesty (not the most or least serious type of dishonesty)."
Mrs Way added: “The Committee therefore concluded that, taking into account all of the above matters, a suspension of six months was the proportionate sanction required to meet the public interest in this case.
"It decided on a period of six months in order to send a signal to the veterinary nursing profession and the public about such conduct.
"In the Committee’s judgment, taking into account all of the above factors, a sanction of removal would be excessive and would not take sufficient account of the substantial mitigating factors.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
To take part in the survey, which will take about ten minutes, visit: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/RepRIPorVIP.
Everyone who completes the survey will be entered into a draw to win one of three £50 Amazon vouchers.
The House of Lords debate, which is being hosted by Professor The Lord Tress of Kinross, will take place on Wednesday, 21st June 2023.
Speakers will include Donal Murphy of NOAH, Rita Dingwall of the Federation f Independent Veterinary Practices and Paul Horwood, Country Head of Farm at IVC Evidensia.
https://vma.org.uk/house-of-lords/
As well as recycling its own blister packs used for pet medication, White Cross Vets, which has 21 practices, is urging local residents to bring in their empty blister packs to be recycled in a collection box in its reception areas.
MYGroup will process the collected blister packs, separating it back into its constituent parts so it can be fed back into supply chains and used to make new materials, including MYboard, a product which is used for construction, joinery, shop and event fittings.
Tom Ward, clinic director from White Cross Vets in Guiseley, said: “Very few local authorities or waste companies can recycle blister packs, which are used to package tablets and pills, meaning they usually end up in landfill or incineration.
“As a practice we use thousands of blister packs every year and we’re conscious that we need to look after our environment, so when we discovered there is now a ground-breaking recycling solution through MYGroup, it was obvious we needed to get involved.
“We’re also pleased to be able to make it available to local people in the surrounding area who can collect the blister packs they use at home and drop them off with us for recycling, regardless of whether or not they’re a client or even a pet owner.
"The initial feedback we’ve received has been very positive and we’re now beginning to see more and more blister packs being recycled each week as the scheme begins to grow.”
https://mygroupltd.com
Steve Carrie, group director from MYGroup, said: “MYGroup offers the only circular solution on the market for recycling blister packs and we’re only just getting started in this critical waste space to save such a ubiquitous item from landfill or incineration.
MYGroup launched its first blister pack recycling scheme earlier this year across a series of GP surgeries and pharmacies in York, with over 185,000 waste blister packs collected so far.
Each full box that White Cross Vets collects carries an approximate carbon saving of 30kg, which is roughly the equivalent of driving nearly 800 miles in a car.
The new course is called ‘New staff training course with Post2Pet’, and, as the name suggests, it will look at how to incorporate the home delivery option into a preventative healthcare plan.
Premier Vet Alliance says the course is suitable for any member of the practice team that wants to increase their knowledge about healthcare plans.
The course is 4 modules long with an assessment leading to 1.5 hours of completed CPD. It will launch towards the end of April.
James Tudor, Head of Customer Experience at Premier Vet Alliance, said: "This is a fantastic resource and I am I so proud of the team who’ve developed this and helped practices to train staff efficiently and effectively.
"It’s opening up the future of training and we hope to gain guidance in developing our training provision by working directly with practices, to help keep the training relevant.
"We see real value in CPD accredited courses, especially where they help enable veterinary staff to increase their knowledge on maximising their clients’ compliance. They can also learn how to influence animal health, and drive other aspects of the business through health plans."
"This is just the beginning; we will continue to increase our CPD accreditations and share best practice across Europe and the United States."
For more information contact 0117 370 0300 or email pcp@premiervetalliance.co.uk.
The deal includes an option for the College to lease the building for up to two years to give it time to consider its options for the future, and how they may have changed as a result of the pandemic.
The decision to sell the property was made back in November 2018, when Council decided that the building was rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and the College needed more up-to-date and modern facilities with more room for a growing workforce. The College’s Estates Strategy Project Board was tasked with managing the process, chaired by former RCVS President Barry Johnson.
RCVS Treasurer Susan Dawson said: “Council recognised that this deal realised maximum value for the building, especially considering the impact the pandemic has had on property prices in Central London.
“It also provides a very valuable opportunity to reflect on the changing needs of the organisation and the professions and public it serves, and to consider the requirements and different working patterns of the College staff going forwards.
