Applications are now open for new members to join the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees.

This is the first time that non-Council members have been able to sit on these two key committees, and follows the approval of a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, which comes into force on 6 April 2013.

Under the new legislation, the two statutory committees will move through a transition period until they completely comprise independently-appointed non-Council members, by July 2015.

This move will provide regulation in line with modern practice, by ensuring that the same group of people is not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and adjudication, and by bringing lay people formally into the Preliminary Investigation Committee.

The LRO will also allow the RCVS to increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, reducing the workload on the individual Committee members whose primary appointment is to RCVS Council.

This first recruitment phase seeks:

• Three lay members and two veterinary surgeons to serve on the Preliminary Investigation Committee from 1 July 2013;
• Four lay members and four veterinary surgeons to serve on the Disciplinary Committee from 1 July 2013;
• Two veterinary surgeons to serve on the Preliminary Investigation Committee from 1 July 2014; and,
• Three lay members and three veterinary surgeons to serve on the Disciplinary Committee from 1 July 2014.

RCVS President, Jacqui Molyneux said: "It's exciting that we can now seek to appoint non-Council members to the two committees involved in our disciplinary system - a breakthrough that has taken a long time to achieve.

"We are interested to hear from veterinary surgeons and lay people who are keen to contribute to the public good and support us in our regulatory role. It's an excellent opportunity to be part of the next chapter of the RCVS, as we become a more modern and effective regulator."

The recruitment process is being handled by Thewlis Graham Associates and details can be found at www.thewlisgraham.com. The selection committee will comprise Sir Michael Buckley, Christopher Laurence MBE QVRM TD BVSc MRCVS and Dr Joan Martin MA FCOT.

The closing deadline for applications is 5pm on Monday 4 March 2013.

The RCVS has announced a number of senior staff changes.

Gordon Hockey has been ratified by Council as Head of Legal Services and Registrar. This is a new role created when the post of Registrar and Secretary was split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary; and Head of Legal Services and Registrar.

Gordon, who was previously Assistant Registrar/Head of Professional Conduct, and then Acting Registrar, will have oversight responsibility for registration and professional conduct.

At the same time, Eleanor Ferguson, formerly Acting Head of Professional Conduct, has been confirmed in the position.

The post of Head of Registration has been made redundant, with a new role of Customer Experience Manager created to ensure that the customer (public and profession) journey improves across the organisation. This position will also report into Gordon Hockey.

There have been other changes on the Senior Team at the College. The post of Head of Corporate Services that had been vacant since the departure of Richard Holford last December will not be filled, and Head of Finance Corrie McCann has been promoted to the new role of Head of Operations, which will incorporate finance, corporate services (IT, mailing, reception) and facilities.

Two other posts have been made redundant: Special Projects Manager and RCVS Charitable Trust Director. A new post of Executive Director for the Trust will be developed, with a view to taking the Trust through a full strategic review. 

Chief Executive Nick Stace said: "I believe that an engaged and well-purposed team of staff, with a focus on customer service and driving improvements, lies at the heart of any successful organisation. These changes will enable the College to move into the next stage of its development towards becoming a first-rate regulator."

The changes will mean that the Senior Team is reduced from 11 people to seven, being the Chief Executive plus Heads of Legal Services, Operations, Human Resources, Education, Veterinary Nursing and Communications.

Shropshire-based Emma Jane Evans MRCVS has been reprimanded and warned about her future conduct by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after allowing a colleague to order a veterinary drug for human use and falsifying test results and clinical records.

Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.

She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results. 

The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.

Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.

She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.

She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.

Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.

The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.

It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.

The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.

“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.

"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.

"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.

“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.

"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.

“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.

In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.

In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.

Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.

“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.

"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.

“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.

“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.

"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has the results of research into why veterinary surgeons and nurses leave the profession and the most common reason veterinary nurses gave for their decision was 'pay and stress'.

The research took the form of a voluntary survey asking those voluntarily leaving their registers to explain why.

202 veterinary nurses took part.

The vast majority were white females under the age of 50. 

34% had been registered for between 15 and 19 years. 

31% had been registered for between five and nine years.

54% said they were leaving to work in an altogether different field. 

12% planned to retire.

The College says the free text responses were dominated by comments about financial stress.

Vicki Bolton, RCVS Research Manager, said: “Thank you to all those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who responded to these exit surveys.

"This data is invaluable to us in understanding the reasons why people choose to leave the RCVS Registers.

“The reasons given don’t always make for easy reading, especially when they are to do with dissatisfaction over the direction the professions are taking, physical and mental health and wellbeing, financial pressures and concerns about regulation and its costs.

