The company says its Skinsights Learning Academies help support individuals and practices improve the healthcare outcomes for the 25% of dogs medicalised by skin problems in the UK.
A number of recognised industry professionals will be giving interactive, bite-sized talks at the events, including: Filippo De Bellis, Ian Wright, Jill Maddison, Sarah Warren, Rob Pope, Evelyn Maniski and Emily Robson as well as Zoetis veterinary and business consultants.
Zoetis says all the presentations will be highly practical, presented through case reviews, research, workshops and discussions. They will offer the latest information on game-changing therapeutics, best practice work-ups, effective protocols and insightful case-studies.
The sessions are limited to groups of 30 and Zoetis says places are expected to fill quickly.
To reserve your free place, visit: http://www.zoetis.co.uk/LVS2018
If you are unable to secure a seat in the theatre, headsets will be available on the day so you can listen to the lectures whilst on the stand.
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
Routine treatments should not be carried out until further notice.
You may offer your clients advice and consultation services via remote means, including prescribing POM-V medicines where appropriate.
Clients and/or veterinary professionals should only travel to see animals if judged essential to do so.
Animals should only be seen in emergencies or where, in the judgement of the veterinary surgeon, urgent assessment and/or treatment is needed in order to reduce the risk of patient deterioration to the point where it may become an emergency in the near future (ie within the three-week time frame currently laid out by the Government for these measures).
Veterinary professionals should exercise judgement as to when it is necessary for you to see an animal and/or their owner in person. has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
The American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation has awarded Dr. Bruce Smith, director of the Auburn University Research Initiative in Cancer, a two-year grant totaling $118,848 to test a new therapy for treating bone cancer in dogs.
According to the University, the research could one day be broadened to include many other kinds of cancer - and possibly cancer in people.
The treatment consists of a virus normally used as a hepatitis vaccine in dogs that has been modified to only make copies of itself inside bone cancer cells. The virus ruptures the cancer cells, releasing thousands of copies of the virus from the tumor cells, killing them.
Dr. Smith said: "By using this approach, we turn the cancer cell into a 'factory' that produces more virus. You could say that we help the cancer cell become an agent of its own death."
Bone cancer, or osteosarcoma, accounts for around 5% of tumours in dogs. More than 90% of dogs with this tumour have had tumour cells migrate into their lungs, creating what are known as micrometastases, at the time of diagnosis.
Dr. Smith said: "This therapy attacks those metastases and will hopefully eliminate them or make them more sensitive to chemotherapy."
The Auburn University Research Initiative in Cancer, or AURIC, was founded in 2012 to accelerate translation of cancer innovation from the laboratory to the clinic. AURIC embodies "One Medicine" - the concept that sees human and animal health as a single field where discoveries in one species advance health in both species.
ESCCAP - the European Scientific Counsel Companion Animal Parasites - is calling for veterinary practitioners, pet owners and human health physicians to work in unison to reduce the risks associated with zoonotic transmission of parasitic diseases.
The group, comprising eminent European veterinary practitioners and leaders in veterinary parasitology and public health, have joined forces to develop independent guidelines and educational materials for the optimal control of internal and external parasites that threaten the health of pets and people.
"Our mission is simple - to ensure that parasites are no longer a health issue for pets or humans across Europe," said Maggie Fisher, ESCCAP Director, ESCCAP UK member. "Our data and research clearly outlines the future spread of certain parasites across Europe and what will happen in the UK if preventative measures are not taken seriously. The group has been formed to provide free, scientifically robust and accessible material to every interested party."
Policy guidelines to outline prevention and management strategies for endoparasites and ringworm are now readily available with guidelines on ectoparasites and vector-borne diseases in development. There is a website for veterinary professionals - http://www.esccap.org/ with a pet owner website currently in development. Practitioners also have access to important research and comparison data that shows future trends and the potential threat to the country's canine and feline population.
