Askham Bryan College is launching the Level 5 Vetskill Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing (Practice Nurse), a new post-qualification progression route for Registered Veterinary Nurses, in 2021.

The College is the first UK centre to offer the course, and says it provides a new route for career progression for RVNs working in clinical practice who are looking to expand their clinical skills and knowledge. 

Clare Renwick, Lecturer in Veterinary Nursing at Askham Bryan College said: "The Veterinary Nursing team at Askham Bryan College has developed an industry-relevant programme of study that fits in with both the personal and professional lives of learners.

"Taught primarily online over one year, students will be provided with all the tools and resources required to develop their knowledge through evidence-based nursing, industry-expert guest lecturers and professional discussions. In-person practical sessions will allow the RVN to extend and demonstrate their practical expertise ready for assessment.

"We are very excited to roll out this course which we feel will fill enhance our current offering in the subject area.”

The course involves completion of modules that extend skills and knowledge when leading consultations and clinics.

It is a regulated level 5 qualification and offers Suitably Qualified Person (SQP) registration following successful completion of assessments allowing the RVN in practice to further extend their nursing clinic offerings to pets and their owners.

Applications are now being accepted for a February 2021 intake.

For more information, visit http://www.askham-bryan.ac.uk/ or contact: tracey.seymour@askham-bryan.ac.uk or clare.renwick@askham-bryan.ac.uk.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has ruled that whilst the care given to a diabetic dog by Paul Roger MRCVS fell short, it did not amount to serious professional misconduct. 

Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.

At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).

Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).

In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.

However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.

The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.

Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.

A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.

She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.

Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.

The Committee found the admitted facts proved.

The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.  

Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.

Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.

"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”

As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.

VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk are holding a quick snap survey of vets and nurses to discover what percentage of calls made to veterinary general practices out of hours are genuine emergencies, what percentage could wait (or should have been seen during the day), and what percentage are quite obviously non-urgent.

With the profession currently suffering a staffing crisis, some now question the ability of the profession to provide a blanket OOH service, and whether it should remain a requirement for all practices. 

A logical first step, however, might be to discover just what percentage of OOH calls really are genuine emergencies, and how many are simply the result of society's increasing demands for a 24 hour service, not just from the veterinary profession. Hence the survey. 

The question is open to veterinary surgeons and nurses working in general practice only. 

https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/6495987/Out-Of-Hours 

MORE TH>N Pet Insurance has released the results of its Pet Theft Census, which looked into the prevalence of pet theft in the UK.

The research shows that in 2012, 833 dogs and 83 cats were reported stolen to the police. That trend has continued into 2013, with 722 dogs and 62 cats reported stolen by the end of October.

MORE TH>N says the average value of a stolen cat or dog is £344.86, which would mean that pets worth £678,000 have been stolen since the start of 2012.

However, according to the survey of 4865 cat and dog owners, 37% of cat and dog thefts in the last 12 months were never actually reported to the police, so the value of stolen pets is likely far greater.

According to the survey, pets left in gardens were the most likely to be stolen (52%), followed by those left home alone (19%). Looking at dogs specifically,16% were stolen by brazen thieves while being walked by their owner. 7% were stolen when left tied up outside a shop and 5% were stolen from a car.

To help tackle the issue, MORE TH>N is giving away 500 free microchips for cats and dogs at five RSPCA centres across the UK. A hundred will be available in each centre on a first-come first-served basis. For more information visit www.facebook.com/morethan.

Kent-based Pennard Vets has become the first in the country to be awarded gold accreditation from Investor in Customers (IIC).

IIC is an independent customer experience agency which conducts assessments, develops insights and awards annual accreditations to businesses.

For its accreditations, IIC uses feedback from customers, employees and the management team to assess the customer experience delivered by an organisation.

Customer services manager at Pennard Vets, Collette Rednall, who is also an IIC Ambassador, said: “We are the first in our industry to go through the rigorous process and we are thrilled to achieve a gold award.

“There are just 36 businesses in the UK that have achieved gold status – so this a fabulous achievement for every single one of our 100-strong team.”

In 2021 Pennard Vets became the largest veterinary practice in the world to become employee owned, through an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT), meaning its entire team are now practice owners and shareholders in the business.  

A survey commissioned by the RCVS has found that a significant number of pet owners think veterinary surgeons offer poor or very poor value for money, suggesting more work needs to be done to communicate the value of veterinary services.

The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.

32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.

Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists. 

Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.

RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.

"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."

Nominations have opened for the Petplan Veterinary Awards 2022, held to recognise the remarkable work carried out by veterinary professionals. 

Last year Petplan received over 31,000 nominations across the five award categories: Practice of the Year, Vet of the Year, Vet Nurse of the Year, Practice Manager of the Year and Practice Support Staff of the Year.

The awards are judged by an independent panel which narrows the field to three finalists in each category, who are then invited to attend the awards ceremony.

The judges are looking for examples of exceptional levels of animal care, building and sustaining great relationships with colleagues and pet owners, and those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty.

James Barnes, Head of Sales & Partnerships at Petplan, said: “The Petplan Veterinary Awards provide the perfect opportunity to say thank you for the exceptional work carried out by members of the veterinary profession, whatever their field and wherever they’re based. The Petplan Vet Awards provide a great opportunity for both clients and colleagues to recognise the dedication and talent of veterinary professionals, teams and practices, right across the UK and say a particular thank you to those who have kept up the exceptional level of care even in the midst of a global crisis."

To nominate a colleague or your practice, visit www.petplan.co.uk before nominations close on 10th January 2022.  

The RCVS is calling for veterinary nurses to help test its new continuing professional development (CPD) recording platform which is currently in development.

Earlier this year, the RCVS Council approved the roll-out of a more outcomes-based model of CPD to encourage veterinary professionals to engage in greater reflection on learning and development, and the impact that it has on their professional practice.

To support this approach, Council also approved the development of a new CPD recording platform designed to be more intuitive and to make it easy to record CPD in real time.

The College says the new platform – which has the working title of 'One CPD' – will be a ‘one stop shop’ CPD management solution for veterinary surgeons and nurses at all stages of their careers, including veterinary students and student veterinary nurses.

Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "We’re excited to open up access to this powerful, next-generation, tool we’ve been building and welcome our members into an important phase of the development process. Testing with our members will be absolutely critical in delivering the very best experience possible for all those that use 'One CPD' in the future. Ease of use and truly valuable functionality are key deliverables for us and both these need the feedback of our members to perfect."

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education (pictured right), added: "The first stage of the development of the CPD recording platform is due to finish in October and so we are looking for a cohort of both veterinary surgeons and nurses who can spend a few months this autumn using the new platform to record and reflect on their CPD, in order to test out some of the new features which aim to make this process so much easier to do. We will consider their feedback carefully in order to improve the recording platform ready for launch in January 2020.

"The new ‘One CPD’ platform will ultimately replace the current Professional Development Record, and its use will become mandatory for recording CPD from January 2022.

"In addition to setting up the testing group, we are also looking to meet with key CPD providers for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses over the coming months to discuss our plans for outcomes-based CPD and the development of the recording platform in greater detail."

Veterinary nurses who'd like to take part in the testing for the CPD app, as well as CPD providers who want to discuss the College’s CPD policy plans, should contact Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS CPD Officer, on cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.

A new study published in the Journal of Small Animal Practice (JSAP) has concluded that the quick sequential organ failure assessment is poor indicator of mortality, has a low sensitivity to to detect canine patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and should not be used alone when screening for sepsis.

The study “Evaluation of quick sequential organ failure scores in dogs with severe sepsis and septic shock¹” reviewed electronic records from dogs that presented through the veterinary medical teaching hospital emergency service between January 2010 and December 2019 using the search terms “sepsis” or “septic”.

The quick sequential organ failure score was calculated by evaluating respiratory rate (>22 breaths per minute), arterial systolic blood pressure (≤100mmHg) and altered mentation.

Forty-five dogs with severe sepsis and septic shock and 45 dogs with non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome were included in the final analysis.

It was found that the quick sequential organ failure assessment score provided poor discrimination between survivors and non-survivors for dogs with severe sepsis and septic shock.

In addition, the quick sequential organ failure score demonstrated a poor sensitivity and fair specificity to detect this population of canine patients.

The authors say that previous studies on quick sequential organ failure score have provided conflicting results, but that this may just be due to the inherent heterogeneity of the population.

Considering the results of this study, it may not be possible to identify a single scoring system that serves the purpose that quick sequential organ failure assessment is intended for.

Nicola Di Girolamo, Editor of the JSAP said: “The results of this study have strong clinical implications.

"The JSAP values studies with negative findings such as this one, as much as studies with positive findings.