“However, it is important to remember that, overall, relatively few veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses leave the professions each year.

"There is no mass exodus from the professions and the numbers joining the UK Register annually well exceed those leaving, as demonstrated by consistent year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse registrants.

“That being said, these results will form an invaluable part of our ongoing work on veterinary workforce and gives the RCVS food for thought about how and where we can better support veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to stay in the professions rather than leave prematurely.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/exit-survey-2022-2024 

Locum David John Porter has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for rude and aggressive behaviour, deficient clinical standards and obstructing the Committee's investigation into the complaints against him.

Three charges were found against Mr Porter.

The first charge (charge A) concerned failure to communicate courteously and respectfully with colleagues. This charge related to four incidents as follows:

• A1: On 3 November 2011, whilst on duty at the Seadown Veterinary Hospital in Southampton, he was rude and/or threatening and/or aggressive to two veterinary surgeon colleagues.
• A2: On 11 June 2012, whilst on duty at Clent Hills Veterinary Group, Worcestershire, he said to an assistant practice manager and receptionist that British veterinary surgeons and practice managers were untrustworthy.
• A3: On 12 June 2012, when on the telephone with the practice manager of Clent Hills, he was rude and/or used inappropriate language; and stated that a lot of British vets were “bloody awful”, liars and cheats.
• A4: In January 2013, during the course of an Employment Tribunal hearing in relation to his time as a locum at Clent Hills Veterinary Group in June 2012, he raised his voice aggressively and/or shouted at the Clent Hills practice manager.

In finding him guilty of this charge the Committee referred to his “wholly unacceptable exchanges with other veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and ancillary practice staff members with whom he was working on the dates in question.”

The second charge for which he was found guilty (charge C) concerned what the Committee called “his seriously deficient clinical standards when treating animals under his care”, in particular that:

• C1: Between 31 October 2011 and 4 November 2011 at Seadown Veterinary Hospital he used inadequate levels of hygiene when conducting surgery by failing to scrub up and/or wash his hands before surgery, including abdominal surgery.
• C2: On 26 April 2013 at the Stanhope Park Veterinary Practice he used surgical spirit to clean the ear canal of a dog.
• C3: On 27 April 2013 at the same practice, he unreasonably refused to euthanase a dog.
• C4: On 28 April 2013, at the same practice, he used a ratchet gag on a rabbit without having first administered sedation or anaesthesia.

Within charge C he was cleared of two further parts of the charge – first, that he failed to discuss euthanasia with a client in relation to a kitten and failed to provide the client with sufficient advice and instructions regarding after-care; and, second, that he prescribed steroids to treat a kitten for muscle strain at a time when it was recovering from surgery.

The third charge for which he was found guilty (charge D) relates to Mr Porter’s failure, between 7 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, to respond adequately to communications from the RCVS. In particular that:

• D(i): Between 7 February and 21 December 2013 he failed to respond constructively or at all to correspondence from the College.
• D(ii): From July 2014 he failed to respond to specific requests for details regarding his qualifications and experience.

As to the conduct found proved in relation to charge D, the Committee set out its findings of fact and declared: “What Mr Porter chose to do was to attempt to obstruct the College in its attempts to investigate the complaints laid against him and, thereafter, its attempts to bring him before the Committee to answer the charges preferred against him. In short, he has directly questioned, and then disregarded and thwarted, the legitimate role of his professional regulatory body.” 

The Committee’s reasons for taking a serious view of such conduct were expressed in the following words: “Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the expectation that all veterinary surgeons, as responsible professional persons, will co-operate fully and promptly to all proper enquiries made of them by the College. This is the wider public interest factor which means that deliberate attempts to thwart the College’s enquiries into complaints must, in our judgment, come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.” 

During the course of the hearing, which began in June 2015 and was adjourned three times, Mr Porter was cleared of charge B against him which concerned alleged refusal to undertake out-of-hours work for the Clent Hills Veterinary Group having previously indicated he would undertake such work.

In making the decision on the sanction in this case, Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In reaching our conclusion as to the sanction which is merited in this case we have taken into account the totality of Mr Porter’s conduct and failings. We consider that the conduct pertaining to Charges D(i) and (ii), even when viewed separately, demand the imposition of a direction for the removal of Mr Porter’s name from the Register.

“When that conduct is considered in conjunction with the other misconduct found proved in relation to Charges C1 to C4, which identify his clinical failings, and Charges A1 to A4, which demonstrate unprofessional behaviour in the workplace, we unhesitatingly conclude that there is no other sanction that could be considered sufficient, other than that of erasure.”

Warwickshire-based Elizabeth Gatehouse MRCVS has been suspended for two months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for falsely confirming the vaccination of a horse to a fellow veterinary surgeon, and for fabricating an entry in the horse’s clinical records.

Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus  when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so. 

The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement. 

Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.

Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.

They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.

Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation. 

In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends. 

"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner. 

"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."

Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to suspend overseas-based James Hugh Alexander Crawford MRCVS for a period of 12 months, after he fabricated an email, purporting it to be from a veterinary officer at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), now known as the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

Dr Crawford sent the email to his client, Mrs X, on 15 July 2014, the day on which Mrs X’s horse was due for insemination using horse semen supplied from a horse in Germany. However, the semen had arrived without the Intra Trade Certificate, a requirement for intra-EU inseminations, and so Dr Crawford proceeded to contact the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for alternative authorisation.

Just after 4:30pm on that day, Mrs X received a text from Dr Crawford advising her that he had received authorisation from the AHVLA, and would forward to Mrs X the AHVLA authorisation email. It later transpired that that the email had in fact been fabricated by Dr Crawford using an email that he had previously received from the AHVLA regarding another matter.

Dr Crawford faced the following charges:

1. Fabricating an e-mail purporting to be from the veterinary officer at the AVHLA, authorising use of semen from a horse for insemination, when in fact he had not received such authorisation.

2. Dishonesty in relation to the e-mail described above.

3. His conduct gave rise to spread of infectious disease which had the potential to affect equine animal health and welfare in the region.

Dr Crawford admitted the first two charges, but denied that his actions had given rise to the risk of disease.

The Committee found the first two charges proved, and moved on to determine the facts of the third charge. They took into account that Dr Crawford had received verbal confirmation that the semen was safe, and that the health papers had been stamped accordingly. He had not, however, seen a copy of this certificate and so there was no guarantee that the semen was safe to use at the time he sent the fabricated email. On consideration of the facts, the Committee found this charge proved, as Mrs X’s mare could have been infected and subsequently could have adversely affected equine animal health and welfare in the region.

They also found that his entire course of action had fallen far short of what is expected of a veterinary surgeon, and that it amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. 

When determining sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely the risk of injury to animals, an element of pre-meditation, a disregard for the role of the AHVLA, impersonating a fellow veterinary surgeon, and intending to deceive a veterinary surgeon as well as a member of the public.

It did also, however, take into account the mitigating factors – that there was no injury to the animal, and that it was a single isolated incident from which Dr Crawford did not stand to make any financial gain.

The Committee therefore decided to order the Registrar to suspend Dr Crawford’s registration for 12 months.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Crawford from the Register. However, in light of the significant mitigation in this case, the fact that this was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career, together with his acceptance from the outset that he had been dishonest and his assurance that he would never behave in this way again, the Committee decided that in all the circumstances to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate."

Dr Crawford can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council within 28 days of being notified of the Disciplinary Committee's decision.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has found Cheshire-based Paul Stuart Thomason MRCVS not guilty of disgraceful conduct after hearing charges that he undertook a pre-purchase examination of a horse called Reba which caused him to have a potential or actual conflict of interest with the seller, about which he failed to inform the prospective buyer.

Dr Thomason initially denied both heads of charge, but on the third day of the hearing he changed his plea and admitted the charge in its entirety.

The first part of the charge related to the fact that the seller of the horse was a both a client of Dr Thomason’s practice and a personal friend of his, and he therefore had a potential and/or actual conflict of interest.

Dr Thomason did not disclose this professional and personal relationship to the prospective purchaser before the pre-purchase exam.

The prospective purchaser only discovered Dr Thomason’s relationship with the seller when reading the vetting certificate at home, and stated that, in the past, she had had a similar experience in which the horse was then found to be lame. She later found out the extent of the personal relationship, when invited to join the seller on a social media site.

The Committee found that, in this set of circumstances, Dr Thomason should not have undertaken the pre-purchase exam at all, and, at the very least, disclosed his personal and professional relationship with the vendor.

The Committee also found that although Dr Thomason did have a system in place to inform any prospective purchasers if the vendor was a client of his practice, this failed to work on this occasion and neither the practice nor Dr Thomason told the prospective buyer that the seller was a client before booking the pre-purchase exam. Dr Thomason had no similar system in place to disclose any close friendships with sellers.

Dr Thomason did not consider there was a conflict of interest as he felt confident he could carry out the pre-purchase exam impartially. In addition, it was his belief that the seller had been alerted to the conflict through a system in place at his practice, implemented to safeguard against this type of error. He stated that he in no way attempted to hide his relationship with the seller to the prospective purchaser. 

It was not alleged that Dr Thomason had acted dishonestly.

Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Thomason not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the Committee concluded that the respondent’s view of his obligations to disclose both the professional and personal relationships he had with the vendor was mistaken, it did not find any improper motivation on his part. It has already noted that he sought to disclose to the prospective purchaser through his system the fact that the vendor was a professional client of his.

"The Committee has weighed all these matters very carefully. It is for the client to determine whether or not to proceed with a PPE when in possession of all relevant facts in relation to any potential conflict of interest, and not for the veterinary surgeon to decide. The autonomy of the client must be respected. The Committee was firmly of the opinion that a failure to comply with the Code is very serious. However, taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee does not consider that the actions of the respondent amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

Speaking at last week's RCVS Veterinary Nurses Day, Rachael Marshall, Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council highlighted advances in the veterinary nursing profession and urged nurses to find ways of taking the lead in their career.

Veterinary Nurses Day was held at London Zoo to welcome new members of the profession, award Diplomas and celebrate the achievements of one of its longest-serving members.

During the ceremony, Rachael Marshall, Chair of Veterinary Nurses Council, led the newly registered nurses through their professional declarations while the President of the RCVS, Dr Niall Connell presented each new veterinary nurse a scroll containing the text of their declarations.

Before leading the declarations, Racheal said: "I would encourage you all to take control of your career and find areas where you can take the lead, whether this be within your practice or by contributing to the wider profession.

"Sticking your head above the parapet can be scary and often daunting, however, the satisfaction of challenging yourself and achieving things outside of your comfort zone is all the more rewarding.

"Remember this is a career for life. However you choose to use your qualification always be rightly proud to stand tall and say ‘I am a veterinary nurse’."

The College hosted two separate ceremonies, one in the morning and afternoon, and around 175 new veterinary nurses collected their scrolls, as well as nine RVNs who had achieved their DipAVNs. Also being recognised at the event with a lifetime achievement award was Deborah Holland who qualified as a ‘registered animal nursing auxiliary’ (or RANA) in 1981 and has seen first-hand how the profession has changed and adapted over the last 40 years.

Racheal added: “It was not until 1984 that a change in the law allowed the use of the title of veterinary nurse, and a further 30 years until a new Royal Charter in 2015 formally granted the status of associates of the RCVS, making veterinary nursing a regulated profession in its own right. Last year a change in the governance of the RCVS Council has allowed two veterinary nurses to become members of Council, which further demonstrates the solid recognition of the importance of the VN role, which this day aims to highlight and celebrate.”

In his closing speech for both sessions, RCVS President Niall Connell spoke of the challenges of veterinary work and the importance of reaching out to your peers and colleagues in times of need.

Niall said: “Talk to colleagues, talk to friends and support each other. More than ever our veterinary professions are closer together so you should never feel you are alone. If you need advice, seek it. There are so many people you can ask, colleagues, your associations and you will always be welcome to call the College for advice on professional conduct, CPD and other issues.”

The RCVS has launched 'Veterinary care from your kind of vets', a new campaign to raise awareness of the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) amongst animal owners.

The two-month campaign is comprised of a series of very polished videos which are now being shared on YouTube. 

The videos share the experiences of a number of veterinary professionals from PSS practices who talk to the camera first as owners themselves, and then as vets.  

The College says the aim is to demonstrate to the public that their animals will receive veterinary care from empathetic practice teams committed to delivering the kind of veterinary care they would want for their own animals.

Mandisa Greene, Chair of the Practice Standards Group, said: "In order for a veterinary practice to be accredited under the Practice Standards Scheme it needs to demonstrate that it is meeting a broad range of stringent standards and undergo a rigorous independent assessment every four years. 

"However, we know that awareness and understanding of the Scheme amongst animal owners is relatively low, and that there is always more we can do to help change this. We have therefore developed this digital campaign to help RCVS-accredited practices explain to animal owners what RCVS-accreditation means, and why they should care about it.

"We think it’s important that RCVS-accredited practices, which go through a great deal of effort and work to achieve their accreditation, receive the recognition they deserve and we hope that they will help us to spread the word far and wide."

Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “A vital ingredient of this campaign will be the support and involvement of RCVS-accredited practice teams right across the country. Throughout the two-month campaign, we will be posting lots of wonderful video stories, pictures and PSS infographics across all of our social media channels, along with other fun ways to help spread the word.

"We’re posting launch packs to all accredited-practice premises this week, which include a variety of campaign posters to display in waiting rooms and details of how to download all the digital resources from our campaign website for use in practice and online. 

"We really hope that everyone associated with an RCVS-accredited practice, including their clients, will be able to share this campaign across their own channels as widely as possible, remembering to use the campaign hashtag #YourKindOfVets, of course!"

Anyone wanting more information about the campaign should email: yourkindofvets@rcvs.org.uk.

The RCVS ViVet innovation project is hosting a series of Zoom meetings which vet nurses are being encouraged to come and join, to reflect on the changes that have taken place in the delivery of veterinary services in the past few years and think about the improvements and innovation that have taken place.

The first meeting takes place on Thursday 27th May from 12.30pm to 1.30pm. It will look at how veterinary practices have had to work differently and adapt to the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Chris Tufnell, RCVS Council Member and Innovation Lead (pictured right), will be chairing the session. He said: “In the past 15 months we have been in innovation overdrive, adapting at a unprecedented pace to transform how we work, serve our clients and patients, and continue to function as veterinary businesses in less-than-ideal circumstances.

"This event is an opportunity to take a step back, look at what has happened, how we have changed and consider what aspects of these changes we might carry over when we return to near normal working conditions.

"For those who join us, we would like to know what kind of innovation solutions you and your colleagues have developed, and share your stories and ideas to help and inspire others.”

Joining Chris on the panel will be a selection of veterinary professionals who will share their own experience of how they have had to adapt the way they work during the pandemic. Participants include Anita Patel, an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dermatology, who runs her own dermatology referral service, and Richard Artingstall, Clinical Director of Vale Referrals in Gloucestershire.

The event, which will feature short presentations followed by a reflective discussion, is free to attend and can be signed up to via its Eventbrite page at: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/152857028487

More meetings are planned for later in the year: 

• Wednesday 16 June: A special session for veterinary nurses titled ‘Problem-solving in difficult circumstances
• Tuesday 20 July: Implementing new technology
• Wednesday 8 September: Innovative technology and learning new skills

If you have any questions about the sessions or would like to take part as a speaker, email the ViVet Manager, Sophie Rogers on s.rogers@rcvs.org.uk or info@vivet.org.uk

The RCVS has published the report on its second survey on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on veterinary businesses, finding a small improvement on the situation last month.

The survey was held between the 1st and 5th May and was sent to the 3,139 UK veterinary practices for which the RCVS holds a unique email address. In total it gathered 251 responses (a response rate of 8%) compared to the 532 responses to the initial survey conducted between 3rd and 7th April (a response rate of 17%).

The main changes compared to last month's survey were:

• Fewer practices were affected by veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses having to self-isolate. In the April survey some 30% of respondent practices were affected by this compared to 20% in the May survey.
• Last month, the overwhelming majority of practices (97%) had limited their caseloads to emergency or urgent cases only. This month, only 26% were seeing emergency cases only. The majority of practices (69%) reported seeing a reduced caseload, including some routine work.
• In the April survey 42% of respondents reported a 51% to 75% fall in turnover, while 24% of respondents reported a fall in turnover of more than 75%. This month, the majority of respondents (46%) reported a 25% to 50% drop in turnover, while just 6% of practices reported a more than 75% reduction in turnover. 

Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: "This latest survey has identified some positive trends in terms of a slight uptick in business, including turnover, and fewer incidences of staff having to take time off with COVID or COVID-like symptoms.

“I am glad to see that the framework we published in April has, so far as we can see, provided veterinary professionals with greater guidance and reassurance regarding the fact that if it is feasible to do something safely under social distancing guidelines, then they can go ahead, if they choose to.

"We left plenty of scope for veterinary professionals to use their clinical judgement as to what services actually offer, depending on their facilities, level of staffing, availability of protective equipment, local disease pressures and so on.

"However, it is also clear that we are, by no means, out of the woods and that veterinary businesses are still struggling financially, with some of them reporting a very acute impact of the coronavirus and the associated restrictions on their businesses.

“We will continue to monitor the situation via these regular surveys, with the next one planned for early June. I would urge as many practices as possible to continue to complete them, so that we can build up a stronger evidence-base on how veterinary businesses have been affected. This information is not only vital for our own policy decisions but also allows us to present a stronger case to the Government and other public bodies where we wish to influence the decisions they make that will impact the veterinary professions and businesses.”

The survey results can be read in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus-resources.