Maggie said: "The first policy guideline we launched is on the subject of worms. There are a wide range of worms that can infect dogs and cats not only in mainland Europe, but increasingly in the UK. Some of these worms are more important than others due to prevalence, their pathogenicity for the host and their zoonotic potential. This guideline aims to provide an overview of these worms, their significance and, importantly, suggests rational control measures for the most important species. We've looked closely at methods of preventing or controlling infection in the animal, prevention of transmission via environmental contamination to other animals and humans, and prevention of human infection. Our aim is that this guideline policy is adopted in every veterinary practice throughout Europe."
Ringworm control in dogs and cats forms the basis of the second guideline policy. "The presence of dermatophytosis is influenced by a number of factors relating to the animal, environmental issues and the crowding of animals. This guideline recommends a management programme for ringworm and what vets should be considering in the treatment, management and control of dermatophyte transmission."
Vets wishing to obtain a downloadable version of the policy papers can do so free of charge from http://www.esccap.org.
Practices wishing to sign up to ESCCAP for regular updates and further information should email: queries@esccap.org.uk.
ESCCAP is supported by Novartis Animal Health, Merial and Bayer HealthCare Animal Health.
Under Schedule 3, vets can delegate medical treatment and minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) to registered veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses under certain circumstances.
However, following an RCVS survey of the profession to gauge how well both vets and vet nurses understood the provisions of Schedule 3, the College says it was clear that both groups, but especially vets, could benefit from additional guidance and greater clarity.
Following the publication of the survey report, the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Schedule 3 Working Party made a number of recommendations, including the production of a number of case studies (available via www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3) and a reference poster to help veterinary surgeons in making decisions on delegation in practice.
An A3/A4 poster setting out the principles of delegation has now been prepared and will be printed and posted to all UK veterinary practice premises this autumn.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, who helped develop the poster with the RCVS Standards Committee and the College’s Standards & Advice Team, said: "It was clear from the survey results that we could do more to help vets and vet nurses understand and remember the principles of delegation under Schedule 3, so hopefully our six-point checklist, using the memorable mnemonic 'SUPERB', will do just that.
"If the poster can be placed in a prominent position in the practice setting, we hope it will become a handy, everyday reference tool for all veterinary professionals, and help vets remember the six questions they need to consider before delegating work to their VN colleagues.
SUPERB stands for:
Specific procedure – is the procedure medical treatment or minor surgery not involving entry into a body cavity?
Under care – is the animal under your care?
Person – can you delegate to this person?
Experience – does the RVN/SVN feel capable, and have sufficient competence and expertise?
Risks – have you considered the risks specific to this case?
Be there – are you available to direct or supervise as necessary?
Only if you, as a vet, can answer 'yes' to all six questions, can you delegate the job to an RVN or SVN.
The poster will also available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/schedule3 where further resources about delegation are available, including links to the relevant chapter of the supporting guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and the Schedule 3 case studies.
I think anything which gives veterinary surgeons confidence to delegate more to veterinary nurses is to be warmly welcomed. But what do you think? Do you think this poster would encourage your vets to delegate more, less, or the same? Discuss here.
IDEXX Laboratories is offering VetNurse members a chance to go to the Blenheim Palace International Horse Trials on Thursday 11th September 2008.
Your day will comprise a full one day entry ticket for one person from your practice, including a course walk with Major Richard Waygood, Riding Master of the Household Cavalry, in the morning. Your day is sponsored by IDEXX Laboratories who will also host your course walk.
Entry is simple, you need to just answer the question below and the first 40 correct answers will receive a day's pass to the Blenheim Palace International Horse Trials!
IDEXX Laboratories supports veterinary practices by offering a selection of programmes that help you with best medicine practice for your pet owners. A unique programme to IDEXX In-House users only, links the benefits of speed and point of care diagnosis and IDEXX Reference Laboratory testing to provide your clinic with substantial savings.
QUESTION: Which of the two programmes listed below links both reference and in-house testing and allows you to make these substantial savings? A. IDEXX Advantage Programme B. IDEXX External Quality Assurance Programme Send your answer with your name, practice name, practice address and telephone number to: marketing-uk@idexx.com Terms & Conditions 1. Entrants will be deemed to have accepted these rules by participating in this competition. 2. The closing time and date for entries is 17:30 15th August 2008. 3. No purchase is necessary for entry to the competition. Only one entry per veterinary practice will be entered into the competition. 4. Entry is open to all veterinary practices registered and operating in the UK on the date of redemption of the prize and employees who enter the competition on behalf of the entrant must be aged 18 years and over on the date of redemption of the prize. All persons connected with the competition are excluded from entering. No third party entries, bulk or multiple entries or entries submitted by agents will be accepted. IDEXX Laboratories reserves the right to verify the eligibility of entrants. 5. The prize cannot be exchanged for cash, or any other goods/services. All prizes are non-transferable. 6. The prize winners will be the first 40 correct answers received. The prize winners will be notified by e-mail or telephone. 7. IDEXX Laboratories reserves the right to substitute a prize of similar value should the specified prize become unavailable for any reason. 8. IDEXX Laboratories reserves the right to feature the winner names and details of the competition in any future promotional or publicity material. 9. IDEXX Laboratories reserve the right to alter, amend or foreclose the competition without prior notice. 10. The prize does not cover any travel or accommodation costs. 11. The decisions of IDEXX Laboratories are final and legally binding on all entrants and no correspondence will be entered into. The competition is governed by the laws of England and Wales and all entrants agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
The case was seen by Tim Charlesworth, head of surgery, who shared details of the case.
The dog was a seven-month-old Jack Russell Terrier which had been referred suffering from urinary incontinence and preputial pruritus.
Tim said: “We believe this is the first reported case of complete unilateral duplication of the urinary tract in a dog presenting with incontinence.
“The dog concerned was born with a duplex or 'double’ left kidney. Each section of the left kidney drained urine via separate ureters into the prostate gland.
“Its urinary bladder was also divided into separate left and right compartments, each of which then drained through separate urethras that coursed through separate penises.
“The two penises were both stuck within a prepuce designed for one which, was causing the dog’s pruritus or ‘itching’ of the penis. The incontinence was caused by the left ectopic ureters.”
Tim was faced with the challenge of devising a surgical strategy that would resolve the dog’s clinical signs. He said: “The left kidney was severely dilated and was deemed to be non-functional and so the dog underwent surgery for the removal of the affected left kidney and ureters; the two halves of the bladder were united by ablation of the septum between these two cavities; the left urethra was transected and the left penis amputated to allow the right penis to have room to fully fit within the prepuce.”
Tim added: “The dog has now made a full recovery with full resolution of his clinical signs and is currently doing very well indeed. We are very pleased to have been involved with such an unusual case and are really happy that he continues to do so well.”
The case was recently written up by one of Eastcott’s interns, Mara Sprocatti, and it has now been published by Wiley Online Library in Veterinary Surgery, highlighting it as the first known case in the history of veterinary surgery.
BBC Entertainment is looking for fresh veterinary talent to be part of an exciting new show that it is developing. If you know a vet that is passionate about pet health and would jump at the chance to help animals on screen, please get them to call 0161 244 3718 as soon as possible or alternatively email alexis.price@bbc.co.uk
Rig Vet Recruitment has added a new title to its range of personnel recruitment guides with the introduction of "Rig's Locum VN Guide".
The guide covers all the issues you might face when working as a locum, and gives a handy checklist of things to cover with your temporary employer to help you get up to speed as fast as possible.
"We were so pleased with the positive responses we received when we launched the locum vet guides last year that locum vet nurses' versions were an obvious next step," said Justin Carpenter, Rig Vet Recruitment Managing Director.
He added: "At the end of last year, we conducted a survey among some vet nurses and frankly were surprised at how little information on practice admin and procedures some VNs were given on their first day," Justin continued. "For example, 88 per cent were not given a formal induction, 78 per cent were not advised on fire and health & safety regulations, and when expected to undertake reception work, 97 percent were not informed on phone protocols or appointment systems.
The guide is available free of charge from Rig Veterinary Recruitment: enquiries@rigvets.co.uk
Rig Vet Recruitment are on stand number 719 at BSAVA Congress 2008.
The DC heard how, in December 2022, a labrador called Bella had been stolen from its owner.
That same month, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, according to news reports telling him they'd taken the animal because it had been abused.
Dr Kashiv performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.
Although there was no suggestion that Dr Khashiv had been involved in the theft, it was alleged that he knew the animal had been stolen.
In January 2024, after pleading guilty, Dr Kashiv was convicted of removing the microchip, contrary to section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.
He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85.
Dr Khashiv faced four charges at the RCVS disciplinary hearing, the first being that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second charge was that in July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv had been made subject to a 5-year Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders.
The third charge was that Dr Kashiv’s conduct with regard to the microchip was dishonest, in that he removed it to conceal the labrador’s identity.
The final charge was that Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador and his conduct was thereby i) misleading and/or ii) dishonest.
From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four.
However, he initially denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.
In a later submission, Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Committee found no mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.
In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four.
The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction.
The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.
The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a cover-up so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice.
The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.
In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse findings of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.
In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”
He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.
"This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
"However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.
“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv.
"The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided.
"However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15069309/Vegan-vet-Animal-Rebellion-activist-steal-pet-dog.html
Mary Bale, 45, has been banned from keeping animals for five years today after she admitted causing unnecessary suffering to a cat which she dumped in a wheelie bin, in a case brought by the RSPCA.
Bale, of St Michael's Road, Coventry, was also fined £265 and ordered to pay the costs of the case, which totalled £1,171.
Coventry magistrates' court heard how Bale picked up the four-year-old tabby cat, named Lola, outside the cat's home in Brays Lane, Coventry, and put her into the bin on Saturday 21 August this year.
Lola's owners, Stephanie and Darryl Andrews-Mann, discovered their cat inside the wheelie bin the next day. She had been there for approximately 15 hours.
Upon viewing their CCTV the owners saw Bale approach Lola, who was sitting on a garden wall. She then looked both ways before picking the cat up by the scruff of her neck and dropping her into the bin.
The RSPCA was alerted after the footage was posted on the internet and Bale was identified.
District Judge Caroline Goulborn said: "I accept that you were in a stressful situation but that is no excuse. The potential to cause harm to the cat was substantial."
RSPCA inspector Nicola Foster said: "This was a deliberate act and could have had far worse consequences as the defendant had no way of knowing if there was anything like broken glass in the bin, nor how long the cat would be there before she was found, nor if the bin was due to be emptied.
"We are pleased that the Court agreed that a complete disregard was shown for the cat's welfare and that the cat suffered/cat's needs were not met as a result of being stuck inside the bin for so many hours.
"However, we hope that this sentence will act as a deterrent to anyone who feels that it is acceptable to mistreat animals in any way."
In mitigation, Bale said that her father had been taken to hospital following a fall. She said she walked past the house daily and regularly stroked Lola. She said she had asked herself on an hourly basis since the incident why she had put Lola in the bin, but had no answer.
Here's the latest horror to hit the shops in time for Halloween this year:
Form an orderly queue please, everyone.
The British Veterinary Association has criticised the conclusions drawn by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust in its report on badger vaccine deployment.
The report considers the effectiveness of the Trust's programme of deploying the injectable BadgerBCG vaccine in seven nature reserves covering only 170 hectares (1.7 sq km) during the summer.
It concludes that the badger vaccine is a viable alternative to culling in the battle against bovine TB, but according to the BVA, does not give evidence to support this claim.
Carl Padgett, President of the BVA, said: "We welcome the initiative by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust to investigate the deployment of the badger vaccine but this work must not be confused with an investigation into the effectiveness of the badger vaccine in reducing or eradicating bovine TB.
"To conclude from this report that the badger vaccine is a viable alternative to culling in eradicating TB is unrealistic at best and spin at worst.
"The fact remains that the vaccine has no protective effect on infected badgers and we know that at least 30-40% of badgers within an area will be infected. Many young badgers will be infected before they can be trapped and injected.
"In terms of the practicalities of deployment this report provides interesting information but we will learn much more as a result of Defra's Badger Vaccine Deployment Project which is looking at a much larger area of 100 sq km.