“It is likely that many staff members will wish to continue to work at home more than they did pre-Covid, so the need for pure desk-space may not be as great as we had planned for the 10-15 years ahead. However, the importance of in-person meetings for collaboration, creativity and the maintenance of good corporate culture is not to be underestimated, so our new requirements are likely to be different to that anticipated back in 2018.”
The College says it expects to welcome limited numbers of staff back to the office in June, to work in a socially distanced way, including virtual or partly-virtual meetings.
Changes to working patterns over the coming months will also help inform decisions around future remote working policies and the type and size of building that will best suit the future needs of the College and its workforce.
Sally Linghorn, Senior RVN at CVS and one of the team behind the initiative, said: “As far as we know, no other veterinary company has policy, support and specific training and guidance on this topic, in our female-biased profession.”
“We recognise how devastating pregnancy loss can be.
"Last year we launched a policy to provide special paid leave for pregnancy loss.
"But since implementing this we have noticed a gap.
"We felt our managers needed guidance and support on how to provide the more practical and emotional support on a day-to-day basis, if someone in their team experienced a loss."
The new guidance contains advice on how to understand each individual’s experiences and needs, help in the immediate situation of pregnancy loss at work, treat and record any time off directly related to a loss, understand how pregnancy loss can affect mental health, talk about pregnancy loss, facilitate a return to work and the importance of regular follow-ups and check-ins.
This new injectable fluralaner formulation is approved for the immediate and persistent killing of fleas for one year (Ctenocephalides felis and Ctenocephalides canis), from 3 days to 12 months after treatment for the ticks Ixodes ricinus, and Dermacentor reticulatus, from 4 days to 12 months after treatment for Rhipicephalus sanguineus, and from 7 days to 12 months after treatment for Ixodes hexagonus.
MSD says it will also reduce the risk of Babesia canis via transmission by Dermacentor reticulatus from day 3 after treatment for up to 12 months, and also reduces the risk of infection with Dipylidium caninum via transmission by Ctenocephalides felis for up to 12 months.
Victoria Miles, UK Companion Animal Business Unit Director, MSD Animal Health said: “Imagine not having to worry about flea and tick protection for a whole year.
Bravecto 150 mg/ml powder and solvent for suspension for injection for dogs can be administered to dogs and puppies six months of age and older.
The product is already available in France and Germany and MSD told VetNurse.co.uk that stocks are expected in the UK in September, for which the company is now taking pre-orders.
Contact your MSD Account Manager for further information on pricing.
A single vial can now be used for 8 days after reconstitution when stored in a fridge at between two and eight degrees celsius.
This, says Virbac, will help maximise the use of each vial, ultimately reducing wastage and providing a cost-effective solution.
whatstherisk.co.uk has been created for all practice staff and contains advice from parasitologists Ian Wright and Eric Morgan.
Topics include advice on practical risk assessments, how risk-based prescribing can work with health plans as well as how to get owners involved to make risk assessment and personalised prescribing quicker and simpler.
Boehringer says that all the materials and advice have been developed in line with RCVS Practice Standards and the BVA's guidance on the responsible use of parasiticides.1,2
Sharron Woods, NexGard brands Franchise Manager said: “With knowledge about parasitic risk low among dog owners, alongside increasing scrutiny on the potential overuse of parasiticides, we’re delighted to be at the forefront of supporting vets, pet owners and the wider industry in driving best-practice risk assessment and responsible parasite control."
References
The new pathway shows the opportunity to progress through either clinical or team leadership and how nurses can move into management roles.
Behind each level in the pathway there's a curriculum of learning which starts at the stage of being newly qualified and then moves into three clinical activity levels.
Level 3 nurses for example, would regularly undertake advanced Schedule 3 nursing procedures - such as tail amputations and mass removals, as well as diagnostics - such as MRI and ultrasound.
Beyond this, there are opportunities to become a CVS clinical or team lead, with the former leading a defined area of clinical practice and the latter responsible for line managing some of the nursing team.
In CVS multi-disciplinary hospitals and practices there will also be a new role of Nurse Manager, who will be responsible for the management of a larger team.
Tara Ryan, Chief Veterinary Nursing Officer, said: “There are so many good reasons to provide structure and clarity around nursing careers.
“The nursing career progression will enhance the role of the RVN in our practices and ensure we utilise the skills of our nurses.
