View all veterinary jobs
The College says it will, however, continue to operate as close to normality as possible, with the main support services for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses such as advice, lifelong learning (including qualifications and the new 1CPD platform), finance and Practice Standards available as usual over the phone, on email or via the website.
The College’s main statutory activities around accreditation, registration and regulation of the professions will also be largely unaffected, with most Committee, Sub-Committee and working group meetings held by telephone or video conference.
Apparently, however, the April meeting of RCVS Council was going to be too big to be held remotely, so it has been cancelled.
The things that were up for discussion, such as the standard of proof and the report of the Legislation Working Party, will be moved to a subsequent meeting. Should there be any urgent business to consider, Council members have been asked to remain available via email on the date originally scheduled.
The College says it will be deciding whether to proceed with forthcoming DC hearings on a case-by-case basis, to balance maintaining the health and welfare of all involved with the College’s responsibility to protect animal health and welfare and public health.
The College is having to postpone or cancel an increasing number of its events; latest updates and advice for the profession is at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
RCVS Chief Executive Lizzie Lockett, pictured right, said: "We have been planning for this eventuality for some time, so whilst Monday’s announcement from UK Government came a little sooner than expected, we are in a strong position to be able to operate as close to normal as possible.
"We have an excellent and highly committed team of staff and Council members at the College, who I know will continue to work hard from kitchen tables, studies and living rooms over the coming days and weeks to serve the veterinary professions and the animal-owning public.
"Whilst we are fortunate that much of our work can be carried out remotely, we fully appreciate that this is not the case for most veterinary professionals who themselves are currently facing many significant challenges in their daily work to care for the nation’s animals whilst also prioritising the health and welfare of their own teams."
The College is urging all veterinary surgeons, nurses and practices to check they have supplied it with their most up-to-date email address via www.rcvs.org.uk/myaccount so it can relay its latest advice as the situation evolves.
The RCVS has opened a consultation on the future of veterinary specialisation, which includes a proposal that the use of postnominals and titles by veterinary surgeons should be rationalised in order to avoid confusion amongst the public.
The proposals are submitted for comment by the RCVS Specialisation Working Party, which is chaired by former Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Kenneth Calman.
The Working Party's review was precipitated by a finding that the structure of veterinary specialisation is "confusing and opaque" to both animal owners and the profession (Unlocking Potential - a Report on Veterinary Expertise in Food Animal Production, by Professor Philip Lowe, 2009).
The Working Party has explored the routes to RCVS Recognised Specialist status. It has also looked at the use of 'specialist' more broadly, given the fact that it is not a protected term in the veterinary field, and has considered animal owners' expectations of a 'specialist'.
The Working Party also makes proposals for encouraging more veterinary surgeons to become specialists, given that there are currently only 319 on the RCVS List of Recognised Specialists, out of a UK practising arm of the profession of some 17,400 veterinary surgeons.
The proposals from the Working Party could have far-reaching impact. One suggestion is that all those meeting the criteria for specialist status would also become Fellows of the RCVS (FRCVS) - a status currently only held by those who complete a thesis or exam, or who qualify on the basis of 'meritorious contributions to learning'. There are also proposals that the term 'RCVS Recognised Specialist' be dropped and replaced with the much simpler term 'specialist' or 'veterinary specialist'.
Further proposals include the introduction of a 'middle tier' of veterinary surgeons - potentially to be called 'advanced practitioners' - who would be below full specialist status and subject to periodic revalidation.
There are also recommendations that veterinary surgeons should be obliged to explain referral options to their clients, including the level of expertise of those to whom they are referring cases.
The future of the RCVS subject boards, which currently manage the various Certificate and Diploma examinations, is also considered in the proposals.
The emphasis throughout is on simplification and improvement, according to Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, who said: "New legislation to introduce statutory registration for veterinary specialists would no doubt make things clearer, as it is for doctors and dentists, but, in the meantime, we believe there are a number of actions which the RCVS could take to improve matters."
The consultation paper can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations, and comments are welcomed from members of the public, veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. The closing deadline for comments, which should be sent to RCVS Head of Education, Freda Andrews, on f.andrews@rcvs.org.uk, is Friday 9 December.
Comments received will be considered by the RCVS committees and Council in early 2012.
RCVS Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson said: "Changes to the chapter of the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct titled ‘Miscellaneous procedures: legal and ethical considerations’, specifically in regards to surgical artificial insemination in dogs, were discussed at a meeting of the Standards Committee on 30 January 2019.
"The proposed changes to the guidance were to clarify that surgical artificial insemination (AI) in dogs is prohibited by animal welfare legislation – specifically the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which prohibits mutilations. Prohibited procedures are defined as those which interfere with sensitive tissue or bone structure. Surgical AI in dogs is not one of the exemptions permitted within the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.
"Due to an unfortunate oversight, the guidance had not been updated following this legislative change, although, in the interim, the guidance still made it clear that surgical AI in dogs was unlikely to be in the animal’s best interests and could only be carried out and justified in very limited circumstances and for exceptional reasons.
"However, we apologise for the oversight, and as soon as the College was made aware that the guidance on surgical AI did not conform exactly with the legislation and regulations, a paper was prepared for the Standards Committee to consider as soon as possible and update the guidance accordingly.
"As always, if any members of the profession or the public have any questions about any aspect of our Code of Professional Conduct and supporting guidance, they are welcome to contact our Standards and Advice Team on advice@rcvs.org.uk."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Council and the Veterinary Nursing Council have decided that there will be no increase in registration and retention fees for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for 2012.
Last year, the Councils decided that a lower than inflation increase should apply to fees for 2011 to help mitigate the impact of the difficult economic climate on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. Members who are over 70 and who cease practising do not have to pay fees if they wish to remain on the Register.
Bradley Viner, RCVS Treasurer said: "We know times are tough financially for many people and hope that freezing fees will help a little. Professional regulation can be costly, but we try to keep fees as low as possible."
The RCVS financial policy remains that fee increases should be small and incremental in order to avoid a need for periodic sharp fee hikes resulting from inflationary pressures.
Fees for 2012 will be as follows:
2012 fees (£)
Veterinary surgeons
UK-practising retention fee
299
Overseas-practising retention fee
150
Non-practising retention fee
49
Non-practising retention fee (over 70 years old)
0
Registration fee
Temporary registration fee
Restoration fee
Restoration fee following voluntary removal
75
Veterinary nurses
Retention fee
61
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.
Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."
Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."
The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Southampton veterinary surgeon after finding him not guilty of serious professional misconduct, saying at all times that he acted in the best interests of a dog under his care.
At the start of the five-day hearing, the charges against Edward Gillams MRCVS were that, whilst in practice at Vets Now in Southampton in 2011, he discharged a dog that he knew or ought to have known was in no fit state to be discharged, and, at the same time, failed to provide adequate advice and information to the dog's owners, particularly with regard to an alternative plan to discharge and treatment options.
The dog, an Italian Spinone called Zola, had first been taken to the Vets4Pets veterinary clinic in Southampton at 4.30pm on 2 November 2011, where gastric torsion was diagnosed. During a subsequent gastrotomy, 3kg of sausages and plastic wrappings were removed. Zola was discharged three days later, with a guarded prognosis from the operating veterinary surgeon. Zola's condition deteriorated that same evening, so his owners called the Vets4Pets practice and were referred to their out-of-hours provider, Vets Now, where Mr Gillams was on duty. On admitting Zola, the only information available to Mr Gillams was what the dog's owners were able to tell him.
The Committee heard differing witness accounts from the dog's owners and from Mr Gillams regarding what tests and examinations were to be performed, and what advice and options were suggested. Ultimately, Zola was hospitalised overnight (despite some reluctance for this from one of his owners), given pain relief and antibiotics and placed on a drip; he was then to be collected by his owners first thing for transfer back to Vets4Pets. The next morning, Zola was described as 'sternally recumbent but responsive', holding his head up but not moving and not making any attempt to get up. Mr Gillams carried Zola to his owner's car for transport back to the Vets4Pets practice. He considered that he had discharged his duty to provide advice, as this was given the night before and in the circumstances prevailing in the morning there was no obligation to repeat this. Zola died on the journey between the two practices.
Before reaching a decision, the Committee considered, in detail, the expert evidence of witnesses for both the College and Mr Gillams, which provided some conflicting views on Mr Gillams' actions. It also referred to the RCVS guidance available to Mr Gillams at the time through the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010.
The Committee noted that both experts agreed that Mr Gillams could not have known Zola was about to die when he discharged him and that it was a difficult decision for Mr Gillams to make, but expressed differing views about the fitness of the dog to be discharged and whether it was in its best interests to be discharged. The Committee rejected the contention that Mr Gillams ought to have known that Zola was not fit to be discharged, and instead considered appropriate his decision to discharge him into the care of his original veterinary surgeon. It felt that continuity of care would actually be better maintained in this manner, rather than a third veterinary surgeon taking over the case.
Regarding provision of adequate advice, the Committee accepted Mr Gillams' evidence that he was frustrated that the owners refused him permission to undertake the diagnostic work necessary to treat Zola effectively, and that he had no other clinical information to work with.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee expresses its sincere condolences to [the owners] for the loss of their much loved family pet Zola and recognises that this loss caused the family great distress."
Ms Webb added: "The Committee accepts that [Mr Gillams] discharged his obligations to Zola and to [his owners] in a manner wholly consistent with the standards of a competent veterinary surgeon in difficult circumstances. He leaves with no stain on his character or professional ability."
The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
In a statement issued this morning, the College explained that a review carried out after tea yesterday afternoon concluded that in the post pandemic world, most of its staff will continue to work from home. The need for office space is therefore limited to three meeting rooms and a kitchenette.
VetNurse.co.uk understands that as a result, negotiations are already well advanced between the College and the owners of Ugland House in the Cayman Islands (pictured right) over the sale of one floor of the building, which is also home to 20,000 companies based on the tax-efficient island.
RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: “This move makes all sorts of sense. It represents a considerable cost-saving over our London premises and it puts the College at the very centre of the global veterinary community.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett was last seen browsing the beachwear section of www.harrods.com.
The RCVS has released the photograph of a man apprehended by Wiltshire police whilst working as a bogus veterinary surgeon at a practice in Swindon.
Peter Keniry, who had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon Shaun Kehoe, was arrested on 23 August and appeared in Swindon Magistrates' Court on charges of fraud and practising veterinary surgery unlawfully. He was released on bail.
Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, and has already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees.
Gordon Hockey, Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar at the RCVS said: "We were alerted to the potential fraud on 23 August and immediately liaised with the police to facilitate Mr Keniry's arrest that same day. The next day, RCVS Council member Dr Bob Moore and I visited Swindon police station to assist the police.
"It appears that Mr Keniry has continued his pattern of re-offending, and we hope that by publicising his photograph any other practice that has employed him recently will recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, and potential employers and locum agencies will keep his photograph to reduce the chances of this happening again."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on: profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
The organisations say that the RCVS position is that it expects veterinary surgeons to offer treatments "underpinned by a recognised evidence base".
However, what the RCVS position statement actually says is: "we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles".
As yet, neither the Faculty of Homeopathy nor the BAHVS have explained which sound scientific principles homeopathy may be based on.
The Faculty of Homeopathy and the BAHVS go on to say that misinformation concerning the efficacy of homeopathy has been promulgated by a small minority opposed to homeopathy.
However, a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and Alex Gough MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Group in 2013 found that 83% of veterinary surgeons opposed homeopathy, 78% to the degree that they felt it should not be practised under the the professional title of MRCVS.
The BAHVS response claims there is quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, in direct contradiction to the many and various bodies and studies that have concluded the reverse, including the NHS, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and more recently, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an organisation representing the 29 national academies in Europe including the Royal Society, which recently declared in a statement that: "homeopathy is implausible" and "there is no rigorous evidence to substantiate the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine."
The BAHVS claims there is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners, "as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects". It says: "this is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance".
However, the recent EASAC statement specifically singled out the use of homeopathy in farm animals, saying that the lack of evidence is: "particularly worrying when such products are used in preference to evidence-based medicinal products to treat livestock infections."
The BAHVS response says that if the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria it is using for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession; that the RCVS is limiting veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom. However, it doesn't substantiate this claim with examples of any clinical treatments used by veterinary surgeons which are not based on scientific principles and which would be limited if the same evidential standards applied.
VetNurse.co.uk supports the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine.
Photo: Multicolored homeopathy tubes isolated on a white background. Lush. Shutterstock.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is seeking feedback on a new draft Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The new draft Code, which would replace the existing RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, has been produced by a Working Party set up by the RCVS Advisory Committee to review the Guides for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
It is the benchmark for professional conduct against which registered veterinary nurses will be measured in any hearings on serious professional misconduct held by the recently-introduced VN Disciplinary Committee.
The purpose of the review is to ensure that guidance to the profession, and the public, is clear, for example, using consistent language to distinguish between what must be done and what is advised.
The new Code is a short, principles-based document, using the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe's Code of Conduct as the starting point. It will be supported by additional advice on specific areas of veterinary practice or issues, for example, clinical governance.
The consultation follows an earlier one for a new draft Code for veterinary surgeons that closed at the end of June: the new Code for veterinary nurses follows the format and style of that for veterinary surgeons. Comments made during the veterinary surgeon consultation will be taken account of alongside comments made during this new consultation.
For the first time, the draft proposes that veterinary nurses make a declaration on joining the VN Register, which underlines the primary importance of animal health and welfare: "I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care and that I will pursue the work of my profession with integrity and accept my responsibilities to my clients, the public, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons."
Comments on the proposed draft are invited from the veterinary nursing profession, the veterinary profession and the public, particularly on the issue of whether the Codes for veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons ought to be combined.
Andrea Jeffery, the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council member who led the group tasked with developing the new Code, said: "It is 50 years since the start of the veterinary nursing profession and the changes proposed in the Code reflect the development of our professional role over this time.
"This new Code is a simplified document that focuses on key principles and which will be supported by more detailed guidance. Although it follows the format of the draft Code for veterinary surgeons, it is important that we recognise our unique position as veterinary nurses."
The new Code, together with the consultation paper, can be downloaded at www.rcvs.org.uk/VNcodeconsultation.
Comments should be sent by email to Christopher Murdoch, Secretary to the Guides Review Working Party, at c.murdoch@rcvs.org.uk by Friday, 21 October 2011.
Nick Stace, CEO of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), has issued a swift and robust response to the call by Unite for a shake up for the profession's regulatory system.
"Unite's suggestion that veterinary regulation should be under the scrutiny of the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) is misguided, because the PSA is there to oversee regulation in the human healthcare sector and the RCVS already has Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Privy Council oversight.
"Its further thoughts around the RCVS disciplinary process are out of date and missing the point. We would be very happy to help put them right and to hear any legitimate concerns they may have.
"Unite is calling for the College to no longer 'set the rules and hand down judgments', when in fact last year we successfully achieved a Legislative Reform Order, backed by the profession, to ensure that our Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees will become independent from Council.
"Unite also talks about the profession's disquiet about last year's Disciplinary Hearing into Mr Chikosi, something we are well aware of and are currently responding to by looking at the biggest area of concern, the provision of 24/7 emergency cover. Our fact-finding mission is seeking views from the profession and the public.
"More broadly, though, feedback from our First Rate Regulator initiative has shown that the profession does have confidence in our disciplinary procedures and that they are certainly not subject to 'long-standing discontent'.
"The First Rate Regulator initiative is also leading to significant improvements in the way that complaints are handled, including speed to resolution.
"Unite is seeking to recruit members of the veterinary team as members of its union and it may be more successful in that pursuit if it was to start to understand the profession better, perhaps beginning with getting its facts right.
"We would be delighted to meet with Unite to put them right where they are factually wrong, and hear what they have to say."
The RCVS is seeking the views of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and members of the public about proposals for a new Royal Charter which would clarify and underpin the role of the College and give it formal recognition as regulator of the veterinary nursing profession.
The new Charter, approved at a meeting of RCVS Council in November, would replace the 1967 Supplemental Charter, with the most far reaching change being a proposal to make veterinary nursing a formally regulated profession on a similar footing to veterinary surgeons. Veterinary nurses would become associates of the College and have the post-nominal letters RVN. The List and the Register of Veterinary Nurses would also be effectively combined, meaning that the 1,100 listed veterinary nurses would join the 10,500 already on the Register.
Under the proposals registered veterinary nurses would continue to need to fulfil certain responsibilities, including abiding by the Code of Professional Conduct and completing an average of 15 hours a year of continuing professional development, and would be subject to RCVS disciplinary procedures.
What's new is that individuals struck off from the Register for serious professional misconduct would no longer be able to give medical treatment or carry out minor surgery under veterinary direction.
As well as changes to the regulation of veterinary nursing, the proposed Charter would also more clearly state the role and remit of the RCVS, for example, in advancing standards through the promotion of continuing professional development and the Practice Standards Scheme.
Professor Stephen May, a member of RCVS Council who led the Legislation Working Party that developed the new Charter proposals, said: "The proposed new Charter represents an historic opportunity to affirm the role of the RCVS, and to provide a modern framework for the future regulation of the professions. I call on veterinary surgeons and nurses, together with other interested stakeholders, to read the consultation documents and support our proposals."
Speaking about the need for change, RCVS President Neil Smith added: "The consultation paper explains why it is time to replace the 1967 Charter with a new version which sets out the role of the College. The present Charter doesn't explain what objects the RCVS should set out to achieve, and it is silent about veterinary nurses. The remit of the College should include being the regulator for the veterinary nursing profession, and we want a new Charter to recognise registered veterinary nurses.
"We hope that the new Charter will provide a solid basis for the work of the College for years to come. We would urge members of the professions and the public to let us know what they think and help us to make sure that we have got it right."
The consultation paper, which contains further details about the proposed Charter, is available to download at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations. Those who wish to have their say must respond to b.myring@rcvs.org.uk with their comments by Friday 7 February 2014.
The RCVS will also be organising a meeting and a webinar during the consultation period for those who wish to ask questions about the proposals. Those interested in attending a meeting should email b.myring@rcvs.org.uk. The webinar will be held early in 2014 - further details will be on www.rcvs.org.uk in due course.
The nurse, who admitted the charges against her, successfully applied for anonymity at the outset of the case, on the basis that the shock factor of the removal of the animals' heads could greatly upset members of the public and veterinary staff, leading to a backlash which would present a threat to her safety.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the nurse, who was working as a locum, asked a permanent member of staff if she could take a couple of skulls from the strays, because she had a friend who 'cleaned up' dead strays and wildlife and displayed the skulls at home.
The College’s case was that the nurse’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct because she failed to afford the dead animals with the respect and dignity they deserved, there was a risk to human health because she failed to comply with biosecurity measures, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession.
Although she admitted that her conduct fell short of what was expected, the nurse countered that her actions were not intended to be disrespectful to the animals, that she was an animal-lover who had three cats of her own, and that her actions were not malicious but misjudged.
Weighing up the case, the Committee found that the aggravating features of her conduct were around biosecurity and abuse of her professional position, while in mitigation it found that there was no financial gain in her actions and that it was a one-off incident.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct represented a biosecurity risk.
"Any body part would be in some degree of decomposition.
"As the cats were strays, it was unclear as to whether or not they had been in good health.
"Although the respondent transferred the body parts to her home and kept them in the freezer in cadaver bags, there was a risk that they could leak.
"In short, her actions were not without risk to human or animal health.
“The respondent abused her professional position.
"She had an obligation to treat the cadavers with respect.
"Her professional position gave her access to the cadavers.
"She abused her professional position by severing the cats’ heads and, using a scalpel, body bags and other equipment she pursued an interest of her own, rather than performed the role she was employed to undertake.
"Although she may say that she obtained permission to remove the cats’ heads from a permanent member of staff, she was a Registered Veterinary Nurse and therefore an autonomous professional.
"Whatever permissions she received should not have made her believe she had a licence to act as she did.”
Considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account her relative youth and inexperience, the fact she made open and frank admissions at an early stage, the fact she made efforts to avoid a repetition of the behaviours, the insight she had shown into why her conduct was wrong, and the amount of time that had passed since her conduct relative to the total length of her four-year veterinary nursing career.
The Committee also considered positive character references from fellow veterinary nurses with whom she worked and trained.
Kathryn added: “The Committee considered that a reprimand was the sanction it should impose.
"A reprimand marks the Committee’s view of the respondent’s behaviour, thereby satisfying the public interest.
“The Committee did consider issuing a warning as to future conduct, but it had no concerns that the respondent would fail to follow the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses in the future.
"It therefore rejected a warning as an appropriate alternative.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, is running an essay competition with a prize of an all-expenses-paid trip to the London Vet Show (London Olympia, 19th-20th November).
To win, you need to submit an essay of 1000 words or less which outlines an idea that will transform the veterinary/veterinary nursing profession by 2030. The College suggests that entrants might might look at a new business model, a new approach to education, a technological innovation or perhaps a way that the working lives of those in the practice team could be improved.
Anyone with an interest in the veterinary profession can enter the competition, including veterinary surgeons, nurses, practice managers and students.
The entries will be judged by the Vet Futures Project Board, which includes the Presidents and Chief Executives of both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
Entries will be anonymised then scored on a range of criteria, including originality, potential impact for the future and realistic prospects of change. The winning entry will be placed in a time capsule, to be opened by the veterinary profession in 2030.
The closing date for entries is midnight on Monday 31 August 2015, and the winner will be notified on Monday 7 September 2015.
The full rules and details of how entries can be submitted can be found on www.vetfutures.org.uk/essaycomp.
The RCVS has published new guidance for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on the use of social media and online forums, such as those on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk.
The guidance sets out the professional standards expected of veterinary professionals, as well as providing advice on good practice, how to protect privacy, maintaining client confidentiality and dealing with adverse comments from clients.
The guidance has been developed by the Standards Committee, partly in response to demands from the profession and partly in light of recent decisions by the courts and other regulatory bodies which demonstrate that professionals can be at risk of legal or disciplinary action where their online conduct is unprofessional or inappropriate.
Laura McClintock, RCVS Advisory Solicitor said: "Whilst social media is likely to form part of everyday life for veterinary professionals, who are just as free as anyone else to take advantage of the personal and professional benefits that it can offer, its use is not without risk, so vets and vet nurses should be mindful of the consequences that can arise from its misuse."
The new guidance explains that vets and vet nurses are expected to behave professionally online, whether publishing material as themselves or anonymously. The College highlights the fact that demonstrably inappropriate behaviour on social media may place registration at risk, as the professional standards expected online are no different to those in the 'real world'.
Laura added: "Understanding and applying our new guidance should help vets and nurses to meet their professional responsibilities and reduce the risks of receiving complaints from clients or others, as well as potential civil actions for defamation."
The new guidance can be found on the RCVS website at: www.rcvs.org.uk/socialmedia
The RCVS Trust is offering vets, veterinary nurses and their friends chance to win a stylish small car - and support this small charity - for a mere £2.00.
On offer in this better-than-the-average raffle is a Fiat 500, the 2008 European Car of the Year winner - and described by Jeremy Clarkson as "practical without being boring".
You can buy tickets online at http://www.everyclick.com/rcvstrust until 21 August, or ask Sarah Briggs at the Trust (020 7202 0743 or s.briggs@rcvstrust.org.uk) for a book to sell to colleagues, friends and family.
Tickets will then be entered into the Small Charity Car Draw, organised by the Foundation for Social Improvement, with the Trust receiving over 95% of the ticket price. The draw will take place on 1 October 2009.
Nominations are now open for candidates wishing to stand in the 2012 RCVS Council and RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council elections.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "The veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses that sit on the RCVS and VN Councils are vital to the governance of their professions, and in steering the activities the College undertakes under its Royal Charter. If you're interested in making sure that your profession is well-governed, its standards are upheld, and the interests of animals and the public are protected, why not consider standing in these elections?"
Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2012 elections. Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day next July, to serve four-year terms, and will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees (a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, manifesto and photograph for inclusion in the RCVS News Extra election specials. Nobody may nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make a nomination.
Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2012. Full details and guidance notes for both elections will be available on the RCVS website shortly on the RCVS Council Election page and VN Council Election page.
Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may be requested from Mrs Gabi Braun (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
From now on, accredited General Practices will need to employ at least one Registered Veterinary Nurse (RVN), whilst at Veterinary Hospitals all patients should now have a nursing plan in place, and an RVN will need to be on duty at all times.
Other changes to the PSS requirements include:
The full list of changes to the Practice Standards Scheme, together with the new module and award documents, can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/PSSreview.
David Ashcroft leads the team of PSS Assessors responsible for undertaking practice visits and assessing if they meet the required standards. He said: “The changes will come into force later in the year, at the same time as we are planning to return to in-person assessments, and so timings will be subject to government guidance on coronavirus and the easing of lockdown restrictions.
“As the PSS returns to in-person assessments, practices will have the usual three-month period between booking the assessment and the assessment taking place with which to familiarise themselves with the changes and the modules documents relevant to their accreditation.
“If anyone has any questions about the changes then please make sure to contact the Practice Standards Team on pss@rcvs.org.uk and we will be happy to help in any way we can.”
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
This pilot was originally launched in February 2017 to trial proposed changes to CPD, which would concentrate less on hours logged and more on interactive, reflective learning and measuring the impact that CPD has on the individual’s practice and patient health outcomes.
Some 115 veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses volunteered, with 60 attending an induction days at the College’s office last year.
The College says the response to its proposals was largely positive, and at its meeting on 2 November 2017 RCVS Council agreed to an extension of the pilot for a further six-to-nine months, in order to increase the breadth of views on the changes and gather further evidence on its impact.
The proposed model for CPD has four key components: planning, doing, recording and reflecting. While an overall majority of the 3,357 people who responded to the College’s 2016 consultation agreed with the proposed changes to the CPD requirement, certain elements received less support than others.
The lowest amount of support was received for the ‘reflection’ component with 35% of respondents disagreeing with it.
Shona McIntyre MRCVS, a teaching fellow in small animal medicine at the University of Surrey and the practitioner representative on the CPD Pilot Working Group, said: "As a general practitioner involved in the initial phase of the CPD pilot I was thrilled that we had so many from the profession engage with the consultation, and later with the pilot.
"By extending the pilot further we are looking to get an even wider range of views on board and fine-tune how we will be asking members of the profession to engage with the reflection element of the proposals. We are looking for a mix of those who support the proposals and those who have a ‘healthy scepticism’ about them and I can only encourage those not yet involved to consider signing up for the extended pilot and make their voice heard."
If you are interested in volunteering, contact Naila Hassanali, RCVS CPD Officer, via cpd@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0701.
Volunteers will be supported by RCVS staff throughout the trial.
Further information, including the CPD Policy Working Party’s response to the consultation, is available on the College website: www.rcvs.org.uk/cpdconsultation/.
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has won European funding to develop its innovative system for the online recording of veterinary nurse training.
The College has been granted Leonardo da Vinci funding to the tune of €245,000 to investigate how its Nursing Progress Log (NPL), used as part of the Level 3 Diploma in Veterinary Nursing in the UK, can be adapted for use on the continent.
Dubbed 'Veterinary European Clinical Training and Assessment Record' (VECTAR), the project will explore how best the recording tool, and the training of practice-based mentors for veterinary nurse students, can be developed in the six partner veterinary nursing schools - based in Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal and Italy.
The project will be overseen by the Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA), which means that European veterinary employers will have a direct link to the project throughout.
This is the latest of several similar projects in which UK best practice in veterinary nursing has led EU developments, and it is timely that the funding was secured during the 50th anniversary of veterinary nurse training in the UK (www.rcvs.org.uk/VNat50).
Libby Earle, RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing said: "We were delighted that the project has been granted funding, as it reinforces the position of UK veterinary nurse training as the gold standard in Europe. But there are still lots we can learn: the project will be a two-way process and we hope to gain from the experience of our European colleagues in developing and improving the NPL, and accessible training and support for those involved in coaching student VNs in practice."
It’s very significant because it’s the first time the College has produced material for practices that highlights the responsibilities of pet owners, as well as those of veterinary surgeons and nurses.
As such, it should be a really useful tool to support the advice given by veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice.
In other words, don’t just stick it on the wall in some hidden part of the waiting room. Display it prominently by the reception desk, and point to it when explaining why owners need to make their own arrangements to bring the animal into the practice in emergency, for example. Or why you can’t prescribe drugs when you haven’t seen the animal for 8 years.
The idea for the poster was first mooted by Jonathan Wray MRCVS in the forum on VetSurgeon.org, after he’d seen a similar thing produced by the French regulator for veterinary practices in France.
VetSurgeon.org decided to produce an English version with input from vets as to what they would like a UK version of the poster to say.
On reflection, however, it was always something which would carry so much more clout if it came from the regulator, so we turned the idea over to the RCVS.
To its great credit, the College ran with the idea and had the poster designed and put through its Standards Committee. The result has now been posted to all practices in the UK, with a pdf version available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/poster.
The RCVS is now inviting feedback about the poster at communications@rcvs.org.uk.
If you like the poster, I really do urge you drop the College a quick line at that email address and say so. Better still - and I will probably be put on the naughty step for saying this - cc L.Lockett@rcvs.org.uk and i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk. It was they who took the idea forward and made it happen. I think they deserve a round of applause.
Kirk Thompson, a Newcastle-based practitioner, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of manslaughter, assault and drug possession.
Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Nominees for the RCVS Council and its Veterinary Nurses Council have been announced, with 13 candidates for the former and four for the latter.
The nominations closed on 31 January, and the following are standing:
RCVS Council
* denotes current RCVS Council member
VN Council
* denotes current VN Council member