View all veterinary jobs
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mr Stuart Drummond, considered six charges against Dr Gunn.
The first charge alleged that, early in 2018, Dr Gunn failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to the dog. In particular, having removed a mass from the right thorax, he undertook an excess number of surgical procedures, including under general anaesthetic, within a 13 day period; performed these procedures without offering alternative treatments or discussing referral with the owners; failed to recognise infected wounds; and administered an antibiotic when the dog was infected with MRSA and E-coli.
The second charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to communicate adequately, openly and honestly with the owners of the terrier on multiple occasions between 16 January and 3 February 2018. This included but was not limited to: failing to provide the owners with an estimation of fees; failing to inform them in advance of the procedures performed; failing to inform them of options for treatment; and failing to inform them that the terrier had an infection when he knew or ought to have known that she did.
The third charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to obtain informed consent in relation to the further procedures performed on the terrier in charge one.
The fourth charge alleged that Dr Gunn failed to maintain adequate clinical records in relation to the management of the dog, and that he failed to record the prescription and administration of drugs to treat the terrier.
The fifth charge alleged that Dr Gunn indicated to the owners that euthanasia was the most appropriate treatment option and/or that there were no other realistic treatment options, when this was not the case and when he ought to have known this was not the case.
The sixth charge alleged that, during the course of a referral of the terrier to another practice, Dr Gunn failed to provide an adequate history of his management of the dog and that he informed the practice that the owners had no finances when this was not true, amounting to an incomplete account of his dealings with the owners and to a breach of their confidence.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted to a number of the allegations within the main six charges, which were found proved by the Committee.
Of the charges not admitted to, a number were found proved and the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Gunn’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that the dog’s suffering was prolonged because of the persistence of Dr Gunn in pursuing a single ineffective treatment approach.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee found that Dr Gunn was remorseful as to his actions, that there was no financial motivation on the part of Dr Gunn in respect of his treatment of the terrier, and that there is a low risk of repetition because Dr Gunn has sought to learn from this experience. A number of relevant and high-quality testimonials were also provided by colleagues and many satisfied owners on behalf of Dr Gunn.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Gunn’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon for a number of the charges.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Gunn. The Committee was satisfied that the misconduct found proved was in relation to the treatment of one dog only and therefore it was at the lower end of the spectrum. However, the conduct took place over a prolonged period of two weeks which in the Committee’s view required a sanction. In such circumstances, and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Dr Gunn and to warn him about his future conduct.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Mr Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee concluded that the effect of a reprimand alongside the Committee’s findings on disgraceful conduct in a professional respect was a sufficient and proportionate sanction. The Committee found Dr Gunn to have developed sufficient insight into his failings and it was satisfied that the disciplinary process had been a salutary experience and that he is very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future or to contravene professional standards.
"The Committee decided that a warning as to future conduct was necessary to reduce the risk of any repetition of any similar conduct for Dr Gunn in the future. It therefore concluded that the sanction of a reprimand and warning would be a sufficient in the circumstances of this case having taking into consideration all the powerful personal mitigation."
The complete list of charges and the Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to accept undertakings from a Dorset veterinary surgeon, Philippa Ann Rodale MBE, in which she requests that her name is removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons with effect from 31 July 2015, and undertakes never to apply to be restored to it.
The Committee met on Monday 17 August, resuming a hearing which had been adjourned on 20 July. The adjournment had been made to allow Ms Rodale time to submit formal responses to the charges against her and indicate whether she agreed with them. In the event, as outlined by a letter from her solicitors received by the College on 14 August, Ms Rodale declined to comment on the charges and did not admit to any of them.
Ms Rodale did not attend the hearing on 17 August, however, the Committee decided to continue in her absence, on the understanding that, as evidenced by her solicitors’ letter, she was fully aware of the hearing and had voluntarily waived her right to be presented and represented.
The original charges related to Ms Rodale’s standards of practice (in relation to issues such as biosecurity, hygiene, in-patient facilities, drug storage and the disposal of hazardous waste, among other things) and also to a test for Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin. The charges relating to her standards of practice did not have complainants, as the College raised the matters itself; with respect to the Tuberculin test charge, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as the relevant body, raised no objection to the proposed course of accepting undertakings.