"The fact that a diagnostic tool or a treatment does not reach the desired objective, should not hinder publication of methodologically sound research”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jsap.13522 

Reference

1. Osgood, AM, Hollenbeck, D, and Yankin, I (2022) Evaluation of quick sequential organ failure scores in dogs with severe sepsis and septic shock Journal of Small Animal Practice, Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jsap.13522 

A small animal practice in Cornwall has found that a clinical audit of its prescribing and dispensing errors resulted in 100% fewer errors and more than 50% fewer near misses.

Rosemullion Veterinary Practice is a three-site small animal practice owned by CVS.

It has 100 members of staff and dispenses 3,584 medications in an average month.

According to an article in Companion Animal, medication errors account for 30% of all reported errors in veterinary practice¹.

Errors can be prescribing errors - where the vet prescribes the incorrect medication or dosage, or dispensing errors where the incorrect medication, strength or volume is dispensed by the pharmacy team.

Some errors can ‘look or sound alike’ – where medications have similar names or packaging – making them easy to mix up.

Rosemullion conducted an initial clinical audit of entries on its VetSafe system between 1st March and 31st May 2023.

Analysis was conducted on the drugs involved, whether they were prescribing or dispensing errors or near misses, and looking for patterns of behaviour or the drugs involved.

During this time there were 29 (0.27%) near misses and 14 (0.13%) errors.

Prescribing near misses most often involved flea and worm products.

Here additional feedback from vets was that it was difficult to remember weight brackets for all products and when weight brackets were included in the drug description this made them easier to prescribe accurately.

As a consequence, the Rosemullion pharmacy team introduced the inclusion of weight brackets on all flea and worm products.

Dispensing errors and near misses were mostly related to ‘look or sound alike’, particularly in worming tablets, flea treatments and Rheumocam cat and dog.

To address this, the Rosemullion pharmacy team added extra labelling to dispensary draws and separated draws for flea and worm treatments into different weight brackets.

Rheumocam – with its similar packaging design and box sizes – was also split into separate cat and dog drawers, and drawers clearly labelled up with the version and volume to make dispensing clearer.

Feedback was also given to the drug manufacturer. 

Rosemullion also held a CPD session to highlight the common errors that were occurring, to explain resulting process and systems improvements, and ask the team to take extra care with these dispensaries.

A new ‘handing out medication’ process was also created – involving checking the medication in the bag matched the on the screen notes, confirming it was for the correct animal and validating it was what the owner was expecting.

A subsequent audit was run from 1st October to 31st November 2023.

The results revealed there were no prescribing or dispensing errors (0%) and only 8 (0.13%) near misses during this time.

Alice Bell, Senior Vet and Quality Improvement Lead at Rosemullion Veterinary Practice, said: “We place patient safety at the forefront of all we do.

"We wanted to conduct this extensive audit to assess our prescribing and dispensing processes and systems.

“The methods we had in place made it easy to do the task correctly and the changes we have now put in place have made the process even safer for our clients.

"Our overall error and near miss is now at a really low number compared to our total number of medication dispenses.

“The teams have been very receptive to the improvements and the project has had a positive impact on various aspects of the practice, including on team wellbeing.”

Rosemullion Veterinary Practice’s initiative has recently been recognised with a RCVS Knowledge Highly Commended status at its 2024 awards.

Reference

1. Mosedale, Pamela & Blackie, Kathrine. (2021). Why do medication errors occur in veterinary practice?. Companion Animal. 26. 1-4.https://doi.org/10.12968/coan.2021.0033 

The BVA, the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA), the Goat Veterinary Society (GVS) and the British Veterinary Poultry Association (BVPA) have launched a new policy position addressing the issues surrounding surplus male animals on farms, recommending that we all eat more UK veal and goat meat to help reduce the slaughter of unwanted male calves and goats.

Current estimates suggest that around 95,000 calves, 30 million chicks and 3,000 Billy kids are affected per year. 

The new position calls for solutions based on the overarching principle that quality of life should take precedence over lifespan, with the longer-term aim to move away from the production of unwanted animals all together. In the meantime, the position calls for further research into solutions to reduce numbers of additional male offspring and for humane methods of killing surplus animals on-farm.

The dairy and egg industries have been advised to adopt a ‘3Rs’ (reduce, replace, refine) approach to the rearing and slaughter of animals which are surplus to the requirements of the specific industries. Reduction recommendations include selecting for sex (a technology used quite frequently within the dairy farming community) and increasing the length of time that an animal can produce milk through selective breeding.

In the absence of these options, the position recommends raising male offspring for meat, with the caveat that calves and billy goat kids should be raised within UK high welfare schemes only.

In the absence of any reduce or replacement options, veterinary experts advise that killing should be undertaken in the most humane way and that all the animal’s welfare needs must be addressed prior to slaughter.

In line with BVA’s sustainable animal agriculture position, this policy recommends that when animals are killed, every effort should be made to make sure that the carcass is used. For example, the carcasses of male chicks killed by controlled atmospheric stunning can be used in animal feed, such as for reptiles and birds of prey.

BVA Junior Vice President, James Russell (pictured right) said: "Unwanted male production animals in the dairy and meat industries are an ethical challenge on a number of levels. Firstly, for the producer who may have animals with little or no commercial value. Secondly, for the consumer who may find the notion of these unused animals a difficulty. Our new joint position is based around the principle of ‘a life worth living’ and looks at ways that the veterinary profession can work with the farming community to reduce the numbers of animals that this affects and ensure that high welfare is always front and centre.

"If slaughter of affected animals is undertaken humanely, it is not a welfare harm per se, but greater measures should be taken to make sure that these decisions are made with minimal carcass wastage and an eye to the economic, emotional and environmental impact at a farm level.

"With greater public understanding of ethical and animal welfare issues faced by the industry, the promotion of farm assurance schemes and further research into alternative breeding options such as selective sex technology, we hope to reduce these numbers and improve the welfare of the animals involved."

BCVA President, Professor David Barrett said: "The number of unwanted male dairy calves has fallen substantially in recent years, due in part to more efficient milk production meaning we now need fewer dairy cows to produce the same volume of milk, as well as the use of breeding technologies that mean we can select for female calves. Nevertheless, surplus males are still produced. Provided these calves’ welfare is protected they should become part of the meat production supply chain either as high-quality UK farm assured veal or beef."

"As we strive for improved sustainability and increase efficient use of resource in food production, we need to use every product from dairying, including calves that can be reared for meat. Our entire industry needs to work together to create a robust supply chains for high quality, farm assured British dairy beef and veal and we need to help consumers understand they should embrace these products. They are very different from intensively reared veal of the type produced in systems previously banned in the UK."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded one veterinary surgeon and suspended another for four months, following a joint hearing regarding their professional conduct while they were in practice in Slough, Berkshire in August 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee considered a number of charges against Javier Salas Navarro MRCVS and Roman Kristin over 35 days.

The charges against Dr Navarro concerned his treatment of a kitten named Marnie. They included: 

• In August 2016, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form in relation to a surgical spay he performed;

• When Marnie was readmitted for surgery, failing to read the anaesthesia consent form, failing to undertake adequate assessment of Marnie’s condition; performing surgery without adequately considering her condition; subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia without recognising the seriousness of her illness; failing to obtain informed consent from the owners; administering medication which was contra-indicated; and failure to make an adequate record of his involvement in Marnie’s care.

The charges against Dr Kristin also related to his treatment of Marnie. They included:  

• In August 2016, failing to undertake an adequate assessment of her condition; failure to recognise and record the fact that Marnie could not pass urine; failure to refer or offer her for specialist treatment; and failure to ensure Marnie received care and treatment overnight. 

• When admitting Marnie for surgery, that he made a number of clinical mistakes including failure to gain informed consent; and failure to recognise the seriousness of her illness;

• that there were a number of failings in relation to Marnie’s care, including failure to arrange adequate overnight care, failure to monitor and record her condition, and failure to gain informed consent for the overnight care.

• that he failed to advise Marnie’s owners that he suspected her uterers had been ligated during the spay, failed to advise Marnie’s owners that she required specialist veterinary treatment; and advised that Marnie undergo further surgery at the practice in spite of this meaning her having to undergo further anaesthesia in a week and with poor chances of survival;

• that the above conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The Disciplinary Committee found a number of the facts in the charges against both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin proven (the full details can be found in the documentation at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary). 

The Committee found that Dr Navarro breached a number of aspects of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons including: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; the provision of appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescription, supply and administration of medicines; communication with professional colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; effective communication with clients; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals. 

Of the proven charges, the Committee found that his initial failure to read Marnie’s anaesthesia consent form on 5 August did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, but that the repetition of this failure on 9 August did amount to disgraceful conduct. It also found that Dr Navarro’s failure to undertake adequate assessment and perform surgery without this assessment amounted to serious professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee found that subjecting Marnie to anaesthesia in spite of her being unwell, failure to obtain informed consent and failure to keep adequate records also amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

For Dr Kristin, in summary, the Committee found not proven the allegation that he had failed to respond on 5 August 2016 to concerns from Marnie’s owners about her condition while she was recovering from a surgical spay and also all the allegations relating to Dr Kristin’s admission of Marnie to the practice on 9 August on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Dr Kristin had been the veterinary surgeon who admitted Marnie on that day. 

The Committee found proven the remaining charges and found he breached the following parts of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons: making animal health and welfare the first consideration when attending to animals; keeping within area of competence and referring responsibly; providing appropriate and adequate veterinary care; responsible prescribing, supply and administration of medicines; communication with colleagues to ensure the health and welfare of the animal; being open and honest with clients and respecting their needs and requirements; communicating effectively with clients and obtaining informed consent; keeping clear and accurate clinical records; and working with the veterinary team to coordinate the care of animals.

Of the proven charges, the Committee determined that his failure to adequately assess Marnie’s health, to obtain a clinical history, to undertake blood tests and recognise that she was seriously ill, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and led to “Marnie’s underlying condition going undetected and undoubtedly contributed to her eventual death two days later”. 

The Committee also found that Dr Kristin’s decision to hospitalise Marnie without adequate overnight care, place her on IV fluids without monitoring the treatment or her condition, and failure to obtain adequate informed consent – among other things – amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As a direct result of Dr Kristin’s acts and omissions, Marnie was left alone overnight on fluids when those fluids had nowhere to go. Had he done his job properly he would have known that and Marnie could have avoided the prolonged suffering caused by the chosen course of treatment that did not address the underlying condition. Every element of Dr Kristin’s behaviour was catastrophic for Marnie, and yet he took no personal responsibility for her welfare and just went home.” 

Following its findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee then went on to consider its sanction for both Dr Navarro and Dr Kristin.

In respect of Dr Navarro, the Committee considered the mitigating factors including previous good character, admissions to some of the facts of the case from the outset; genuine insight and remorse into the seriousness of the actions; his youth and inexperience; and relevant and good-quality testimonials from colleagues. The Committee noted that the testimonials were universally positive and demonstrated that Dr Navarro had reflected on his conduct, had become more mature and confident in his practice and made efforts to rectify the areas in which he had fallen below standards. 

Stuart Drummond said: “Although the consequences for Marnie and her owners were clearly devastating, the Committee considered that Dr Navarro’s part in her demise has to be seen in the context of all the evidence. In light of the extensive mitigation, including significant evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee was able to conclude that Dr Navarro did not represent a future risk to animals or the public. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that it was not necessary to restrict Dr Navarro’s registration and that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in his case.”

In relation to Dr Kristin, the Committee took into account positive character evidence from Mr Karel Daniel, a semi-retired veterinary surgeon and Vice-President of the Czech Republic Veterinary Chamber, a similar body to the RCVS in that country, as well as other testimonials on his behalf. In mitigation, the Committee considered Dr Kristin’s previously unblemished career, the fact that it was a single case involving a single animal; some development of insight into his conduct; no evidence of repetition; expressions of remorse; the impact of a family bereavement during the course of proceedings; and his financial position.

However, the Committee also took into account aggravating factors including a lack of candour from Dr Kristin when he was giving evidence, demonstrated by a tendency to blame others rather than take responsibility, as well as his recklessness in suggesting a third operation on Marnie that was not in her interests, rather than referring her into specialist care.

The final decision of the Committee on the sanction for Dr Kristin was that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, it was satisfied that this warranted a six-month suspension period. However, given the mitigating factors, the Committee decided that four months was appropriate and proportionate. 

Commenting on the sanction Stuart Drummond said: “The Committee determined that it was important a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon the respondent and discredit upon the profession and, most importantly, caused harm to Marnie and great distress to her owners.

"The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Kristin from the Register. However, in light of the mitigation in this case, the fact that this was a single case in an otherwise unblemished career, together with the unlikelihood he would repeat his disgraceful conduct, the Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate.

"The Committee therefore decided to order that the Registrar suspend Dr Kristin’s registration…. The Committee was satisfied that a period of four months was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."

The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary