View all veterinary jobs
Two vacancies have arisen for veterinary surgeons to join the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Veterinary Nurses Council.
The positions, which are open to veterinary surgeons not currently serving on RCVS Council, would be particularly well suited to those veterinary surgeons who have an interest in the nursing profession and some experience of working with nurses. However, applicants need not necessarily be politically involved with the profession at this point.
VN Council Chairman Liz Branscombe said: "Veterinary nurses play a vital role in the practice team and, with the opening of the non-statutory Register in 2007, the VN profession is now recognising its responsibilities in terms of maintaining professional standards, skills and competence.
"Now, more than ever, it is important that vets from all sectors of the profession take the time to get involved with the regulation and development of the role of the veterinary nurse."
Applications are invited from all veterinary surgeons, although those with some experience of working with veterinary nurses would be most relevant.
The four-year posts will require an annual time commitment of approximately six to ten days.
For an application pack, please contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on 020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk. The deadline for the receipt by RCVS of completed application packs is 30 April 2011.
The Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of approved educational institutions (AEIs), delivery sites and the training practices (TPs) responsible for providing the training and support for student veterinary nurses.
The College reviews the standards framework every five years to ensure that AEIs, delivery sites and TPs have the structures to best provide contemporary and innovative approaches to education for student veterinary nurses, while being accountable for the local delivery and management of accredited programmes.
The new draft framework includes updates relating to sustainability and academic integrity.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “We are looking for veterinary nurses in all walks of life – as well as student nurses and veterinary surgeons – to provide constructive and specific feedback on our proposals.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for our students, prepare them for life in clinical practice, and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
“In fact, animal health and welfare and public safety is central to our standards.
Students will be in contact with patients and their owners throughout their education and it is important that they learn in a safe and effective way.”
The consultation runs until 5pm on Wednesday 3 April 2024 and all members of the veterinary team – including RVNs, student veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons – can take part in order to provide detailed feedback on each of the six core standards and each of individual requirements within these standards.
A PDF version of the new draft Standards Framework is available to download from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations.
If you have any questions about the document or how to respond to the survey, contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Team on vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk
The Registrar and Secretary of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Jane Hern, has announced that she will be standing down at the end of the year.
After 15 years in the job, Jane says she has been pleased to oversee a number of significant reforms and new initiatives in her time leading the organisation, but has decided that it is time to move on and pursue other interests.
The College says it is now embarking on a comprehensive review of its governance, committee and management structures, during which the Officers and Council will consider how best the executive should be led in future.
Jane said: "I have greatly enjoyed my time with the College and the Trust. Working with a profession held in such high regard by the public has been a real pleasure. I wish veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and all my colleagues all the very best for the future."
The President, Dr Jerry Davies said: "The Royal College has been very fortunate in having the benefit of Jane's wisdom and guidance for so many years, and we wish her every success in the future."
Nominations will remain open until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2023 and the elections will take place in March and April 2023.
VN Council and its members are responsible for all matters concerning veterinary nurse training, post-qualification awards and the registration of qualified veterinary nurses, as well as the joint RCVS and British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA) VN Futures project.
Matthew Rendle, Chair of VN Council and an elected member since 2016, said: “As the stature of veterinary nurses has grown over the years, so too has VN Council and the VN Education Committee, with members taking decisions on the accreditation of veterinary nursing education providers, new qualifications, matters relating to the registration of veterinary nurses, as well as having strategic oversight of the VN Futures project and its mission to ensure that veterinary nursing is a vibrant, rewarding and sustainable profession.
“As a member of VN Council you will have a great opportunity to travel around the UK meeting your fellow nurses and getting fresh perspectives on what it means to be a VN, with a particular highlight being welcoming new veterinary nurses to the profession through our many registration and graduation ceremonies.”
The full eligibility criteria, info and FAQs for vets who want to stand can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil23
Prospective candidates for VN Council can contact Matthew Rendle for an informal conversation on what it means to be an RCVS Council member on: vncchair@rcvs.org.uk
There is also an agenda of previous VN Council meetings at www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-meetings/ for those who want to see examples of the kind of business it conducts.
There will now be significant changes to the RCVS Council, as follows:
A gradual reduction in the number of elected members of RCVS Council from the current 24 to 13 by the year 2021.
A change of composition to include six lay members and two veterinary nurse members. Furthermore, the number of Council members appointed by each university whose veterinary degree is recognised by the RCVS will be reduced from two to one and Privy Council will no longer be required to appoint members. From 1 July 2020 university membership will undergo further changes as, from then on, veterinary schools will collectively appoint three members in total to serve on Council.
Members of Council will no longer be able to serve more than three consecutive four-year terms of office and, after serving three consecutive terms, they will not be eligible to re-stand as a candidate for two years.
Members of Council may be removed from office if they fail to satisfy any conditions about fitness to be a member, as determined by their peers on Council. If removed from office they will not be eligible to re-stand as a candidate for two years.
Introducing the LRO before the House of Lords last Tuesday, Lord Gardiner of Kimble said: "The proposed changes… reduce the size of Council and revise the balance of membership between vets and non-vets, including veterinary nurses and lay persons. They will bring the RCVS in-line with many other modern-day regulatory bodies and allow for greater efficiency, transparency and accountability to both members and the general public. For all the reasons I have outlined today, I commend the use of Legislative Reform Order to make changes that will benefit the veterinary profession."
The full text of the Legislative Reform Order can be found on www.legislation.gov.uk and the full transcript of the debate in the House of Lords can be found in Hansard Online (https://hansard.parliament.uk).
Professor Stephen May, RCVS President, said: "We have been looking at reform of Council as an issue of some urgency since 2013, in recognition of the fact that, with the formula-driven growth of Council, it was becoming unwieldy, which has an impact on the cost of each meeting and the frequency with which it could reasonably meet.
"This reform has been long in gestation and so we are glad that this has now been approved and that we can look forward to a more modern, agile and efficient governance structure, aimed as always at benefitting the professions, animal owners and animal health and welfare."
One immediate impact of the LRO relates to the results of this year’s RCVS Council election as the Ministerial sign-off now confirms that only the first three candidates (in order of number of votes) will take up their four-year terms at RCVS Day on Friday 13 July 2018. These are Susan Paterson, Mandisa Greene and Neil Smith, all of whom are current members who were re-elected.
The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council agreed reforms to its own governance last year, including shortening the term of office from four years to three years; introducing a consecutive three-term limit for elected members; and, reducing the size and changing the composition of VN Council to six elected veterinary nurses, two appointed veterinary nurse members, two appointed veterinary surgeon members from RCVS Council, and four appointed lay members.
The RCVS said: "We understand that there are very strong opinions about the ban, and we respect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.
"However, expressing these opinions can never justify or include the harassment and abuse of individual vets, vet nurses or their practice colleagues."
The BVA added: “The Government’s XL Bully ban is also placing additional pressure on veterinary teams who are doing their best in very challenging circumstances to help keep responsible XL Bully owners with their pets wherever possible.
"Their commitment extends to supporting clients with any decision-making around euthanasia in individual cases.
"It’s simply unacceptable for these professionals to face additional challenges through abuse, intimidation or threats.
"Such actions can have a hugely negative impact on individual vets and the wider team."
Resources:
Photo: Dlexus
The day-long courses, each running from 9.30-5:00pm, will cover: basic mental health awareness; HR employment regulations and the legal position; the role of the line manager in supporting someone with poor mental health; making reasonable adjustments; planning 'return to work'; and designing and putting in place wellbeing action plans.
The courses will be run by Connecting with People, a social enterprise that develops and delivers high-quality training to employees with healthcare or safeguarding responsibilities.
Helen Sanderson, former VPMA President and representative on the Mind Matters Initiative Taskforce, said: "If you do one thing this year for your team I strongly recommend it be attending one of these courses. It provided me with invaluable information in recognising stress and depression in a team, as well as giving useful tools and tips on how to discuss and handle situations. I would encourage anyone to attend."
Lizzie Lockett, Director of Mind Matters, added: "It has been wonderful to see the response from the veterinary profession to our mental health awareness training sessions, but we know that managers can face particular challenges in supporting their team's mental health. Meanwhile, line managers play a key role in whether or not someone feels comfortable discussing a mental health issue, goes on to seek help, and, ultimately, returns to the workforce.
"We therefore designed these courses to provide very practical information for those in managerial positions, covering legal requirements as well as how to implement wellbeing strategies for colleagues."
The courses, which are subsidised by Mind Matters and the VPMA, cost £80 for VPMA members and £120 for non-members.
To book a place, visit the Mind Matters Eventbrite page: www.rcvsmindmatters.eventbrite.com
The charge against Dr Irvine was that in July 2017, he failed to discuss with the owners alternative treatment options to dental surgery under general anaesthetic, or the risks of dental surgery under general anaesthetic, and failed to obtain informed consent from the owners for the surgery.
Dr Vasilev was also originally charged with failing to discuss alternative treatment options or the risks of the surgery and failing to obtain informed consent. However, at the outset of the hearing, as a result of new information which came to light, the RCVS opted to offer no evidence in relation to these charges. Mr Vasilev was separately charged with failing to maintain clear, accurate and detailed clinical records in relation to his treatment of the dog.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Irvine denied all aspects of the charge against him; while Dr Vasilev admitted all aspects of the remaining charge.
The Committee heard how Rupert's dental surgery under general anaesthetic was recommended by Mr Irvine on 10th July and performed by Dr Vasilev on 11th July 2017. After the surgery, Rupert was discharged, but vomited in his sleep that same night. He was brought back to the practice on 12th July, where Dr Vasilev administered antiemetic and antibiotic medication.
However, Rupert continued to vomit over the next five days, and was seen by the practice on 17th July and then on 18th when blood tests were conducted. Rupert’s condition deteriorated as he continued to vomit and lose weight and he was brought back to the practice on 22nd July where he was euthanased by Dr Vasilev.
The Committee heard evidence from Rupert’s owners as well as two expert witnesses. It found the first aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that there was an inadequate discussion with the owners regarding the option of delaying the dental treatment on Rupert because of his recent ascites caused by congestive heart failure.
The Committee found the second aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine proven on the basis that he had not discussed the risks of Rupert undergoing general anaesthetic given the recent diagnosis of congestive heart failure, following which (in relation to the third aspect of the charge against Mr Irvine), it was therefore found proven that he had failed to gain informed consent.
With all aspects of the charge against Mr Irvine being proven, and with Dr Vasilev admitting the charge against him, the Committee went on to consider if the proven and admitted charges against both amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In respect of Mr Irvine, Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was not persuaded that the failure to obtain informed consent from [the owner] and discuss matters further with her on 10th July 2017 in the circumstances of this case would amount to serious professional misconduct which would bring the profession into disrepute.
"In the Committee’s judgment, the breach of standards, whilst amounting to professional misconduct, was not serious professional misconduct, in the context of other discussions which had taken place…. The Committee further decided that a finding of serious professional misconduct in this case would be disproportionate having taken into consideration the discussions that Mr Irvine had with [the owner] prior to 10th July 2017 and the fact he was dealing with a complex and changing case.
"The Committee therefore found that Mr Irvine was not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee noted that Dr Vasilev had admitted breaching the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in respect of failing to keep adequate clinical and client records.
However, in mitigation, the Committee considered a number of factors including that, in failing to maintain adequate notes related to Rupert’s treatment, Dr Vasilev had followed the standard of notetaking in the practice as set out by Mr Irvine who was practice principal; that Dr Vasilev had only worked with Mr Irvine in the UK and his record-keeping was limited to working in one practice; that Dr Vasilev admitted his failures at an early stage of the proceedings; that he had made efforts to avoid repetition in the future by undertaking webinars and research; and, that he had shown insight into the need to ensure full communication and detailed note-taking.
Stuart Drummond added: "In relation to Dr Vasilev, the Committee was satisfied that [his] standard of record-keeping was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and that the breach… amounted to professional misconduct.
"The Committee concluded that the breaches overall, when considering the context and number of mitigating factors, were, in the Committee’s view, insufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct…. Accordingly it found Dr Vasilev not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The full facts and findings from the case can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
Miss Panait faced the charge that on 3 April 2018, at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, she was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving for which she was sentenced to 10 months in prison, disqualified from driving for 41 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £140.
At the start of the hearing Miss Panait admitted to the charge against her which related to an accident on 15 May 2017 in which, following an attempt to overtake a number of vehicles, she lost control of her car and collided with a vehicle on the other side of the road, causing serious injuries to herself and life-changing injuries to the other driver. The Committee subsequently found this charge to be proved.
The Committee then considered whether the charge found proved made her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In doing so, it took into account the fact that Miss Panait was convicted of a serious crime which resulted in serious harm to another and for which she received a custodial sentence.
The Committee decided that the criminal conviction and the custodial sentence fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In considering her sanction, the Committee heard directly from Miss Panait who attended the hearing having been released from prison on licence.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "After the submissions the respondent spoke directly to the Committee. She was understandably emotional and was remorseful and apologetic. She acknowledged that she had made a mistake and apologised for bringing the profession into disrepute…. To the Committee her sense of personal responsibility or shame was palpable."
The Committee also took into account other aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.
The Committee recognised that it was a serious offence with significant consequences for both the victim and Miss Panait but accepted it was a single isolated incident, that Miss Panait has made efforts to avoid repetition of the incident by undertaking further driving instruction and recognised that she had displayed full insight and remorse. Furthermore, it also considered the many testimonials from colleagues and clients and that she had received significant support from her employers.
Mr Drummond added: "The Committee came to the conclusion that this was one of those exceptionally unfortunate and sad cases where it is appropriate and proportionate to take no further action. The respondent has insight and is deeply remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for what has happened.
"In the circumstances of this case the Committee determined that the public interest has been met by the finding that the respondent’s conviction renders her unfit to practise. The Committee was of the view that to impose any sanction now would be disproportionate."
A paper introduced by the RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson looked at the possibility of the RCVS prosecuting, for example, unqualified individuals undertaking veterinary work and courses falsely purporting to lead to a registerable qualification.
The paper also explored other options, including better educating animal owners about veterinary services and assisting people with concerns about the breaches of the VSA to raise them with the authorities.
Council heard that over the past year, the RCVS had assisted other agencies on investigations of suspected VSA breaches on a number of occasions.
It was considered that the RCVS could consider undertaking its own private investigations and criminal prosecutions when statutory prosecuting authorities did not have the resources to pursue these cases.
However, the RCVS has no statutory powers of investigation, so if it did pursue a private prosecution, it would have no powers to carry out a criminal investigation or compel evidence.
Council members voted for a further paper setting out a draft policy on private prosecutions, as well as what general information regarding breaches of the Veterinary Surgeons Act could be provided to members of the public and the professions.
The College says the reforms will make for a clearer and more streamlined process, and offer an alternative, more compassionate way of resolving cases that might otherwise go to a full Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The College will now establish ‘Stage 1 Preliminary Investigation Committees (PICs)’ to replace the current Case Examiner Group stage of the concerns investigation process.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “Setting up Stage 1 PICs will streamline and clarify the early stages of the concerns investigation process and could also potentially, once sufficiently bedded in, reduce the amount of time taken for a number of cases.
“Currently, Stage 1 of a concerns investigation is carried out by a Case Examiner Group who determine if there is an ‘arguable case’ for serious professional misconduct before referring it on to the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
"However, under these reforms, the Stage 1 PICs will close cases where there is no realistic prospect of finding a case of serious professional misconduct.
"Where cases require formal statements and/or expert opinion they will be referred on to Stage 2 PIC to determine if, based on the additional evidence gathered, a case is serious enough to warrant referral to either the Charter Case Committee [see below], or a full, public Disciplinary Committee hearing.
“In essence this change means that there will be one consistent threshold of seriousness in all our investigations, meaning it is likely that fewer cases will be unnecessarily referred to Stage 2 of the process.”
The second reform involves the implementation of the new ‘Charter Case Protocol’ to provide an alternative way to resolve suitable cases meeting certain criteria which, though they meet the threshold to go to the Disciplinary Committee, it is considered that the public interest can still be served without a full hearing.
The ‘Charter Case Committee’ to which these cases will be referred will be able to issue written warning notices.
Eleanor added: “The establishment of the Charter Case Protocol and Committee is important for the RCVS in being able to get the balance right between upholding professional conduct standards and protecting animal health and welfare and public confidence in the professions, while also being a compassionate regulator.
“The type of cases we envisage being dealt with by the Committee are those where the conduct of the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse has fallen far short of what is expected of them under the Code, but where there is no ongoing risk to animal welfare or public confidence, and where the level of insight and contrition about their conduct is such that it can be resolved without the need for an onerous, stressful and expensive Disciplinary Committee hearing.
"We estimate that the Charter Case Committee will deal with around 20 such cases per year.
“Of course, the most serious cases of professional misconduct, for example around dishonesty and criminality, will continue to be referred to Disciplinary Committee hearings.
“It is worth noting that Charter Case Protocol and Committee are working titles, describing the fact that we are implementing this process under the remit of our Royal Charter.
"RCVS Council has agreed that the name should be changed in due course to something that better reflects its function and remit."
Unlike the Disciplinary Committee, the Charter Case Committee will not issue to the press the full details of cases as a news article.
Instead, it will publish a warning notice on the RCVS website summarising the area of concern, the relevant sections of the Code that were breached and supporting guidance it referred to, and the reasons for issuing the warning.
These warning notices will remain on the RCVS website for a maximum of two years and will not change the registration status of the individual.
The College says that the reforms are likely to take some months to implement and it will be looking to recruit additional Preliminary Investigation Committee members in due course.
The VCMS, which is administered by Nockolds Solicitors, was formally launched by the RCVS as an alternative dispute resolution service in October 2017 following a year-long trial.
The aim of the service is to resolve, by mediation, disputes between clients and veterinary practices that do not meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct that is needed for the RCVS to investigate a concern through its formal processes.
Since the service’s trial, which started in October 2016, the VCMS has given preliminary mediation advice on how to resolve a case in more than 1,700 instances with over 580 cases having gone to full mediation of which 89% have concluded with a resolution.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Director of Legal Services, said: "From the perspective of both the public and the profession, the establishment of the VCMS has been a "win-win" situation. For the public it has provided them with an additional route to solve those complaints which wouldn’t cross the threshold to progress in the concerns investigation process.
"For the profession it has provided a more appropriate format for resolving a client dispute that doesn’t involve the time, effort and formal process of an RCVS investigation for those cases that will never amount to serious professional misconduct. I think this has been demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of the profession are willing to engage with the VCMS process, even though it is entirely voluntary.
"The VCMS has also had a positive impact on the College and its concerns investigation process, allowing us to focus greater resources on those cases that do meet our threshold of serious professional misconduct. This has had a very clear impact on the speed with which we either close cases or move them on to the next stage of consideration by the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), which, again, is important to both the public and the profession."
The College says that around 90% of cases investigated at Stage 1 of the process are now either closed or referred to PIC within four months – the College’s key performance indicator at this stage. This compares to around 50% of these cases being closed or referred within four months at Stage 1 in 2016.
The College also says that in total (including both preliminary and full mediation cases), 86% of the cases dealt with by VCMS were successfully mediated and feedback from both clients and veterinary practices has been largely positive. In client feedback from the third quarter of 2018, 93% said they would use the VCMS again and 79% considered it to be fair, while the equivalent figure amongst veterinary practices was 94% and 87% respectively.
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors who heads up the VCMS, said: "It is a good sign that mediation is largely working as it should when both parties are reporting similar satisfaction rates and we pride ourselves on negotiating resolutions that are acceptable and beneficial for both the clients and the practices.
"It is great to see that our efforts are also having an impact on the RCVS concerns investigation system by allowing it to concentrate on more serious cases."
More information about the RCVS concerns investigation process, including the different stages of an investigation, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Further information about the VCMS can be found on its website at www.vetmediation.co.uk or by calling 0345 040 5834.
Kathy is a trustee of the Alderney Animal Welfare Society and has previously acted as the Head of School for Veterinary Nursing and Farriery Science at Mysercough College in Lancashire. She qualified as a veterinary nurse in 1983 and, since then, has acted as an external examiner and adviser for a number of veterinary nursing course providers over the years and is currently on the editorial board for The Veterinary Nurse.
She has also been very active within the RCVS, initially as a nursing examiner and then as both a Member and then Chair of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council.
Kathy said: "I am delighted, honoured and humbled to accept the Golden Jubilee award and hope that I can continue to inspire veterinary nurses, throughout their careers, to always do the very best for their patients, clients and colleagues but not to forget to follow their dreams."
The College has also announced Barry Johnson MRCVS as the winner of this year’s Queen’s Medal, the highest honour the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon.
Dr Johnson is the Chairman of World Horse Welfare, travelling internationally and lecturing on behalf of the charity with a particular involvement in fundraising, profile-enhancing and education. He is also the Chairman of the World Horse Welfare International Committee, and a regional representative for the Veterinary Benevolent Fund as well as being Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Lancashire.
After graduating from the University of Liverpool in 1969 he established an equine and farm animal practice in 1974 on the Fylde Coast. He then quickly became involved in many other lines of work, lecturing at the Myerscough College for thirty years, acting on the Agricultural Training Board, and serving as RCVS President from 1993-1994. He was also an RCVS Council Member for 28 years (1986-1998; 2000-2016) and served on many RCVS Committees.
Barry said: "This is an enormous honour for a practitioner from Lancashire. I have always enjoyed being a veterinary surgeon and am grateful to my colleagues and clients for making my career so fulfilling rewarding and fun."
He was nominated by fellow veterinary surgeon, Dr Peter Jinman, a current member of RCVS Council. In his nomination Dr Jinman said: "There are few members who have contributed so much of their personal time for the benefit of the veterinary profession both locally and nationally… That this has been done often without the knowledge of the public or the rest of the profession and at no little personal expense, demands recognition… Barry represents the very best of what a veterinary practitioner can achieve both in terms of his profession and in wider society."
The winners will receive their accolade at this year’s RCVS Day, which takes place on Friday 7 July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The RCVS has announced that its Head of Veterinary Nursing, Libby Earle, has decided to take early retirement and will leave the organisation on 19 April 2013.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "As Head of Veterinary Nursing, Libby was instrumental in leading significant developments in the regulation of veterinary nursing and the establishment of national standards for education and training. We wish her all the very best for the future."
Libby has held the role of Head of Veterinary Nursing at the RCVS for 14 years; a replacement for her will be considered by the College in due course.
Ms Gurrin faced two charges, the first being that she had issued prescriptions for Roaccutane tables, indicating they were for the treatment of an animal when they were in fact for a human.
The second charge was that Dr Gurrin’s conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest and/or misleading, and took place in circumstances where Dr Gurrin was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.
Ms Gurrin admitted the allegation in its entirety and the Committee therefore found it proved.
The College submitted that Dr Gurrin breached fundamental tenets of the Code of Professional Conduct and acted dishonestly and, as such, that the admitted facts amounted to disgraceful conduct.
The Committee accepted that Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, but took into account the context: that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.
Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of the prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist, in that Ms Gurrin didn't invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription.
In addition, there was no financial or other personal gain, it was a single isolated incident, it was a spur of the moment decision without reflection, no harm was caused or risked to any animal, Ms Gurrin had a long and previously unblemished career and lastly she showed insight into the offence.
The committee also took into account the character testimonials which showed Ms Gurrin not only to be an exceptional vet, but a dedicated professional who had nurtured a very strong team, and someone who is held in extraordinarily high regard by both her clients and colleagues.