"It should give more confidence to vets when delegating to nurses and it will enable nurses to do more for clients whether that be consulting or procedures.
“Most importantly it will support nurses in taking the direction in their career that they want to take.
"There are multiple different options for nurses to progress within CVS – whether it be in practice, procurement, client services or learning, education and development. It means nurses can truly have a life-long career at CVS.”
Abbeydale says this was a particularly special achievement because it was its first full inspection as a training provider.
Sam Morgan RVN, a director alongside Kirsty Gwynne RVN, said: "The inspectors were particularly impressed by our ambitious curriculum which reflects current industry practice, our ability to link on and off-the-job training, and how senior leaders and tutors support apprentices to understand career pathways.
“We are proud that our hard work has been recognised in this way.
"It is a team effort here at Abbeydale and it is a combination of all our tutors, learners, employers, clinical coaches, and governance boards’ input to ensure our provision is fit for purpose.”
The full Ofsted report can be read at www.reports.ofsted.gov.uk
To find out more about Abbeydale Vet Nurse Training visit www.vetnursetraining.co.uk
Photo: R-L Kirsty Gwynne RVN and Sam Morgan RVN.
From now on, accredited General Practices will need to employ at least one Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN), whilst at Veterinary Hospitals all patients should now have a nursing plan in place, and an RVN will need to be on duty at all times.
Other changes to the PSS requirements include:
The full list of changes to the Practice Standards Scheme, together with the new module and award documents, can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSreview.
David Ashcroft leads the team of PSS Assessors responsible for undertaking practice visits and assessing if they meet the required standards. He said: “The changes will come into force later in the year, at the same time as we are planning to return to in-person assessments, and so timings will be subject to government guidance on coronavirus and the easing of lockdown restrictions.
“As the PSS returns to in-person assessments, practices will have the usual three-month period between booking the assessment and the assessment taking place with which to familiarise themselves with the changes and the modules documents relevant to their accreditation.
“If anyone has any questions about the changes then please make sure to contact the Practice Standards Team on pss@rcvs.org.uk and we will be happy to help in any way we can.”
Danny Chambers MRCVS had a disappointing night after seeing the Liberal Democrat share of the vote in North Cornwall decrease by 5.8%, leaving him trailing 14,752 votes behind the Conservative candidate Scott Mann who scored 30,671.
Meanwhile Ian Fleming MRCVS, who stood as an independent candidate for the Halesowen and Rowley Regis constituency, got 190 votes. The winning Conservative candidate, James Morris, gained 25,607 votes.
Many people will no doubt feel that the overall Conservative majority of 80 seats is a disastrous result; people who simply cannot bear Boris and fear what he'll do with a majority; people who saw a land of milk and honey and free broadband and publicly-owned railways that run on time and an A&E waiting time of less than 30 seconds and guillotines for the rich, only to have their hopes dashed. They must be gutted.
Equally it can be argued that this is the best possible result for the country. A decisive vote. Now, finally, we can all move on from 3 years of interminable debate about whether we're staying or going or having another referendum or cancelling the whole thing and going down the pub instead. Now the government can concentrate on implementing brexit. Perhaps the country can at last unite around that purpose.
Boris may not prove the disaster that some people think. He's not hard right. Quite the reverse. And having won all those safe Labour seats, he'll have to deliver for them. He has a good sense of humour ("Let's get breakfast done."), but that does not make him a fool or a charlatan. On the contrary, wit requires brainpower. And as for the accusations of being a liar, perhaps people will come to understand that flowery use of language does not itself make someone dishonest. Perhaps people will learn to stop interpreting his words so literally.
Time will tell, but there is cause for optimism this morning. Whichever side of the fence you sit, we must all be glad of one thing ... no more arguing about whether or not we're leaving.
505 people took part in the survey in August 2019, of which 85% were receptionists. The remainder were RVNs, VCAs or practice managers with some front desk responsibility.
The survey found that 45% were paid between £8 and £9 per hour, with 9% more falling into this salary bracket than in 2018. 5.32% were paid £8 or less per hour.
The Real Living Wage is a figure calculated from the costs of a basket of household goods and services by the Living Wage Foundation, and voluntarily paid by its 6000-odd member companies in the UK. The Living Wage Foundation argues it is a better measure of what people need to get by on than the Minimum Wage (£7.70 for those aged between 21 and 25) or the National Living Wage (£8.21 for those over 25).
63% of veterinary receptionists said they were unsatisfied with their pay. However, it was not the biggest cause of dissatisfaction uncovered by the survey. 67% were dissatisfied with the recognition of the value of their role, and 69% with the career progression options open to them.
70% of respondents said they would like to do more CPD and that the main benefit would be to clients and patients. However, 43% of receptionists said there is no time allowance set aside for them to complete CPD.
Co-founder of BVRA and Honorary Associate Professor In Veterinary Business, Nottingham University, Brian Faulkner (pictured right) said: "A large part of the client experience is centred around the waiting room and receptionist area and our members work hard to ensure that experience is positive.
"We have an increasing number looking to upskill and the appetite for CPD is clearly there. If we can envisage a scenario where the minimum wage is set at £10.50 an hour, that would mean that around 65% of veterinary receptionists would need a pay increase.
"I don't think any of us believe that veterinary receptionists are currently doing an unskilled job and a key mission of BVRA is to achieve greater recognition of the value they bring to practices, both as colleagues and commercially."
The work done by vetnurse.co.uk and vetsurgeon.org attempted to identify the sorts of unpleasant behaviour that veterinary surgeons and and nurses found themselves on the receiving end of, and the impact that it had on them. It was not, however, able to quantify the prevalence of these types of behaviour other than to the extent that there were 677 reports.
The new survey of over 650 vet nurses and student vet nurses found that not only did 96% agree or strongly agree that bullying and incivility is a serious problem in the profession, but 70% of respondents had personally experienced a mental health concern as a result.
Other findings from the survey were:
The full findings of the survey will be revealed at the MMI Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum, taking place on Wednesday 3rd November.
Attendees will have the opportunity to discuss the challenges highlighted in the survey and how they can be addressed. The results will also be published at a session led by Jill McDonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator at BVNA Congress, taking place Saturday 2nd – Monday 4th October.
Lisa Quigley, Mind Matters Initiative Manager, said: “A number of our survey findings are extremely concerning, particularly the high levels of bullying, incivility and discrimination reported by participants. We conducted the survey with the intention of finding out more about what systemic issues across workplace practices were impacting on the profession’s mental health.
"We want to thank everyone who took part and shared their experiences with us. There were some upsetting accounts shared with us about experiences of bullying and discrimination – no one should go through this at any point in their life, let alone at their place of work.
"Decisive action needs to be taken to tackle this and we will be using the findings of the survey to help form our 2022-2027 strategy and decide what resources and training we create for the profession. Supporting the wellbeing of veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses is one of our key priorities, and will be part of all future MMI activities.”
“I would encourage as many veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses as possible to attend the upcoming Student Veterinary Nurse Wellbeing Discussion Forum and our session at BVNA to have your voice heard about what steps need to be taken to improve the mental wellbeing of the profession.
"We recognise that these results may bring some difficult emotions to the fore for many people, and we would encourage anyone who has experienced bullying or discrimination to seek help from an organisation such as Vetlife or the National Bullying Helpline.
"I would urge anyone who witnesses bullying or discrimination in the workplace to speak out, wherever it is safe to do so. This takes immense courage, but it is only by calling out this behaviour that it can begin to be addressed. We will be launching Active Bystander training in early 2022, to equip people with the confidence to call out unacceptable behaviour, and the skills to proactively support colleagues who have been targeted.”
Matthew Rendle, Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, added: “As a veterinary nurse some of these results were a difficult read and I would like to thank those student vet nurses and newly qualified vet nurses who came forward with great honesty and bravery with their views and experiences, as it couldn’t have been easy.
“We take these matters very seriously and opening up the conversation is an important first step. I hope that, following these results, we can take look at things such as strengthening reporting mechanisms for bullying and discrimination and encouraging better workplace practices to mitigate against these incidents.
“While it’s easy to focus on the negatives, I do think that these survey results have given us positive steps to build on, not least that people know how to access mental health support so they’re not suffering in silence and the role that our amazing clinical coaches are playing in supporting people with their mental health, and how we can better give them the tools for this support.”
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
Until recently, only veterinary surgeons could be elected to control the charity’s activities, with parts of its governing document reflecting its first incorporation as the Victoria Veterinary Benevolent Fund dating as far back as 1919.
However, a review by the Vetlife Board of Trustees of its Articles and Memorandum of Association identified a need for the charity to better reflect current multidisciplinary team approaches to veterinary services.
The resulting changes to the Articles embrace registered veterinary nurses as an integral part of the veterinary professional team with the new Articles extending the charitable objects of Vetlife to include all veterinarians and veterinary nurses.
These changes also entitle registered veterinary nurses to become full Vetlife members and to stand for nomination as trustees, enabling a more balanced representation of the veterinary professional team, and providing the opportunity for nurses to add their expertise and experience to the future direction of the charity.
Robyn said: "I am incredibly excited to join the Board of Trustees for Vetlife, and even more so as the first RVN to join in the charity’s history.
"It is a privilege and honour to support Vetlife, and I am immensely proud of the work done prior to my appointment that saw the Board review the Articles, approved this July, allowing support of vets and nurses equally .
"I want to thank Graham Dick and the Board of Trustees for being the driving force behind this momentous event and look forward to my term."
https://vetlife.org.uk
Vetlife Helpline is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year on: 0303 040 2551 or via anonymous email at https://helpline.vetlife.org.uk
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
The paper, ‘Mortality Related to General Anaesthesia and Sedation in Dogs under UK Primary Veterinary Care’, published in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia1, used data from more than 150,000 dogs attending first opinion veterinary practices around the UK.
The study examined the overall risk of death for each dog which had at least one sedation and/or anaesthesia procedure over a set period of time.
The study also looked at anaesthesia related to neutering (spaying and castration) in dogs because these procedures are so common in the UK and anaesthetic risk can be a significant worry for owners.
The findings showed that currently there are 14 deaths in 10,000 dogs within two weeks of sedation/anaesthesia procedures carried out for any reason, of which 10 deaths per 10,000 are within 48 hours of these procedures.
For neutering surgeries in dogs, the risk is even smaller, with one death in 10,000 neuter procedures related to sedation and/or anaesthesia.
No association was seen between the age of puppies at the time of neutering and risk of death.
Factors associated with increased risk of sedation and anaesthetic-related death in this study included:
Certain breeds, such as Cocker Spaniels, were found to be at lower risk compared with mixed breeds.
The team also investigated whether flat-faced ‘brachycephalic’ breeds were associated with higher risk.
Surprisingly, longer-nosed ‘dolichocephalic’ breeds showed four times the odds of sedative/anaesthetic-related death compared with medium-length nose dogs, whereas no additional risk was seen in flat-faced breeds.
The authors of the paper say that overall, these results should provide some reassurance for the veterinary and dog-owning communities regarding the safety of neutering for young puppies, as well as the relative safety of sedatives and anaesthetics for more complex procedures.
For older dogs, those with poorer health or undergoing planned complex surgeries, the results emphasise the value of careful planning to manage the anaesthetic risks.
Urgent procedures, regardless of complexity, were shown to carry greater risk and therefore should be approached with high vigilance and caution.
Dr Dan O’Neill, Associate Professor in Companion Animal Epidemiology at the RVC and co-author of the paper, said:
“This new VetCompass study can help owners deal with these fears by understanding the real anaesthetic risk is not that high: 14 deaths in every 10,000 dogs. Decision-making based on the known can now replace fear of the unknown.”
Full paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2022.03.006 / https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467298722001015
Reference
The RNMs, Gemma Mogridge, Neil Smith, Leanne Walker and Kerry Jackson have been hired to promote career progression and to help make sure that nurses are fully used in their roles and able to access more development opportunities.
Claire Roberts, Field Nursing Manager at Linnaeus, said: “Our RNM roles will provide operational leadership to our nurses in primary care practices and provide a nursing voice at a senior level across the group.
"They will focus on every aspect of nursing to help increase job satisfaction and progression opportunities for all our teams.”
RNM Leanne Walker said: “In my region we are focusing on nurse and Patient Care Assistant utilisation by introducing more nurse consults, encouraging nurse involvement in schedule 3 procedures and offering opportunities for leadership and progression.
"We are also training PCAs to the highest standard so they can effectively assist with essential tasks such as running blood samples, setting up clinical areas and maintaining hygiene around the practice.
“I look forward to helping the nursing teams realise their full potential in an area that they are passionate about – or help them realise their interest in an area they haven’t considered before”
Concern has been expressed in the profession about environmental contamination from products used in companion animal treatment for ectoparasites, such as fleas and ticks.
In recent years there has been a widely documented fall in the abundance of many terrestrial invertebrate populations1.
While the decline has been mostly linked to agricultural chemicals, there is a concern that companion animal ectoparasiticides could also be a contributing factor, with a recent study2 confirming the presence of common compounds used in flea-treatment3 in UK waterways.
However, the association with companion animal ectoparasiticides is currently poorly understood, with a significant knowledge gap and little robust research available to assess the true importance and environmental consequences.
The funded project ‘Assessing the Environmental Risk from Ectoparasite Treatments in Companion Animals’ will be led by Professor Richard Wall, Professor of Zoology and Dr Emily Bell, Senior Lecturer at University of Bristol in collaboration with Dr Imogen Schofield, Veterinary Statistician and Epidemiologist at CVS, and Lizzie McLennan-Green, Small Animal Veterinary Director at CVS.
It will be conducted via a PhD studentship at the University of Bristol as part of the CVS Clinical Research Awards.
The research will include a longitudinal ‘citizen science’ study with pet owners to develop a greater understanding of owner use and attitudes towards ectoparasiticides.
It will also include laboratory assessments of ectoparasiticide residues collected from companion animals to provide evidence-based information on the potential environmental impact of the treatments when applied to companion animals.
It is hoped the study will help the wider veterinary profession develop the most appropriate approaches to prescribing and use of ectoparasiticides in the future, and inform educational strategies to support owners with ‘responsible use’. The study is also set to benefit companion animals, as the research will inform strategies to ensure the most appropriate control of parasitic burden to pets.
The project starts in January 2023 and will run for three-years as a full time PhD.
CVS is providing £95,000 to fund the research.
At the beginning of the hearing legal applications were made to rule that the whole proceedings should be stopped as an abuse of process on various grounds including the delay that had occurred in the matters being referred to the RCVS, and that there had been flaws in the original investigatory process.
There was also application that the evidence of one of the College’s witnesses should be excluded on the grounds that the witness had been convicted of bribery.
The Committee decided that the proceedings should continue but ruled that the statement and evidence of one witness should be excluded from the hearing based upon their conviction.
Mr Gracey faced five charges, all of which he was found guilty of. They were:
Three other charges were found not proven and one allegation was withdrawn by the RCVS.
The Committee then considered if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it made reference to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly in relation to the 10 Principles of Certification.
Dr Hazel Bentall MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered individually and cumulatively all matters it had found proved.
"It concluded that the public relies on veterinary surgeons to be honest and transparent when completing and signing forms.
"There is a public interest in being able to trust the profession to uphold high standards of probity because veterinary surgeons are trusted to play an important role in the promotion of animal health and welfare and associated human health.
"The Committee therefore concluded that cumulatively Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 amounted to serious professional misconduct because the respondent had failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency.
"In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose.”
“The Committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
"The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”
In considering the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as a number of character witnesses for the respondent who highlighted his positive personal and professional qualities.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Gracey has hitherto been of good character with no previous disciplinary findings, that he had admitted some parts of the charges against him at the outset of the hearing, that he had made efforts to avoid repeating the misconduct and remediate it – this included making alternative certification arrangements for his father’s farm and taking more appropriate care with record keeping.
The Committee also acknowledged the significant lapse of time between the date of the misconduct and the hearing and the stress that had caused to Mr Gracey, as well as the insight he had shown into his misconduct.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that imposing a period of six months suspension from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction for Mr Gracey.
Dr Bentall added: “The Committee concluded that suspension of the respondent’s registration for a period of six months was proportionate.
"The Committee considered whether a shorter period was appropriate bearing in mind the mitigating factors it had found applied in this case.
"It decided that a period of six months was proportionate and the minimum length necessary to meet the public interest balancing the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigation.
"It decided that a shorter period of suspension would be insufficient to uphold proper standards within the profession, or to have a deterrent effect.
“The Committee was satisfied that the respondent had shown sufficient insight and efforts to remediate his misconduct and it concluded that at the end of this period of suspension he would not pose a further risk to animal welfare or public health.
"The Committee considered that the respondent was a valued veterinary surgeon with extensive farm animal experience and that a more severe sanction such as removal from the RCVS Register would not properly reflect the Committee’s findings on the scale of dishonesty and would not take account of the respondent’s mitigation.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
Discuss the propose changes here