In accepting the undertakings, the Committee felt that a contested hearing that could take up to seven days and involve up to eight witnesses for the College and up to three for the Respondent would not be in the public interest. Furthermore, since the 20 July hearing, Ms Rodale had retired and closed her practice. The Committee also noted that there had been no previous disciplinary findings against her, in what was otherwise a long and unblemished career.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals since the Respondent has now retired and is no longer in practice. It is also satisfied that the reputation of the profession is upheld since the undertakings offered go beyond any sanction which the Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing, were any of the Heads of Charge to be found proved. It considers that it would not be proportionate or in the public interest for there to be a lengthy contested hearing.”
The campaign gives 11 reasons why owners should register their pets with a veterinary practice, and encourages them to visit www.findavet.org.uk to find the right vet practice for them and their pet.:
Just like people, your pet can benefit from regular health checks to help stay happy and healthy.
Emergencies can happen at any time – registering means you’ll have easier access to emergency vet care whenever you need it.
Your vet knows a lot more about your animal than Dr Google and can provide tailored advice for your pet.
Regular weight checks and nutritional advice can help to keep your pet in shape – your practice’s vet nurses can often help with this.
Many vet practices run pet socialisation and training classes where you can meet other pet owners.
Your vet practice will hold your pet’s medical history to help diagnose any problems quickly.
Your veterinary practice can offer great advice about which pet is right for you because they will know you and your family.
Your vet practice is best placed to recommend other services for your animal, whether that’s pet groomers and trainers, or referral to an advanced practitioner or specialist.
Veterinary staff are often animal owners too, so they understand that pets are a much-loved part of the family.
Vets and nurses have made a solemn promise to look after animals under their care; they study for many years and have to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.
There are some medicines that only vets can prescribe, so it helps to be registered with a practice.
BVA President John Fishwick said: "Pets need vets to ensure their lifelong wellbeing, which is why it is concerning that a large number of pet owners in the country have not registered their animals with a practice. It is important that owners have access to reliable advice and veterinary care to be able to best look after their pets, and so we are calling on the profession to get involved in promoting the wealth of benefits that registering with a vet practice provides."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May added: "Owning an animal is a huge responsibility, which is why access to professional veterinary advice is vital. With this campaign we aim to highlight some of the very considerable benefits of registering pets with a veterinary practice, and raise awareness amongst pet owners who have not yet registered of the value of having access to professional veterinary advice, expertise and treatment to keep their animals healthy. We would be delighted if practices across the country would help share these messages on their own social media accounts."
Vets, vet nurses and veterinary practices can help spread the word on the value of registering pets by sharing campaign resources on social media using the hashtag ‘#petsneedvets’, downloading campaign resources and using the opportunity to encourage local pet owners to register with their practice.
To further highlight the value of veterinary care and the special bond between a veterinary professional and the animals under their care, BVA is also encouraging existing clients to share pictures of their pets at the vets online using the hashtags #lovemyvet and #lovemyvetnurse.
The Pets Need Vets campaign stems from the aim of the joint BVA and RCVS Vet Futures Action Plan to develop communications tools to assist the public’s understanding of veterinary costs and fees, and promote the value of veterinary care.
More information on the campaign and shareable resources are available at https://www.bva.co.uk/petsneedvets and www.rcvs.org.uk/petsneedvets
Reference
The RCVS Charitable Trust is offering up to 5 grants to veterinary nurse training centres to purchase equipment worth up to £5,000.
Applications may be made for equipment which is directly used for veterinary nurse training of care and treatment of animals. All RCVS accredited UK veterinary nurse training centres are eligible to apply.
Tracy Mayne, RVN and Trustee, said: "Traditionally we directed our equipment grants only to the veterinary schools, but last year we extended the eligibility to include veterinary nurse training centres, and in 2011 we decided to dedicate the funding solely to veterinary nurse training, as part of celebrating 50 years of the profession.''
All applications must be received by 5pm on Monday 31 October 2011.
Further information including full application criteria, is available from www.rcvstrust.org.uk/grants/
Sarah is a Professor of Veterinary Surgery at the University of Nottingham’s School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, and leads the Nottingham Equine Colic Project, which works with organisations such as the British Horse Society to raise awareness of the condition.
Sarah's talk, 'Generating an evidence-based educational campaign on colic', will discuss new evidence from the project, and how it led to the REACT colic campaign. She will also be sharing experiences of how the campaign has worked and asking whether we can change people's attitudes and behaviours.
The evening starts at 6.15pm with food and refreshments with Sarah's talk starting at 7pm, after which there will be an update on the College’s latest projects and initiatives. That'll be followed by a question and answer session with senior officers and staff from the RCVS - including RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, and Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council Racheal Marshall.
Dr Connell said: "Thank you to Professor Freeman for agreeing to speak about the colic project which, through its Colic Awareness Week, is helping to raise knowledge of the early signs of colic amongst horse owners, allowing them to get their horses treated in good time and saving their lives.
"I also look forward to talking to members of the profession about some of the issues currently on their minds – the evening is very much led by what those who attend want to discuss – from mental health, to our under care review, to the Practice Standards Scheme. Attending the event can also count to up to three hours towards your continuing professional development (CPD) requirement."
The event is open to all members of the practice team including veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, practice managers and others. The event is free and places can be booked via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/nottingham.
In the afternoon before the event, between 12 noon and 5pm, the College will also be holding a series of free 45-minute Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) surgeries with PSS Lead Assessor Pam Mosedale.
The surgeries are open to both RCVS-accredited practices and those considering joining the Scheme and allows delegates to discuss the assessment process, how to apply for awards, how to meet particular requirements and any other questions they may have about the PSS.
Places at the surgeries are limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. They can be booked at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSsurgeries
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed an application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons from former Wirral-based vet Ian Beveridge.
In May 2013 the Committee had asked the Registrar to remove Mr Beveridge from the Register following a four-day hearing in which he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after finding that he had treated clients badly, kept inadequate clinical records, was dishonest in his dealings with the RCVS and that animals in his care were placed at risk.
In June 2013 Mr Beveridge, who was not present or represented at the original hearing, then appealed the decision. The appeal was withdrawn in May 2014 which was when Mr Beveridge was formally removed from the Register.
Then, in April 2015, Mr Beveridge applied to be restored to the Register. The Disciplinary Committee met to consider his application in June 2015, however, this hearing was adjourned after new evidence was served to the Committee concerning allegations that Mr Beveridge had ordered prescription-only veterinary medicines when he was not authorised to do so. He was subsequently interviewed by police who took no further action.
In deciding whether Mr Beveridge was fit to be restored to the Register, the Committee heard evidence in regards to the circumstances in which the prescription-only drugs were ordered using his account and delivered to his former practice address which had been taken over by Medivet after he sold the premises to the company.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Beveridge admitted that his account had been used to buy the drugs, but that a part-time member of his staff, who was neither a veterinary surgeon nor a veterinary nurse, had done so without his prior knowledge or approval.
In relation to this evidence Ian Green, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Committee takes the view that the unauthorised use of a veterinary surgeon’s drugs account for which he carries the ultimate responsibility is a very serious matter and, of itself, demonstrates that the applicant has at best a cavalier attitude to his work which of itself means that he remains unfit to be on the Register.
"This attitude is further demonstrated by the fact that, even after the first orders were placed in late April and early May 2014, the applicant did not seek clarification from the College of his status following the withdrawal of his appeal against the original Committee’s findings."
In addition to this, the Committee also considered the seriousness of his original failings, the fact that Mr Beveridge’s acceptance of these failings was ‘qualified’, that he had been off the Register for 20 months and the fact that his efforts in terms of continuing professional development had been inadequate and not focused on those areas in need of improvement, among other factors. In mitigation it did consider that Mr Beveridge had demonstrated genuine remorse about previous actions and noted a petition and a large number of letters in support of him from former clients of his practice.
However, the Committee felt that this did not detract from the seriousness of the original failings and, in conjunction with the subsequent unauthorised ordering of veterinary drugs, that the application for restoration must be dismissed.
The dispensation was brought in during the spring 2020 lockdown to safeguard animal health and welfare, the health & safety of the veterinary team, and public health, by allowing prescriptions to be made by veterinary surgeons without having first physically examined the animal.
Since it was brought in, the temporary dispensation has been under constant review and, in September, was extended to midnight on Sunday 31st October 2021.
Last week, the Standards Committee met and decided to end the dispensation, although it has put back the end date for the guidance to midnight on Sunday 21 November to allow sufficient time for veterinary practices to change their protocols and policies accordingly.
Melissa Donald, RCVS Junior Vice-President and Chair of the Standards Committee, said: “Due to a number of factors, including evidence that there has been a decline in the amount of remote prescriptions taking place, the Committee took the decision to end the dispensation, albeit with a three-week extension period to allow those practices that are still prescribing remotely to change their policies, inform their clients and so on.
“While the dispensation is ending, it is worth noting that it will still be kept under review in light of any changes in the circumstances around the pandemic, including government advice and regulations.”
The full details about the temporary dispensation can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
Those with any questions about the guidance should contact the RCVS Standards & Advice Team on advice@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
The project was launched as a joint initiative between the RCVS and the BVNA in 2016. Its objectives included highlighting veterinary nursing as a career, encouraging more people into veterinary nursing, improving retention, expanding the scope of the VN role, and providing more opportunity for career progression.
The report begins by highlighting perhaps the biggest challenge facing the profession, that in 2019, 25% of veterinary nurses said they plan to leave the profession in the next five years, largely because of poor pay, because they don't feel sufficiently valued, lack of career opportunities and because of a poor work/life balance.
The main achievements of the project, which should certainly help with some of these issues, include:
Jill Macdonald, VN Futures Project Coordinator, said: "The report is a culmination of years of hard work, putting in place measures to champion the veterinary nursing profession and safeguard it for the future. Through the introduction of initiatives like the School Ambassador Development Programme and the introduction of the CertAVN, to name but a few, we have put in place steps to inspire the next generation of veterinary nurses and support the training and development of people currently working in the profession."
You can read the full VN Futures Interim Report at https://www.vnfutures.org.uk/resource-items/vn-futures-interim-report-2021
The College wants more vets to come and share their ideas and insights into how the role of the veterinary nurse can be strengthened within the team, particularly in the light of data gathered from the RCVS’s 2024 VN Vision workshops which showed that many nurses believe their skills and capabilities, and the scope of tasks that can be performed within the current legal framework, are not fully used.
The first two events, in South Wales and Belfast, were well-attended by veterinary nurses, but only about 10% of attendees were vets who arguably have the most to gain by sharing ways of enabling nurses to perform a more central role and relieve some of their workload.
There are four more events coming up:
RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, Julie Dugmore, said: “Last year’s VN Vision events focused specifically on veterinary nurses and resulted in some truly inspiring insights. Now, in this new series of events, we’re taking the next step, and need to get the wider practice team involved in order to understand how strengthening the VN role will feed into team dynamics and the professions as a whole.
“Our latest VN Vision events will play a key role in helping us to define long term goals, identify the practical steps needed to achieve them, and determine how success will be measured and shared with the wider public. To make it happen, we need voices from vets, practice managers, support staff, and VNs alike.”
The VN Vision workshops are free to attend, informal, informative and made up of small groups.
Supper will also be provided for the evening sessions, and lunch for the London day workshops.
https://www.eventbrite.com/cc/vet-nursing-vision-events-3253639
The original deadline for nominations for the three honours (the Queen’s Medal, Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship) was Friday 16 September – this has now been moved to Friday 21 October 2016.
Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS, said: "Do you know someone who goes above-and-beyond the call of duty? Whose achievements have had a tangible impact on their profession or the veterinary and animal health and welfare sector at large? Then we would strongly encourage you to nominate them for an RCVS Honour. Those who are successful will receive their award at our Annual General Meeting and Awards Day where their achievements will be described and recognised in front of their peers."
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Finally, nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have had a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours. All awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS has removed 362 registered/listed veterinary nurses from the Register/List following the end of the annual renewal period for veterinary nurses.
This figure, which includes both removals for non-payment and voluntary removals, is down from a total of 492 veterinary nurses who were taken off the Register/List at the start of 2014.
The deadline for payment of the annual fee to remain on the Register/List was 1 November 2014 although payment was accepted up to and including 31 December 2014.
Employers are encouraged to check that the veterinary nurses they employ remain on the Register/List, as those who are neither registered nor listed are not legally permitted to carry out minor surgery or medical treatment as defined under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
A list of those veterinary nurses who have been removed can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/about-the-vn-register to assist with these checks.
Employers, veterinary nurses and others can also use the online Check the Register/List search tool (www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/check-the-register-list), which is updated daily.
Veterinary nurses that have been removed from the Register/List and who wish to apply for restoration should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk for further information.
Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.
The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.
At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.
However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application.
The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017.
"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."
Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing.
Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."
Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The RCVS has announced it can now accredit international veterinary nursing courses and qualifications, following a decision by the Veterinary Nursing Education Subcommittee.
At its March meeting the Subcommittee agreed a framework for accrediting awarding organisations and higher education institutions delivering veterinary nursing qualifications wholly or partially outside of the United Kingdom. The changes had already been approved in principle by VN Council members at a meeting in February 2015.
Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing at the RCVS, said: “Although international VN training providers can now apply for accreditation, it would be dependent on them meeting the same stringent criteria as their UK counterparts.
“For example, they would be subject to many visitations to monitor the standards of teaching and the curriculum; their students would need to have a requisite amount of time gaining first-hand clinical experience in training practices; and we would need to be satisfied that their graduates meet the set of skills and competences we expect from all newly-qualified veterinary nurses.”
At the same meeting the VN Education Subcommittee also clarified and formalised the registration rules for veterinary nurses who wish to join the UK Register but who qualified outside both the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA).
Veterinary nurses trained outside the UK will continue to have their qualifications assessed against UK standards. From now on, all non-EU/EEA trained veterinary nurses and some EU/EEA trained veterinary nurses will have to pass pre-registration theory and practical examinations.
Furthermore, all registrants trained outside the UK (including those from EU/EEA countries) will have to come to the RCVS to have their documentation checked and will have the main tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses explained to them. Registration will not be confirmed until staff members from the Veterinary Nursing Department are satisfied that the Code has been understood.
The full details of the international qualification accreditation requirements and application process as well as information for international registrants will be included in an upcoming Awarding Organisation and Higher Education Institution Handbook which is due to be published at the end of April 2015. Once published this will be made available at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The College says that its new WhatsApp channel will give alerts of upcoming RCVS events, feature articles, blogs, videos and podcasts.
To follow the RCVS on WhatsApp, you would normally click 'Updates' at the foot of the app and search for "Royal College of ...", but as of today, the channel is still so new, it is not yet listed in the search results.
Until it is, you can follow the RCVS on WhatsApp using this link: https://www.whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb78yutE50UlFWxf4h07
The College's relaunched podcast will start with a news segment before going on to a more in-depth discussion on a specific topic.
The first episode - ‘Research with Purpose: An RCVS Perspective’ - discusses the integral role of research in supporting veterinary professionals in the workplace, as well as busting some common workforce myths.
Listening to the podcast can also count towards your CPD requirements.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “We understand how busy veterinary professionals are and how challenging it can be to stay up to date with College updates – particularly for those working in settings with limited access to emails.
"By reintroducing our podcast and launching a WhatsApp channel, we aim to make information more accessible, giving professionals and animal owners alike new and more flexible ways to engage with us in a way that suits them.”
The RCVS has announced that nominations are now open for the RCVS VN Council Elections and launched a new video which explains why you should consider putting your name forward.
Two seats are available on VN Council, each for a four-year tenure. Suzanne May and Hilary Orpet will be retiring from VN Council, but will be eligible to stand again in 2014.
To help veterinary nurses learn more about what's involved in being a Council Member, the benefits it can bring and the amount of time it requires, the College has produced a short video featuring the experiences of some existing members of Council and their reasons for standing.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "We have chosen the theme 'People like you' for these videos because people on the Councils really are no different to their colleagues across all aspects of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions. The thoughts and experiences they describe on camera will sound very familiar to many of their colleagues and peers! We need people of all ages and of varying experiences and professional backgrounds to ensure there is a healthy and diverse range of views available."
The College will also be hosting a special 'Meet the RCVS' day on Tuesday, 10 December for anyone considering standing for election but wanting to find out more first. Further information and bookings are available from Fiona Harcourt, Communications Officer (020 7202 0773 / f.harcourt@rcvs.org.uk).
Nominations are open until 5pm on Friday, 31 January 2014, allowing plenty of time to find out more about what's involved and to find two proposers.
Details about how to stand in the election are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil14.
The RCVS has published a guide for student veterinary nurses and providers of veterinary nursing education regarding fitness to practise issues.
The new guide, entitled Fitness to Practise – A Guide for UK Providers of Veterinary Nursing Education and Student Veterinary Nurses, was produced by a Working Party comprising representatives of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council as well as representatives from a variety of training providers and the British Veterinary Nursing Association. Although each training provider will have in place its own specific guidelines and procedures for dealing with fitness to practise cases, training providers are encouraged to have regard to this guidance as an example of good practice.
The guide, an equivalent of a previously published guide for student veterinary surgeons, is split into two parts: the first part provides guidance for training providers on recognising and addressing fitness to practise concerns; the second part sets out the broad principles of fitness to practise that student veterinary nurses should follow, and that training providers should expect and uphold.
Kathy Kissick, Vice Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council and Chair of the Working Party that produced the guide, says: “I am delighted with the completion of the student veterinary nurse fitness to practise guide. This guide will enable student veterinary nurses and educators to have clear guidelines and procedures to enable professional standards to be established and maintained throughout training, regardless of the training route being undertaken.
“This guide was produced with the input of veterinary nurse educational institutions and will help all training providers to prepare their veterinary nursing students for the rigours of professional registration and regulation.”
The guide can be downloaded for free from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions.
Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.
The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law.
However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law.
The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding."
The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."
The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.
The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Part of the VN Futures project, the lunchtime webinars will be delivered between February and June 2020 via the Webinar Vet, and the College is encouraging all nurses, veterinary surgeons, practice managers and owners to attend, as it says the webinars will benefit the whole practice team.
All three webinars take place at 12.30pm and last one hour. They are as follows:
Tuesday 4 February 2020 – ‘Maximising the potential of the veterinary nurse’ presented by Louise Northway RVN, BVNA Council member and recipient of the RCVS Inspiration Award. The webinar will give an overview of the role of veterinary nurses under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, how VNs can develop their role in practice and take on extra responsibilities and how VNs can approach these conversations in practice through the creation of learning and development plans. This webinar will illustrate how fully utilising the nursing team not only hugely boosts the morale of the work force, but also enhances patient care and increases the efficiency of the business.
Tuesday 10 March 2020 – ‘Veterinary nurses’ time is valuable: How and why to charge for it’ presented by Stephanie Writer-Davies MRCVS, Career Progression Working Group member, and Jane Davidson RVN, VN Council member and regular blogger on veterinary nursing issues. This webinar will provide examples and case studies of how veterinary nurses contribute to practice finances, how practice pricing structures can be developed so that the financial value of veterinary nurses’ time and effort can be better highlighted, and how veterinary nurses can demonstrate their value to clients.
Tuesday 23 June 2020 – ‘Lead or Head RVN: What’s in a name?’ presented by Gillian Page RVN, President of the Veterinary Management Group. This webinar will look at the role of the traditional Head RVN and how development of ‘Lead RVNs’ in different areas of practice can help to allow for growth of other talented team members and provide increased and shared responsibility and progression. This webinar will explore how this enhances practice efficiency alongside development of team members, thus increasing job satisfaction and, ultimately, retention.
Racheal Marshall, Chair of RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council and the VN Futures Board, said: "We hope that veterinary nurses will engage with these webinars in order to gain some inspiration about how they can truly show their value to their team, their clients and the wider public.
"The VN Futures research clearly demonstrated that there was a desire from the veterinary nursing profession to find ways in which VNs could gain greater recognition for the work they do and progress in their careers. These webinars, and our talented presenters, will provide many practical examples and case studies on how this can be done, help build confidence and highlight opportunities for further learning and development."
To sign up to the free webinars visit https://www.thewebinarvet.com/sponsors/VN%20Futures.
The course was developed with RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, Gurpreet Gill (pictured), and aims to increase self-awareness of unconscious bias, explore strategies to reduce it, and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Gurpreet said: “Unconscious bias is an area that some within the professions may not be familiar with and so this course provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact in the workplace.
“We also explore strategies that we can all apply to help reduce unconscious bias.
"This is important in helping to achieve fairer and more equitable working environments, and I’d encourage any veterinary professional, whatever your role, to undertake the course.”
The course is accessible free via the RCVS Academy, and takes about an hour and three quarters to complete,
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
The RCVS has removed 333 veterinary surgeons from the Register for non-payment of their annual renewal fees.
The final deadline for payment of the annual renewal fee passed on 31 May and the RCVS has written to those who have not paid to inform them of their removal from the Register. In 2013, 369 veterinary surgeons were removed from the Register for non-payment.
A list of the veterinary surgeons who have been removed - and who have not been subsequently restored to the Register - has today been published on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/vetremovals2014).
This list is published to alert those veterinary surgeons who have not responded to RCVS communications to check their registration status, and to remind employers to check the registration status of their employees. The registration status of any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse can also be checked online at www.rcvs.org.uk/check-the-register.
Any veterinary surgeon whose name appears on the list who believes they have paid their fee should contact the RCVS Finance Department as soon as possible on 020 7202 0723.
Veterinary surgeons and employers are reminded that, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, it is illegal to allow anyone who is not on the RCVS Register to practise veterinary surgery. They can also no longer use the postnominal 'MRCVS' and any professional indemnity insurance the veterinary surgeon may have is also rendered invalid.
Further information about restoration to the Register, and a restoration application form, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration or by contacting the Registration Department on membership@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0707.
In order to be restored to the Register, veterinary surgeons must pay a fee of at least £299, in addition to the outstanding annual renewal fee. The restoration fee increases each successive year a removed member remains off the Register.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received funds from the EU, and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS is calling for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to supply up-to-date email addresses for its Survey of the Professions, which will take place early next year.
The survey is carried out every four years and, for the first time, next year's will be online only. It will ask questions about how vets and veterinary nurses are using their qualifications, how they carry out continuing professional development, what kind of practices they work in and their views on the profession, amongs other things.
The surveys will be sent via email so correct addresses are needed to make sure that veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses can have their say. Email addresses should also be unique, rather than being a generic practice email address, for example, so that the survey is sent to an individual rather than a whole team. This is also important for other emails from the College, such as personal fee or deadline reminders.
The RCVS also needs up-to-date contact details in order to offer members a better range of online services, such as the ability to better manage their Register details.
In order to check and update their contact details veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses should visit the log in area at www.rcvs.org.uk/login. Alternatively, they can contact the College's Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or membership@rcvs.org.uk
However, when asked by VetNurse.co.uk which audience - veterinary professionals, it's staff or the public - it was referring to, or what threats to safety and wellbeing were posed by X, the College refused point blank to answer.
So the real motivation remains unclear.
On the one hand, it could be a ridiculously over-sensitive move to protect its unknown audience from opinions that its staff find objectionable.
On the other hand, it could perfectly well be argued that short form social media reduces every discussion or debate to "I'm effing right and you're effing wrong", which is not appropriate for a scientific profession.
Equally, one could also argue that engaging in polarised debate is not terribly good for one's wellbeing.
Or one could just argue that it's a terrible platform owned by a strangely meddlesome and interfering American.
However, given the College's strange refusal to expand on the reasons for its withdrawal, the first explanation seems more likely.
But who knows?
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-statement-on-x-formerly-twitter/
Nominations are now being sought for candidates to stand in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and Veterinary Nurse Council (VN Council) elections. The deadline for nominations is 5pm on 31 January 2013.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive said: "Last year, a record number of veterinary surgeons showed by seeking a seat on RCVS Council that they were willing to help regulate their profession. The RCVS needs the efforts of willing vets and VNs to ensure that their professions continue to be well regulated. If you've thought about standing 'someday' - why not make someday now?"
There are six seats due to be filled on RCVS Council, and two on VN Council. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms. Council members will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council and Committee meetings, working parties and subcommittees (for which a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
Each candidate needs to find two proposers; any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse (who is not presently on either Council) may propose one candidate for RCVS or VN Council respectively.
Nomination forms, full instructions and guidance notes are available from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
For the first time this year the RCVS will organise a webinar-style hustings event for RCVS Council candidates during the election period. This will offer candidates the opportunity to outline his or her manifesto verbally in a live event, with an audio-only recording. It will not be compulsory for candidates to take part, although it is hoped that the event will enable candidates to make their points in a way that will engage a broader range of voters than the paper manifestos alone.