There were no aggravating factors.
The Committee considered that the case was too serious to take no further action, but that there was no ongoing danger to the public or risk to animal health.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case.
"It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time.
"The Committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.
“The Committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
The RCVS is calling on veterinary surgeons and students, and listed or registered veterinary nurses to complete its Survey of the Professions 2014.
The four-yearly, confidential survey provides the College with data that helps it develop policy, plan its activities and respond to questions from stakeholders such as government and the media.
The survey aims to find out more about individuals' employment type and experiences, working patterns and professional development. It also asks about aspirations for the short- and long-term and current views on the veterinary profession.
Questions are also asked about mental health and well-being, using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. The data will be used to track the mental well-being of the profession at a population level over successive years - a process that started with the 2010 survey - which will feed into other work being carried out across the profession.
Finally, the survey includes a set of questions about 24/7 emergency cover, the answers to which will feed into the RCVS Standards Committee's current evidence-gathering exercise.
This year the survey, which is being carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies, will only be available online. All those for whom the RCVS has a personal email address (ie not 'info@' or similar) have been sent a participation request. Others will be sent a letter, including the survey URL. Those who do not receive this letter by Monday 14 April should contact Lizzie Lockett, on l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0725.
The deadline for completion of the survey is 30 April.
The investment is being made to increase the speed at which concerns are either closed or referred, ensure that the process meets its service standards and reduce stress for the public and profession.
The decision to increase investment in the process was made by the College’s Operational Board in response to a steady increase in the number of concerns being investigated. The College forecasts that it will receive in excess of 1,000 concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses this year.
The RCVS developed a simplified, three-stage concerns process in 2014 which included the introduction of targets for cases to be either closed or referred at each stage. In order to ensure that these targets can be met, the College will now be hiring five paralegals to assist the existing five case managers.
Eleanor Ferguson, Acting Registrar, said: "Currently we are only closing or referring just over half of concerns we receive at stage 1 (case examiner stage) within our four month target. In order for the system to run more smoothly we will be investing in extra staff to help clear the backlog and ensure that these targets are met going forward.
"Similarly, in order to deal with the increase in the number of cases being referred to Preliminary Investigation Committee (stage 2), we will be increasing the frequency of these committee meetings from one to two per month.
"It is important to add that this investment is not just about dealing with concerns more quickly but is also about quality of service and having more staff on hand will ensure that this quality is maintained in terms of how we communicate with complainants and members of the profession. Speeding up the process will reduce the stress and anxiety felt by all involved."
More details about the College’s concerns investigation process and its different stages can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns
Lindsay Newell, a Derbyshire veterinary nurse, has been struck off by The Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS, after she was found guilty of the unlawful possession of veterinary medicines and failing to give regard to welfare in respect of six animals.
The hearing for Ms Newell, who did not attend and was not represented, concluded on 18th November 2015. It related to two main charges against her. The first was that, on 29 November 2012, she was found in possession of a number of veterinary medicines without lawful permission.
The Committee heard that the RSPCA and police officers had attended Ms Newell’s home on that day, where they found veterinary medicines, including controlled drugs, stored in an insecure cabinet within an insecure shed. It heard that during a police interview, she agreed that she was not allowed to possess some of the drugs and subsequently accepted a police caution, which the Committee took as an admission of the offence and therefore found the charge proved.
The second charge was that, between 1 and 29 November 2012 at the Burton Wildlife and Rescue Centre in Etwall, Derbyshire, she failed to give any or sufficient regards to the welfare of six animals in her care. These charges relate to an RSPCA investigation of the rescue centre on 29 November 2012 which found two animals dead and the rest of the animals emaciated and in poor physical condition.
The animals included a male lamb found dead in its pen, a ‘furry-faced’ lamb which died just over a week after the investigation took place, a female goat which died 12 hours after being taken to a veterinary practice for treatment and a pig which died during the investigation process, as well as an adult ewe and a pony which both survived. The charge against her also cited her failure to supply an adequate diet, obtain any or any adequate veterinary attention and explore and address the cause of the weight loss for these animals.
The Committee found all parts of the second charge proved and was satisfied that Ms Newell failed to give sufficient regard to animal welfare as is required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
In deciding its sanction, the Committee considered a number of aggravating factors in this case. It found that, in respect of both charges, the misconduct was “sustained over a period of time rather than being a single and isolated incident” and that, in respect of the second charge, that there was “actual harm caused to animals, which resulted in the deaths of four out of the six animals.”
The Committee felt that this constituted reckless disregard for animal welfare rather than deliberate acts but, nevertheless, said that these animals unnecessarily suffered for a period of at least four weeks due to inadequate diet and that, as rescue animals that were already vulnerable, the expectation was that they would be given the appropriate level of care. It also found that Ms Newell had demonstrated limited insight into her behaviour. Furthermore, it considered that a Magistrates’ Court had also disqualified Ms Newell from keeping sheep, goats, pigs, and equines for a period of five years.
In mitigation it considered that Ms Newell did show some insight into her behaviour in relation to the first charge by making admissions during her police interview, as well as the fact that the animal sanctuary, which opened in 2008, had no complaints or cause for concern prior to 2012.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is of the opinion that removal of Ms Newell’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses is the only appropriate sanction based upon the severity of the facts found proved.”
The individual was granted anonymity by the Committee to protect their and their family members’ safety.
They had been convicted in court in March 2022 of three charges related to indecent images of children and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation activities of a maximum 35 days, 12 months mental health treatment, 100 hours unpaid work and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order.
Their name was placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and they were ordered to pay £425 prosecution costs.
At the DC hearing, the individual admitted that their conviction rendered them unfit to continue to work as a veterinary nurse.
In considering the sanction for the individual, the Committee took into account aggravating factors including that their conviction involved behaviour which increased the risk of harm or injury to human beings, the fact that viewing such images fuelled demand for such exploitative images, and that the conviction related to premeditated sexual misconduct which was sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In mitigation the Committee considered that the individual had taken a number of steps to address the root cause of the offending behaviour, had recognised the seriousness of these offences and had engaged fully with the College throughout the disciplinary process.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate response to the respondent’s convictions was a removal order.
"Convictions of this kind are fundamentally incompatible with being a registered veterinary nurse.
"At this point in time, a removal order is the only sanction capable of satisfying the public interest in safeguarding the reputation of the profession of veterinary nursing and ensuring that public confidence in the profession is maintained.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mrs Garfield had told a representative of the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) that she had possession of a greyhound called Lola, that she proposed keeping Lola living with her as an adoptee, and that she would not relinquish possession of Lola except to the RGT. This was despite the fact that, at the time of signing the adoption agreement, she had already given Lola to another charity named Greyhound Gap and that, as a result, her conduct was misleading and dishonest.
In considering the facts of the case, the Committee found the charges and all constituent parts proven and went on to consider whether this amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The end result of the respondent’s decisions and conduct meant that RGT was persuaded to pass lawful possession and ownership of the dog Lola to the respondent when it would not have agreed to do so had it been told the truth by her.
"In truth, the respondent was not going to adopt and re-home Lola herself. Instead the respondent’s plan and intention was that Lola should be passed on to a third party who had been recommended by a rival dog rescue charity for rehome and adoption."
Judith added: "The consequence was that a social media dispute broke out when the rival dog charity decided to attempt to take advantage of the erroneous belief of the respondent that a decision had been taken by RGT to put Lola to sleep. The publicity generated by the respondent’s erroneous belief… was obviously adverse…. The gravamen [seriousness] of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives."
The Committee judged that the charge and its parts constituted serious professional misconduct and went on to consider the sanction against Mrs Garfield.
In considering the proportionate sanction the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of aggravating factors the Committee considered that the dishonesty was pre-meditated, that she accused members of a rescue charity of lying and demonstrated no or only minimal insight into her wrongdoing. In mitigation the Committee considered that Mrs Garfield had cooperated with the College in its investigations, that she had acted in the genuine belief that she was acting in the best interests of Lola and that her conduct did not put Lola at risk or cause her to suffer any adverse consequences as a result. The Committee also accepted the testimonials and positive evidence from colleagues.
However, the Committee decided that removal from the Register would be the only appropriate sanction.
Summing up Judith Way said: "The reputational consequences for RGT were potentially significant bearing in mind that it is a rescue organisation with some 57 or so branches across the country. All of these consequences, actual and potential, stem from the respondent’s premeditated act of dishonesty in relation to which the Committee considers she showed very limited insight prior to this disciplinary hearing, as she did during the course of this hearing.
"In the result, it is the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register.”
Mrs Garfield has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog's veterinary treatment.
At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheena Brimelow, formerly employed by Kinver Veterinary Practice in Kinver, Stourbridge, not guilty of charges relating to seven insurance claims submitted between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2009. These related to her parent's dog, a Cairn terrier, which she had treated at her then employer's practice. Ms Brimelow admitted that she had submitted invoices with her claims showing the retail prices for several items, when she had paid the practice only the cost prices. She said that she had deleted records from the practice computer showing the retail prices so that the ingoings and outgoings in the practice finances were accurate.
The Committee considered whether Ms Brimelow had either behaved dishonestly or, in the alternative, ought to have known not to have included the sums she did in the insurance claims forms. The Committee found that Ms Brimelow was an honest and reliable witness. She had explained openly what she had done, entirely consistently, from the first time the allegations had been put to her by the practice owner. It noted that an insurance company representative also considered her actions to be "a genuine misunderstanding," although subsequently a complaint was made by the insurance company to the College about Ms Brimelow's actions. The Committee found there were no clear guidelines in the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. It also felt that, as a result of the insurer's communications failures, it was not difficult to believe that Ms Brimelow was unaware of how claims concerning the insured pets of veterinary practice staff members were expected to be handled.
From the evidence presented in the hearing, the Committee calculated that Ms Brimelow had benefited by only £90.50. The Committee noted that she had offered to repay any monies to her employer or the insurer, and that the insurer's loss adjusters had thought this was a matter for Ms Brimelow and her employer. The College had also referred the matter to the police, who said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the matter, a decision they based on the low value of the loss and Ms Brimelow's offer to pay back the money.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee notes the reasons given by the police for undertaking no criminal investigation in this case, and agrees with that analysis. The Committee must apply the same standard of proof as would have been applied in a criminal case. In all the circumstances, the Committee is far short of being satisfied so that it is sure that Ms Brimelow acted dishonestly in this case."
"The Committee considers that [Ms Brimelow] was naïve and misguided in handling the insurance claims in the way that she did," he continued. "However, the Committee considers there was a lack of proper guidance within the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. In these circumstances the Committee is not sure that the College has proved that the Respondent ought to have known that she should not have included sums on the claims form, which did not represent the costs that she had incurred."
Both elements of the charge were accordingly dismissed.
The RCVS is reminding veterinary nurses that their renewal fees need to be paid to the College by 31 December 2013 or they will be removed from the List/Register.
According to the College, 7,180 veterinary nurses paid their fees by the annual deadline date of 1 November 2013. Another 2,161 have made payments since then and the remaining 1,468 veterinary nurses who have still not paid their fees have been sent a letter reminding them that their fees need to be paid - and cleared - by the end of the year.
The renewal fee can be paid online via www.rcvs.org.uk/login, using the individual log-in numbers on the fee renewal letters sent in September and the overdue payment letters sent in December. Veterinary nurses who have mislaid their log-in numbers can email webadmin@rcvs.org.uk with their full name, date of birth, address on the Register or List and the badge number engraved on the back of their VN badge. Payment can also be made by bank transfer - details are on the renewal letter.
For payments made by cheque, the name of the veterinary nurse and their List/Register number needs to be written on the back. Cheques need to be received by the RCVS before Friday 20 December and the payment to have cleared by 31 December.
For any queries about registration or annual renewals, veterinary nurses should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or email membership@rcvs.org.uk
Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty.
Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.
The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.
Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.
The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.
"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."
In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.
Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS has announced the members that will comprise its new Audit and Risk Committee, which was set up following recommendations in the RCVS Overspend Review Group's report (otherwise known as the McKelvey Report).
The Audit and Risk Committee will support RCVS Council in meeting its oversight responsibilities, including:
Its members are:
Non-Council membersElizabeth Butler (Chairman) is a practising Chartered Accountant who has held a wide variety of non-executive appointments, bringing both professional expertise and a depth of understanding of risk and governance. Among other roles, she has chaired the audit committees of the Royal College of Nursing and Hyde Housing Association, and currently chairs the audit committees of the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, she is also chairman of Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust.
David Hughes is a chartered accountant and a former senior partner who has extensive expertise in financial reporting, accounting, auditing, risk management and governance issues. He is currently a Non-Executive Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee for the Highways Agency and a member of the Department for Transport Audit Committee.
Judith Rutherford has five years' experience as a Non-Executive Director and as a member of the Audit Committee in a community Healthcare and Primary Care Trust within the regulated environment of the NHS. She is currently Director of an organisation that provides interim management and consultancy to the private and public sectors.
RCVS Council membersRichard Davis is a Privy Council-appointed member of RCVS Council. He farms 104 hectares in North Bedfordshire and has been a director of First Milk Ltd for seven years. He has also been a director of Westbury Dairies Ltd, where he was Chairman of the Audit Committee. Richard has served on the audit committee of Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) for the last six years and served as the Chairman of Assured Dairy Farms for six years (the scheme sets, audits and monitors production, welfare and environmental standards for most UK processors, and over 12,000 dairy farms).
Lynne Hill MRCVS is Chief Executive of Langford Veterinary Services Ltd, University of Bristol, and was previously Head of the Clinical Services Department at the Royal Veterinary College. Prior to that, Lynne was European Marketing Manager for Hill's Pet Nutrition. She is an elected member of RCVS Council and was President in 2005-6.
The non-Council members of the Committee were appointed by a panel chaired by Sir David Barnes, Chairman of the Governance Review Group.
The new Committee, which is accountable to Council and will report at least annually, will meet for the first time in early autumn.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "I am pleased that the new Audit and Risk Committee is now in place. It should offer reassurance to both members and the public that the framework via which Council's activities are scrutinised is robust."