"Vaccination of badgers certainly has a role to play in an effective TB eradication programme but it is only one tool in the toolbox."
Research released today by the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association (PFMA) reveals that only a minority of pet owners are able to identify what their pet should look like when it is at the right weight.
Eight out of 10 dog, cat and rabbit owners believe that their pet is just the right weight, but when asked which of a series of pictures most closely resembled their pet, only 33% of dog owners and 23% of cat owners chose the 'normal weight' picture.
The independent research, conducted by TNS, surveyed over 2,100 households. Other findings included:
Michael Bellingham, Chief Executive of the PFMA, said: "The figures are alarming and the problem won't go away without a fundamental shift in owners' attitude to feeding their pets. It is also worrying that most owners are not aware of the problem, because they are unable to recognise a fat pet in the first place. Perceptions of what is the correct size are seriously out of kilter with reality."
Only 25% of those surveyed said that they had ever sought advice on whether any of their pets were overweight. Up to a third admitted using trial and error when deciding how much food to give, indicating a sole reliance on their pet's appetite to determine optimium food portions. Less than a quarter referred to manufacturers advice on pet food labels, or sought advice from their vets.
Michael continued: "Thankfully, there is a solution and we have developed a tool to help owners identify the correct condition of their pet, along with steps to take if a problem exists. Prevention is at the heart of our awareness campaign. Feeding a good diet, and to the correct amount, is fundamental. And so is exercise. We know that a pet fed to its right condition will lead a longer and healthier life. Not only that, getting active with your pet can help pet owners achieve the same for themselves. We urge pet owners to start using our Pet Size-O-Meter and make sure they and their pets have the best chance for a long happy life together."
The PFMA has also produced a supporting White Paper entitled - Pet Obesity: The Reality in 2009 - which compares the obesity epidemic in humans with that of our pets. You can download it here.
Kruuse has announced that it is now the exclusive veterinary distributor in the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand for Nurtured Pets' Anti-LickStrip pet plaster, a natural hypo-allergenic adhesive plaster that deters licking, biting and chewing.
Anti-LickStrip's plaster is made with active ingredients including cayenne pepper, oregano, lemon powder and peppermint that acts as a deterrent to the animal when sniffed, licked or bitten. The veterinary range of Anti-Lick products will be co-branded under the Kruuse 'Buster' brand as: Buster Anti-LickStrip (sizes: small, medium and large) Buster Anti-LickStrip Pro and Buster Anti-LickStrip Pro C.
Andrew Groom, Managing Director, Kruuse UK Ltd. said: "This agreement further expands Kruuse's small animal product portfolio with its customer in Scandinavia, mainland Europe and the UK; increasing the already extensive range of animal tamper deterrents available to the veterinary practitioner."
Lisa Huntsman, President, Lauren Manufacturing & Nurtured Pets said: "This exciting partnership will further expand our products presence within the veterinary industry expanding our delivery of focused health and wellness products to customers, using Kruuse's strong relationships within veterinary practices."
Virbac Animal Health has produced a Pet Oral Hygiene System point of sale kit for practice reception areas.
The pack includes information for owners on periodontal disease and gingivitis and advice on preventative routine care. It also provides guidance for owners who struggle to brush their pet's teeth correctly, including where to find Virbac CET 'You Tube' footage.
Virbac Oral Care product manager Chris Geddes MRCVS says still more is needed when it comes to oral home care: "Some experts state that four out of every five dogs over the age of three suffers from periodontal disease - despite this many pet owners have no form of oral care programme.
"The idea behind this kit is to highlight to owners the importance of oral hygiene at the time when they are in the most appropriate place to get expert advice!"
Packs are free to any practice spending £50.00 or more on the Virbac oral care range including VeggieDent chews and Vet aquadent drinking solution.
For more information contact your local Virbac territory manager or call Virbac on 01359 243243.
Norbrook Laboratories Ltd has launched Cleanor, an ear cleaner for cats and dogs.
Norbrook says Cleanor Ear Cleaner has been developed for regular, routine cleaning to help remove excessive ear wax from the ear canal as well as providing a moisturising effect to the ear canal's delicate epithelium.
Michelle Jones, Norbrook Brand Manager (Small Animals) said: "Ear disease represents one of the most common skin problems seen in veterinary practice. Checking the cat or dog's ears should be part of the normal health routine for pet owners. Cleanor Ear Cleaner has been designed to make the ear cleaning process simple and stress free for both the animal and owner. It comes with a long, soft and flexible nozzle to allow easy access to the ear canal and is gentle enough to treat even the most sensitive ears."
Cleanor Ear Cleaner is available in two sizes: 50ml and 120ml. It is supported by educational brochures to assist veterinary practices in discussing good ear cleaning practice with their clients. The brochures are available through Norbrook's local sales representatives.
Cleanor Ear Cleanor is available in the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Mike Brampton, inventor of the CAT Doppler blood pressure system and Managing Director of Thames Medical, is to start the 'Tour de Vet', a 1,300 mile tour of the UK during which he'll be stopping to give BP CPD and coaching to veterinary surgeons and nurses in return for a donation to the charity Canine Partners.
Mike says the CAT Doppler system is the most widely used in the UK. He also lectures at Nottingham Vet School and normally charges something in the order of £600 for talks and training sessions.
During the 'Tour de Vet', however, he'll be giving his talks free, in exchange for a donation to the charity of £250-£300.
Mike said: "At a recent BVNA Congress, 85% of nurses said they would like more skills and information in BP techniques. This is your chance to book some quality, certified, hands-on CPD at a massively reduced price, which will benefit not only your staff and practice but also help train a puppy for Canine Partners".
Mike's target is to raise £10,000.
The tour starts in Worthing on May 19th 2014. It ends three weeks and 1300 miles later at the Vettrust Conference in Stirling.
To book your blood pressure monitoring CPD or nurses' coaching, call Mike on 01903 522911 or email mike@thamesmedical.com.
Alternatively, if you just want to support his efforts, text 70070 with the code TDEV55 and your donation or visit http://www.justgiving.com/Tour-De-Vet
Vets Now has produced a new set of guidelines for pet owners about how to deal with the top 10 emergency situations seen by the out-of-hours care provider.
The guidelines are presented as an infographic - which is free to download from the Vets Now website - which provides some basic steps to help owners deal with the more common emergency situations before being able to get their sick or injured pet to the vet.
Vets Now says it is hoping it will be deemed useful by other vets who are welcome to share the infographic on their social media sites and their websites, or display it in their waiting rooms.
Lisa Maxwell, Head of Client Care said: "Pet owners should always call a vet in an emergency and we promote that in the infographic. As emergency and critical care providers, we're used to dealing with owners who are scared, or in shock when they call us. What we hoped to achieve by creating the infographic, was to reassure pet owners that these situations happen all the time and to give them more sense of control of the situation. If more pet owners were aware of some of the basic actions they could perform at the scene, at the very least it could help owners cope more readily and keep their animals calm and, at best, it could save lives."
Lisa added: "These days, the fastest way to spread an important message seems to be through social media, so we've specifically designed this infographic to be shared on Facebook, Twitter, G+ etc, as well as practice websites.
"Our intention was to create a useful resource for practices across the UK - not just Vets Now clinics. If we all get behind this and make our clients aware, maybe we'll be going that extra mile by educating our clients and helping to save even more lives."
The infographic can be downloaded at www.vets-now.com/infographic
Dr De Armas Jimenez faced four charges against him, that:
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, in relation to a cat, he a) failed to obtain informed consent to sedate/anaesthetise the cat and/or did so without the owner’s consent (admitted), b) failed to take adequate steps when the cat required emergency attention (admitted), and c) failed to provide adequate details to the owner following the cat’s death (admitted).
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, he a) failed to record adequate clinical record details of the cat’s sedation/anaesthetic (admitted), b) recorded when the cat became cyanotic, that i) a tube had been passed in order to intubate (proved not to have occured) and ii) chest compressions had been given when this was not the case (not proved that it did not happen), and c) failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to differential diagnoses and proposed treatment plan (not proved).
That his conduct in relation to charge 2(a) and/or 2(b) was a) dishonest and/or b) misleading. (Admitted his conduct was both dishonest and misleading in relation to 2(a), and the Committee found proved that his conduct was dishonest and/or misleading in relation to 2(b)(i)).
Between 22 April 2022 and 23 April 2022, he failed to have any professional indemnity insurance in place (admitted).
Dr De Armas Jimenez admitted most of the charges again him.
The Committee found that his actions had breached a number of sections of the RCVS Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that Dr De Armas Jimenez had caused actual harm to the animal.
Mitigating factors included that he had no previous disciplinary history, that he had been working for eight years as a veterinary surgeon in the UK without complaint, that he admitted most of the charges, that he'd made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition by no longer working night shifts or locuming, and finally that the incident related to one animal.
The Committee also noted that he'd shown appreciable insight and remorse, and took into account positive character references.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Whilst the misconduct in this case involved breaches of the RCVS Code, caused serious harm to both the cat and the client, and involved dishonesty which was concealed, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension could take account of the seriousness of these matters and meet the wider public interest.”
He added: “In deciding on this period of suspension, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors and the mitigation Dr De Armas Jimenez had put before it.
"It was not persuaded that a shorter period of suspension would properly reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct.
"It concluded that this period of suspension had a deterrent effect and sent a signal as to how serious the Committee had found the misconduct to be.
"It also took into account Dr De Armas Jimenez’s remorse and insight.
“However, in order that the wider public interest was upheld and to reflect the Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the Committee determined that the proportionate sanction and period of suspension should be a suspension order of eight months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Hot on the heels of the new license claim for Prac-tic comes the news that Novartis has launched new tasty Milbemax for cats.
The new tablet is the same small size as the original, but is beef-flavoured to ensure high palatability. According to Novartis, trials show that 100 per cent of cats accept the treatment with wet food and 83 per cent with dry food.
To help promote worming the palatable way, Novartis is offering practices some tasty marketing tools to use including posters, client leaflets, worming reminder pads and even a sturdy cut-out cat for reception.
Novartis will also be running a ‘Name Our Cat' competition with the chance to win an iPod touch complete with an educational podcast; there are five to be won. Entry details can be obtained from Novartis Territory Managers.
For more information about new tasty Milbemax, please contact your Novartis Animal Health Territory Manager or call the Practice Support Line on 0800 854100.
The survey was conducted after it was found that only 10% of job adverts on VetSurgeon.org and 16% on VetNurse.co.uk include an indication of the salary. By contrast, a quick analysis of the adverts on other leading job boards for professionals found that 66% of jobs advertised for doctors include salary details, 87% for human nurses, 64% for architects and 92% for computer programmers.
The survey received 1,147 responses: 524 from veterinary surgeons and 622 from veterinary nurses.
When asked how they would likely react to job advertisements seen online or in print:
75.7% of vet nurses said they would read adverts which display a salary first (before those that don't)
54.5% of vet nurses said they would respond to adverts which display the salary first (before those that don't).
28.8% of vet nurses said they would ignore ads that don't show a salary.
Only 18.4% said they would consider the job adverts equally, regardless of whether or not they displayed a salary.
Respondents were then asked what impression it gave them if a practice advertised a job without stating a salary. 66% of vet nurses said 'negative', 32.2% said 'neutral' and 1.1% said 'positive'.
The final question asked how annoying it is to read job adverts which only describe a salary using words like 'competitive' or 'generous'.
1.9% of veterinary nurses said: 'Not at all annoying"
30.7% said 'Mildly irritating'
67% said 'Very annoying. It's a waste of my time to ring and find my definition of 'competitive' is not the same as the advertiser's.'
By comparison, veterinary surgeons were a little less salary conscious, but very much the same patterns emerged (full results of the vet survey here).
The bottom line is that if you spend £99 to advertise a job on VetNurse and you don't advertise the salary, you're effectively throwing away £28 there and then. Might as well just set fire to a £20 and a £10 note. Even if you think that is a price worth paying (and let's not forget that it'll be a considerably more expensive mistake if you advertise elsewhere), you then have to think of the monetary value of having sent someone away with a negative impression of your practice, or worse still if you described the salary as 'competitive' or 'generous'.
It is worth highlighting that on VetNurse and VetSurgeon, employers are invited to advertise the 'Minimum Offer', described to jobseekers as the starting point for discussions, or a salary range. Both are designed to give jobseekers something to go on, whilst still allowing room for negotiation.
To help employers get the most out of their recruitment adverts on VetNurse.co.uk and VetSurgeon.org, we're sharing a special training video, which you can watch below. If nothing else, a quick reminder of what you need to include in the advert:
The lecture, which will take place at 4:30pm on Friday 6th April in the Premier Lounge, Arena Birmingham, is presented by Dr Ivan Crotaz BVetMed MRCVS and human anaesthesiologist Dr Muhammed Nasir MBBS BSc FFARCSI MRCA (pictured right).
Chris Geddes MRCVS, Marketing Manager for Docsinnovent, says the lecture is not to be missed for two reasons: "Firstly, the topic is very current – a lot of new information is emerging about regurgitation and reflux in our veterinary patients. We are learning that the starving times we have all been recommending for years may not be ideal after all.
"Secondly, the lecture will be presented by both a vet with an interest in airway management (Dr Crotaz) and a renowned human anaesthesiologist (Dr Nasir) – so we as a profession can learn from what is happening in the field of human medicine."
The session will include a review of the situation in human anaesthesia. The anatomy of the upper airway and oesophagus of the major small animal veterinary species will be examined as well as the pathogenesis, occurrence and disease associated with reflux.
Pre-, intra- and post-operative management will be discussed, as well as current recommendations for starving veterinary patients.
The lecture is free for BSAVA attendees to attend and will be followed by drinks and nibbles supplied by Docsinnovent, who are also exhibiting at BSAVA congress on stand 1006.
Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.
She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results.
The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.
Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.
Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.
The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.
It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.
The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.
“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.
"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.
"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.
“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.
"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.
“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.
In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.
Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.
“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.
“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.
"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”
At first glance, one might ask why? After all, who - other than the pilot - would fly with Thomas Cook sober?
However, there's a world of difference between being not entirely sober and Ms Heyes's level of intoxication, which according to the judge at Greater Manchester Magistrates Court, made her 'every passenger's worst nightmare', and earned her a sentence of 80 hours community service, a victim surcharge of £80 and £250 in costs.
At the start of her disciplinary hearing, Ms Heyes admitted the facts of her 2020 conviction, but denied that the conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Heyes's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Disciplinary Guidance states: “A conviction may be related to professional or personal behaviour and whether it renders a respondent unfit to practise is a matter of judgment for the Disciplinary Committee.
"Behaviour unconnected with the practice of veterinary surgery can cause concerns about the protection of animals or the wider public interest.”
The Committee concluded that the conviction and underlying behaviour was sufficiently serious that it required a finding that Ms Heyes was unfit to practise veterinary nursing on public interest grounds and that it also breached Code 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses which states: ‘Veterinary nurses 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’.
The Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Ms Heyes, taking into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the risk Ms Heyes caused to passengers, including children and that she had behaved recklessly, falling far below the standard to be expected of a member of the veterinary nursing profession.
In mitigation, the Committee considered this was a single and isolated incident, Ms Heyes had no previous disciplinary findings against her and following her conviction she had shown developing insight.
It also noted that she had continued to practise as a competent and dedicated veterinary nurse.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided to reprimand Ms Heyes because of its finding that the charge amounted to disgraceful conduct and rendered Ms Heyes unfit to practise.
"Such a sanction was necessary in the Committee’s view because the conviction brought the profession into disrepute.
"Whilst the charge was not so serious as to require suspension or removal from the register, the Committee decided it is necessary to issue a formal warning to Ms Heyes as to her future conduct.
“Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case including the positive references and the fact that a number of mitigating factors set out in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance were present in this case, the Committee was satisfied that this sanction would meet the public interest and protect the reputation of the profession and uphold standards within the profession; thereby maintaining public confidence in the College as the regulator for veterinary nurses.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary