View all veterinary jobs
VetNurse.co.uk publishes a curated feed of veterinary nursing news for registered veterinary nurses (RVNs), students (SVNs) and veterinary nursing assistants, with a primary focus on the UK profession.
We select stories based on their practical relevance, clinical interest or professional significance — filtering out noise so busy veterinary nurses can stay informed quickly.
Our coverage includes:
We report across all areas of practice, including companion animal, referral and specialist settings, with a focus on issues affecting veterinary nurses in clinical and professional roles.
Our editorial approach is deliberately selective and concise. We prioritise clarity and relevance over volume, aiming to make each story worth your time.
You can follow VetNurse news by subscribing to the daily, weekly or monthly email digest, or via our channels on Facebook and LinkedIn.
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.
The coils need to be cooled to -460 °F in order to get good quality images.
To achieve the same result without helium, Hallmarq’s new MRI uses a conduction-based cooling system in a strong vacuum, which eliminates the need for helium, a quench pipe, oxygen monitor, or any additional power.
This, Hallmarq says, makes the new system more environmentally friendly than its helium-based counterparts and reduces the upfront and ongoing costs of offering a veterinary MRI service to patients.
The new technology comes in response to growing concerns over helium supply.
Extraction and usage of helium is quickly outpacing its natural synthesis, as a result of which, Hallmarq says helium prices have soared from £12.75 per litre in December of 2017 to between £50 and £55 per litre in June 2022.
For veterinary hospitals already using high-field MRI machines, or for those considering them in the future, reliance on the 1,500-2,200 litres of helium required to keep a standard MRI functioning may not be sustainable.
Hallmarq’s Chief Technology Officer Dr. Steve Roberts said: “Hallmarq’s Zero-Helium Small Animal 1.5T MRI system increases access to diagnostic care for small animal patients, while lessening the financial, environmental and supply chain risks associated with traditional helium-based MRI systems."
www.hallmarq.net.
The deal is expected to complete by the middle of 2020.
According to the terms of the deal, Vetoquinol will acquire the Profender and Drontal product families, the intellectual property, registrations and other rights currently owned by Bayer AG’s animal health business.
Jeff Simmons, president and CEO of Elanco said: "We’re pleased with the continued progress on a number of fronts to move the acquisition of Bayer AG’s animal health business toward completion.
Matthieu Frechin, CEO of Vetoquinol, said: "We are very pleased to acquire the Profender and Drontal product lines that are highly valued by veterinarians and pet owners. The acquisition of these two strong brands is at the heart of our strategy. On the one hand, they will significantly increase the size of our business and our visibility in the parasiticide segment, one of our strategic therapeutic areas. On the other hand, they will strengthen our portfolio of Essentials, the engine of our growth."
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
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.
The Equine Nursing Committee is comprised of members of CVS Equine Nursing practice teams from across the country, supported by senior nursing team members within CVS Group.
The committee’s remit will be for nurses to review and appraise the evidence supporting new-to-market therapies, appraise treatments and equipment, and guidance for practice-level decisions.
CVS says the group will also identify and share the most important clinical developments, provide technical knowledge and feedback on clinical policy, update clinical guidelines and disseminate the clinical decision-making process.
The group is also tasked with developing nursing career pathways and student nurse support programmes, creating psychologically safe working environments and forming support programmes for nurses.
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
For example, a human generic paracetamol/codeine tablet costs approximately 3p at wholesaler prices.
By comparison, an almost identical licensed veterinary equivalent costs ten times as much.
The requirement for veterinary surgeons to prescribe expensive veterinary-licensed medications over cheaper unlicensed medications or drugs licensed for human use was first introduced though EU Directive 2001/82/EC in 2001, which the UK was legally required to implement in the form of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.
The main objectives of the EU directive were to safeguard public health by regulating medicines used in food-producing animals, to ensure the health and welfare of animals by requiring veterinary medicines to be authorised based on quality, safety and efficacy, to facilitate the free movement of medicines between member states and to encourage pharmaceutical innovation.
Whilst there is a strong rationale for the use of licensed medicines in food-producing animals, primarily to protect the public from medicine residues, the case for cats and dogs is weaker.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that legislators considered the increased cost to pet owners of implementing Directive 2001/82/EC, and the potential unintended consequences.
14 years later, this new research shows that the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 may in fact harm companion animal welfare and stifle pharmaceutical innovation.
In terms of harm, the survey found that 38.8% of veterinary surgeons noted that owners are unable to afford the veterinary licensed drugs they are obliged to prescribe between 1-4 times per week.
Another 25.8% of vets said this happened very often, ie at least once a week.
Another 24% said it happened at least once a month.
From these figures, the authors calculated that 438,000 owners may be unable to afford vet licensed drugs over cheaper human-use generics.
In requiring vets to prescribe veterinary-licensed medications, there should obviously be a clear, measurable benefit to animal welfare.
For example, if it were possible to argue that the regulation has reduced the occurrence of adverse reactions to medication or inefficacy.
However, in the US, where no comparable regulation is in place and the same drugs are used, there is no evidence of this being the case, despite the very much larger population.
There is also evidence to suggest that the system may stifle, rather than promote the development of novel treatments, as pharmaceutical companies have prioritised the veterinary licensing of human use drugs over the development of new ones, because it costs them far less and carries less risk of failure.
Since the introduction of Directive 2001/82/EC, pharmaceutical companies have launched six novel veterinary medicines for companion animals in the EU, namely Frunevetmab, fluralaner, lokivetmab, bedinvetmab, lotilaner and pradofloxacin.
By contrast, over the same time period, there have been 13 human use drugs licensed for veterinary use, with no evidence to support the idea that they have become safer, better or more effective in animals than they were when the cheaper human-use variants were prescribed before the Directive was introduced.
David Mills MRCVS, lead author of the article, said: "It is incumbent on veterinary legislators and regulators to consider the impact of their legislation and regulation on the cost to the consumer and consequently on animal welfare.
"In this case, they need to consider whether the benefits of licensing are real and measurable, and that they outweigh any harm caused by impact of licensing on the cost of treatments.
"Whilst it is only right that pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for developing novel treatments, removing the requirement for vets to prescribe licensed medication when a human generic exists, or even simply allowing discretionary use of unlicensed medication on the grounds of cost are all simple solutions that would better serve animal welfare, reduce costs to owners and promote research of new drugs."
PDF
Reference
The Adaptil Diffuser has been renamed the Adaptil Calm Home Diffuser, the Adaptil Collar has been renamed Adaptil Calm On-the-Go Collar, Adaptil Spray is now called Adaptil Transport and Adaptil Tablets are now called Adaptil Express.
The new products are split into three colour-coded groups. In blue packaging, Adaptil Calm Home Diffuser is designed to help dogs stay calm in recurring situations at home, including staying alone, loud noises and visitors. It comes as a 30-day starter kit containing a diffuser and refill, and lasts for 30 days.
Adaptil Calm On-the-go Collar is for use when dogs face fearful situations outdoors. It is available in two collar sizes (small to fit necks up to 37.5cm and large to fit necks up to 62.5cm) and it lasts for four weeks.
Adaptil Transport comes in yellow packaging and is designed to make travel and visits to the vet less stressful. It is available in 60ml and 20ml bottles.
Adaptil Calm Home Diffuser, Adaptil Calm On-the-Go Collar and Adaptil Transport all contain dog appeasing pheremones to help dogs feel calm and relaxed.
The last product in the new range is Adaptil Express, which comes in green packaging. Adaptil Express is an oral supplement which Ceva says provides a fast, calming effect for dogs faced with occasional challenging events such as thunderstorms and fireworks. The non-pheromone tablets, which come in packs of 10 or 40 tablets, combine GABA and amino acids and can be given with or without food.
Abigail King, product manager for Adaptil, said: "80% of pet owners state that their dog gets stressed during challenging situations both inside and outside the home and during specific occasions such as travelling, fireworks and thunderstorms1. Adaptil’s new product range caters for all these eventualities and the eye-catching branding and packaging clearly indicates which product should be used for each challenging occasion to aid owner compliance and help dogs feel calm and relaxed at all times."
For further information, visit www.adaptil.com/uk.
Batches 060K80412C1A-UK1-2 and 060K80412A1C-UK1-2 (expiry 12/06/2019) have been recalled due to incorrect storage requirements during shipment.
For further information, contact Jerome Martineau at: jerome.martineau@filavie.com, or telephone: +33 2 41 754616
The new Wound Management Expert Help Forum is a completely new social media format through which any veterinary nurse can come and ask a question which is then shared amongst experts in their field for a reply. Importantly, only the nurse who asked question and the experts can take part in the discussion.
For the new forum, VetNurse.co.uk has joined forces with Georgie Hollis from The Veterinary Wound Library and her team of Bandaging Angels, who include Shelly Jefferies RVN, Zara Clephane RVN and Louis Pailor RVN.
The idea was inspired by Sir Tim Berners Lee, the so called 'father of the Internet', who gave a speech last year in which he bemoaned the lack of provenance and transparency for information and opinions shared on Facebook. What’s more, expert opinion is often drowned amongst the opinions of people who are certainly not experts, and who quite often don’t know what they are talking about.
This new format overcomes this problem because only veterinary experts with a completed profile which shows their qualifications are allowed to reply to questions in the Expert Help Forums on VetNurse.
Furthermore, the forum is a safe NURSE ONLY space to discuss your remit, challenges and responsibilities in a friendly, peer-led environment that can support nurses working in diverse teams.
Aside from giving you the confidence of knowing that you are getting help from someone whose qualifications you can see, there are a number of other benefits of this format. First, because the discussion is kept between someone who is looking for help and someone who is there to help, there is no risk of the discussion becoming hostile, as sometimes happens in less controlled discussion formats.
Second, unlike Facebook, where posts are very much ‘here today, gone today’ your questions will become part of a searchable knowledgebase that others can refer to. By working with the Vet Wound Library team we will be able to ensure the very best evidence-based support is offered alongside the opportunity for further education and telemedicine support if required.
Last but not least, both the question author and the experts can claim time spend in the Expert forums towards their annual CPD requirement. Just click ‘claim CPD' at the top of the thread and then collect a certificate from time to time in your profile.
To encourage our first raft of questions VetNurse.co.uk and The Veterinary Wound Library are offering a £25 Amazon voucher for the best four questions about veterinary wound care submitted to the Wound Management Expert Help Forum by August 20th 2020. Don’t hold back, your question can be a general one about techniques or materials, process or procedure or even a specific case.
To submit your question, login to www.vetnurse.co.uk and visit the Wound Management Expert Help Forum.
And please do share the news about this new resource amongst your fellow nurses.
Daniella, a small animal and exotics vet who works at Parkvets in Kent and also chairs the BVA Ethics and Welfare Advisory Panel, phoned in to Nigel Farage's LBC radio show to point out, amongst other things, a predicted 300% shortfall in veterinary surgeons when we leave the EU.
A video of the skirmish went viral on Twitter, viewed 438,000 times at the time of writing. You can see the full video of the discussion below (starts at 1:22.08)
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”
In 2020, BSAVA Congress will have been held at the ICC Birmingham for thirty years. However, recent years have seen ever greater competition from the London Vet Show, so the plan to revitalise the event further north at an award-winning new venue with such good transport links seems to make a lot of sense.
Manchester Central's size also means that unlike in Birmingham, the commercial exhibition, lectures and demonstrations will all take place under one roof, maximising the use of delegates' time.
Angharad Belcher, Head of BSAVA Congress said: "We’ve had a first-class experience in Birmingham, and we could not have asked for more from the venue. We know that 2019 and 2020 will continue to be popular, however, it’s time to move BSAVA Congress forward and revitalise the offering to our delegates and exhibitors by bringing everything into one building. The move to Manchester enables us to invest even more in speakers and delegate experiences, to make BSAVA’s education programme truly unsurpassable."
BSAVA President Philip Lhermette said: "It’s very much a new city for a new Congress and celebrations will be in order. Manchester lends itself perfectly to a timely transformation for Congress. We will be completely re-branding the event, modernising the CPD programme and making the best possible use of every minute of every delegate’s time over the full four days. We have been working closely with the city and venue in practical terms to offer a whole suite of options to delegates and exhibitors, from irresistible new socials and extensive accommodation choices, to easy transport routes."
Shaun Hinds, CEO of Manchester Central said: "After getting to know the association and their vision, it was clear that they wanted to transform the experience of their delegates. The ambition of the association matches that of the city and Manchester has the perfect blend of venue and vibrancy to develop the BSAVA Congress of the future. We’re delighted to be welcoming them in 2021 and we’ll work hard with the organisers to create a unique and remarkable experience for their delegates, exhibitors, partners and all visitors."
All members of the practice team are invited to nominate their receptionist, as are members of the public. Nominations should highlight the dedication and effort the nominee demonstrates, and entries need to be in by the 31st January 2019.
BVRA founder Brian Faulkner MRCVS said: "Veterinary receptionists are as crucial to the success of a veterinary practice as any other role. They are first and last impression a client has of a veterinary practice and the association is keen to recognise and reward their unique contribution to the industry.
We’ve been astounded by how popular the BVRA has been since its launch one year ago with receptionists at every level of experience, reporting appreciation as well as the benefits of Accredited Veterinary Receptionist Award. It’s entirely appropriate that BVRA champions ‘best practice’ and therefore the BVRA’s Veterinary Receptionist of the Year Award will recognise their hard work."
Brian added: "We’re so grateful to all of our corporate sponsors in helping us get BVRA off the ground and grow. We are especially grateful to Feliway and Adaptil, sponsors of The Veterinary Receptionist of the Year Award. A motivated and inspired veterinary receptionist can be the difference between whether a client registers with your practice or not. So why not log onto the www.bvra.co.uk right now and nominate that receptionist who deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated?"
Three finalists will be chosen and invited to attend BVRA’s 2nd Annual congress on 16th March 2019 in Sutton Coldfield, where the winner will be announced.
To nominate your receptionist, visit: https://www.bvra.co.uk/Home/CPD.
Euthasol vet is presented as a clear blue liquid, licensed for intravenous, intracardial and intraperitoneal usage. A dose of 140 mg/kg (equivalent to 0.35 ml/kg) is considered sufficient for all licensed routes of administration.
Euthasol vet comes in vials of 100ml and has a 28 day broached shelf life.
Dechra Brand Manager Claire Morgan said: "Choosing the correct product for euthanasia is vital for veterinary professionals and Euthasol vet offers a highly effective solution.
"The intravenous route of administration should be the route of choice. Where intravenous administration is impossible, the product may be administered via the intracardiac route in all named species.
"Euthasol's versatility in terms of the range of species in which it is licensed for use, coupled with its 400 mg/ml concentration, is set to make it a popular choice in practice."
For more information, visit www.dechra.co.uk
The practice's dentistry and oral surgery team, led by Peter Southerden, has now carried out its first two successful reconstructions using the technique, following oral tumour resection.
Use of patient-specific implants (PSI) for jaw reconstruction is a new technique, which provides an alternative to bone regenerative techniques. Both techniques can be used in cases which have had significant jaw resection or need reconstructive surgery after a trauma.
Peter said: "To my knowledge, using this technique to create patient-specific implants for rostral mandibular reconstruction following a bilateral rostral mandibulectomy has not been reported in dogs before.
"The reconstructive surgery involves taking pre and post-operative CT scans of the affected area and sending them to a specialist human medical PSI design company, which then uses 3D titanium printing technology to recreate the missing bone.
"In our first two cases, both dogs are doing really well. The feedback we’ve received from owners suggests their dogs have gained significant benefit from the jaw reconstruction process."
Peter is one of three dentistry and oral surgery clinicians at Eastcott alongside Andrew Perry and resident Ingrid Tundo, with a second resident due to join in 2019.
The team caters for dentistry cases including periodontology, endodontics, orthodontics and restorative dentistry, to complex cases including oral tumours, traumatic injuries and congenital issues such as cleft palates.
Peter added: "There aren’t many people with specialist qualifications in this field, possibly only six in the UK and we are the only team working with the backup of a multi-disciplinary referral hospital.
"Having a team of three, soon to be four, is unusual and means we have a big caseload and see a wide range of different cases. We are very keen on developing new techniques such the ones we have already introduced."
For more information about Eastcott Referrals, visit www.eastcottreferrals.co.uk.
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
To enter the competition, VetNurse members just needed to post a 'top tip' that could in any way make life easier, quicker, better or happier for a colleague.
Making use of the new feature on VetNurse.co.uk where members can click a link marked 'thank you' to show their appreciation of something useful shared by someone else, VetNurse offered five £50 Amazon Vouchers for the most thanked tips shared before the end of November.
The winners are:
Nick Shackleton (pictured right) for his tip for prepping a foot prior to surgery.
Rhian Jones for her way of stopping clipped fur getting into the surgical site.
Gemma Smith for a tip to make emesis less messy.
Geniverger for her alternative to toothbrushing for owners.
Jo Mackenzie for her way to stop getting scratched when placing an IV in a cat.
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
Last year's event generated an impressive amount of media coverage about ticks on Radio Four's Today programme, BBC Radio 1, 2 and 5, BBC TV Breakfast, BBC TV News, Good Morning Britain, ITV News and Channel 5 news, amongst others, providing an opportunity for practices to convert heightened public awareness into more protected pets.
Amanda Melvin, Small Animal Marketing Manager at MSD Animal Health said: "Last year’s Tick Awareness Month was a great success thanks to the high involvement of veterinary practices. We would like to give as many practices as possible the chance to get involved this year so are urging surgeries to get in touch early and we will ensure you get a pack of support resources for this nationwide event."
For further information, contact your MSD Animal Health representative or visit: www.bigtickproject.co.uk.
VETNAPP offers a replacement to paper records and allows entry of drugs administered, physiological parameters (for example heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure) and complications occurring during an anaesthetic. The final anaesthetic chart can be converted to a PDF and attached to patient records.
Alastair said: "My motivation for creating the app was born of my frustration while working in Australia about how many handwritten anaesthetic records were incomplete and poorly filled in.
"I developed the app in partnership with an IT graduate at the University of Sydney. It is a replacement for paper records, with features such as you cannot move on to the next page until all data fields are complete. It also allows storage of thousands of records, therefore, allows easy retrieval of records, and prevents lost records which is common with paper records.
"I also would like to eventually have a cloud-based storage of data to allow anaesthesia studies such as drugs used, morbidity/mortality studies, to be carried out on a large scale basis, rather than single centre studies."
VETNAPP has been designed to meet the needs of both general practitioner veterinary surgeons and veterinary specialists in anaesthesia and analgesia.
At present, VETNAPP is only available for the iPad, priced at £59.99.
To download VETNAPP, go to: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/vetnapp/id980918731?mt=8.
In the past, few employers in the veterinary profession have chosen to advertise salary details, perhaps because they don't want to open a negotiation with their cards on the table, or perhaps they've been fearful of their existing employees finding out what they're prepared to offer a new candidate.
However, all the indications are that job advertisements which include salary details generate more, better qualified responses. Reed carried out a survey of 1000 jobseekers in 2016, 2/3rds of whom said they would be more likely to apply when a salary is displayed on the advert. Another company, Smart Recruit Online, found back in 2013 that job adverts which included a salary generated 30% more responses that those that didn't.
In the VetNurse forums, many veterinary nurses have expressed their frustration at the lack of transparency, and the wasted time and effort when they attend an interview to find that the 'competitive salary' on offer was anything but.
There are also indications that in the future, Google may start to prioritise jobs advertised with salary information in its search results.
To try and strike a balance between some employers' reluctance to display what they might be prepared to pay and the need for greater transparency, advertisers can now display a 'Minimum Offer' on VetNurse Jobs, described to the potential applicant as: "The minimum this employer is prepared to offer someone with the skills and experience needed to fulfil the job requirements. They may or may not be prepared to offer more. They may also be prepared to accept someone with a lower level of qualification or experience for an amount less than displayed."
Alternatively, employers can advertise a 'Pay Range', described to potential applicants as: "The employer expects to pay something within the displayed range, depending on their assessment of the value of the applicant's skills and experience to the practice."
In addition, employers can also display other benefits which are likely to be of more or less value to individual applicants, such as a RCVS fees, association subscriptions, health insurance and CPD allowances.
VetNurse.co.uk Editor Arlo Guthrie said: "This is entirely optional, but I do hope as many employers as possible will make good use of this new feature, because all the research and anecdotal evidence suggests it’s what candidates want to hear, and it should lead to a better response. Not to mention how time-saving it is for two people to come to the table with realistic expectations."
This pilot was originally launched in February 2017 to trial proposed changes to CPD, which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
Some 115 veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses volunteered, with 60 attending an induction days at the College’s office last year.
The College says the response to its proposals was largely positive, and at its meeting on 2 November 2017 RCVS Council agreed to an extension of the pilot for a further six-to-nine months, in order to increase the breadth of views on the changes and gather further evidence on its impact.
The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s 2016 consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others.
The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
Shona McIntyre MRCVS, a teaching fellow in small animal medicine at the University of Surrey and the practitioner representative on the CPD Pilot Working Group, said: "As a general practitioner involved in the initial phase of the CPD pilot I was thrilled that we had so many from the profession engage with the consultation, and later with the pilot.
"By extending the pilot further we are looking to get an even wider range of views on board and fine-tune how we will be asking members of the profession to engage with the reflection element of the proposals. We are looking for a mix of those who support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them and I can only encourage those not yet involved to consider signing up for the extended pilot and make their voice heard."
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Naila Hassanali, RCVS CPD Officer, via cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
Volunteers will be supported by RCVS staff throughout the trial.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available on the College website: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpdconsultation/.