View all veterinary jobs
The redesign includes an overhaul of the layout, structure and navigation of all the College’s websites: Professionals, Animal Owners, Find a Vet and RCVS Knowledge.
Some of the main changes are:
Ian Holloway, Head of Communications, said: "We’re delighted to be launching our new-look site today and hope all the improvements we’ve incorporated will make using the site a much better experience for veterinary professionals and animal owners alike.
"Working closely with our website provider, NetXtra, over the past nine months, we’ve been able to develop a new-look site with vastly improved design, structure and navigation, whilst avoiding the major expense of building a completely new website from scratch.
"We’re very grateful to them, and to all those vets, vet nurses and members of the public who have helped us with user-testing and content mapping to improve the site as much as possible for everyone who uses it."
Anyone with any comments or feedback about the new-look site is invited to send it to communications@rcvs.org.uk.
The Privy Council has overturned an RCVS Disciplinary Committee to strike Leeds-based Dr Gary Samuel MRCVS from the Register following his conviction for theft, common assault and a public order offence at Cardiff Magistrates' Court in November 2011.
The Disciplinary Committee had agreed the sanction following a hearing in February 2013, at which it decided that Dr Samuel's conviction made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Dr Samuel appealed the decision and the Privy Council heard the case on 26th March.
Dr Samuel had been sentenced by Cardiff Magistrates' Court to concurrent terms of 28 days' imprisonment for theft and common assault and 12 weeks' imprisonment for the public order offence, all suspended for 12 months. He had also been ordered to carry out 140 hours' unpaid work and to pay compensation of £75 and costs of £625. The charges related to an incident involving Dr Samuel and his neighbour, described by the Privy Council as "a spontaneous outburst in the course of an angry quarrel between neighbours", for which it felt that the Disciplinary Committee's sanction of removal from the Register was "disproportionately severe."
The Privy Council felt that, in making its decision, the Disciplinary Committee followed too closely the verdict reached by the Magistrates' Court, and did not take mitigating circumstances sufficiently into account, including whether the attack by Dr Samuel on his neighbour had been provoked by racial abuse.
Delivering the Privy Council's judgment, Lord Toulson said: "It is apparent from the reasons given by the Committee, both on the question of fitness to practise and on the question of sanction, that it was considerably influenced by the fact that the magistrates imposed a suspended prison sentence.
"Although Dr Samuel pleaded guilty to the theft of the camera and he was not in entitled to go behind his plea, it is nevertheless difficult to understand on the evidence how the prosecution would have proved that there was an intent permanently to deprive [the victim] of it. In all the circumstances, it is hard to conceive that the court would have considered that the offences truly passed the custodial threshold for a person of good character, if it had not had the power to suspend the sentence... Dr Samuel's conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, but the Board [Privy Council] does not consider that its gravity was such that it would be in the interests of the public now to remit the case to the Committee".
Dr Gary Samuel will not now be removed from the Register
The Privy Council's judgment can be read in full at http://jcpc.uk/decided-cases/index.html
Peter Keniry has convictions dating back to 1986 in his native South Africa for fraud and impersonating a veterinary surgeon. The College says that in the UK, he has been known to steal the identities of legitimately registered members in order to support fraudulent applications for employment or practise fraudulently.
The College says that in the past, Mr Keniry has been able to gain employment in large and small animal practice and greyhound racing. He is known to have ties in Norfolk, Swindon, Somerset and possibly Cornwall.
Michael Hepper, Chief Investigator at the RCVS, has worked with several police forces in order to bring Mr Keniry to justice. He said: "Peter Keniry’s modus operandi is to steal the identity of properly registered members to obtain work as a veterinary surgeon. As he impersonates members of the College whose names are legitimately on the Register, this can make it extremely difficult, even for practices that do check prospective employees’ credentials, to identify him.
"He is well known to the College and to the police having been convicted in 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2011 and has served custodial sentences for practising as a veterinary surgeon and fraud.
"Peter Keniry is a repeat offender and we suspect that he will continue to re-offend. We hope that by publishing his photograph it will help practices recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department should he apply for employment as a veterinary surgeon."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
The annual minimum requirement for veterinary nurses will be reduced from 15 to 11 hours, while that of vets will be reduced from 35 to 26 hours of CPD. The reduction comes into force immediately.
The decision to reduce the hours was made by the new RCVS Council COVID-19 Taskforce, chaired by RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, which was set up in order to make temporary policy decisions related to the pandemic in a quicker and more agile way. The proposal had previously been considered and supported by the RCVS Education Committee, VN Council and CPD Policy Working Group.
Niall said: "A number of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses expressed concern that it may be difficult to undertake CPD at present and so, in order to give the professions some breathing space, we decided we would reduce the minimum hours required for 2020. We also recognise that some practices are having to make the difficult decision to reduce their CPD budgets this year in response to falling footfall.
"However, it is worth reiterating that CPD need not be expensive or require physical attendance at lectures, congresses or other events. There are many online providers of CPD and other resources such as articles and webinars, some of which may be free. The key is that the CPD is relevant to you and enhances your professional practice and so we would still encourage all our members to undertake CPD as and when they can."
The policy will be under regular review and may be extended further if the circumstances demand. Those with any questions on the policy change should contact the RCVS Education Department on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
A full range of FAQs on the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on the veterinary profession are available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus
Mr Samuel had been removed from the Register in 2018 for causing unnecessary harm to numerous animals.
After being tried and convicted of several animal welfare offences alongside his former partner at Leeds Magistrates Court, Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12-months on the condition that he did 150 hours of unpaid work.
He was also ordered to pay a £100 fine and subjected to a disqualification order under the Animal Welfare Act for three years.
Mr Samuel’s application for restoration was based on the facts that he accepted the seriousness of his actions and that he did not challenge the DC’s 2018 decision.
The Committee also heard evidence that since his removal from the Register, Mr Samuel - who had run a first opinion veterinary practice for nine years prior to being struck off - has undertaken 340 hours of work experience with other veterinary surgeons and 20 hours of CPD.
Dr Samuel was represented by Counsel who outlined in his submissions to the Committee how Dr Samuel’s former partner had sole responsibility for the animals and that she was involved in rehoming dogs and cats and that their relationship was ‘stressful’, that this made Dr Samuel neglect his professional obligations, and that Dr Samuel was now in a different relationship and his life had been ‘transformed’ since his conviction.
The College opposed Dr Samuel being restored to the Register.
Ms Curtis, Counsel on behalf of the College, submitted to the Committee that Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to the welfare of animals and that to allow him to be restored to the Register would undermine public confidence in the profession.
She explained that even though his sentence and Animal Welfare Act Disqualification Order had come to an end, and he was now legally able to own animals, this should not be equated with him now being fit to return to the Register.
Dr Austin Kirwan MRCVS, chairing the Committee, and speaking on its behalf, said: “Where a veterinary surgeon has shown himself to be capable of such indifference to the welfare of multiple animals, there remained, in the Committee’s view, a real risk of that indifference manifesting itself again.
"A registered veterinary surgeon is entrusted with the care of animals, often when they are at their most vulnerable, and sometimes for prolonged periods of time.
"Given the nature of the animal welfare offences committed by Dr Samuel, the Committee considered there would be a real and significant risk to animals if the high level of responsibility and trust that comes with registration were returned to him.
“For a veterinary surgeon, conduct involving neglect of animals is at the highest end of the spectrum of serious professional misconduct.
"For the reasons outlined above, the Committee considered Dr Samuel continued to represent a risk to animal welfare and thus allowing him to be restored to the Register would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession.
"For all these reasons the application to restore Dr Samuel to the Register is refused.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS Operational Board has announced that it will ask Council to review its decision to remove postgraduate postnominals from the Register, following the largely negative response from the profession to the idea, including a petition from Derbyshire surgeon, Victoria Lilley.
The original decision was made by Council in June 2012 as part of a package of measures aimed at developing clarity around postgraduate skills and knowledge.
The College says that the removal of postgraduate postnominals from the Register was intended to help dispel confusion amongst the public and some members of the profession about the level of various qualifications, by introducing the Advanced Practitioner status alongside the existing Specialist list.
Chairman of the Operational Board, CEO Nick Stace, said: "Over the last few days we have listened to the disquiet amongst the profession - which has included direct contact with staff and Operational Board members, a petition and discussion on fora and social media - and feel that we should address some misunderstandings but also give Council the opportunity to review the decision at its 5 June meeting.
"Many good points have been made by members of the profession and I am pleased that the Operational Board has agreed to reflect on them and consider whether there is a better way to achieve the clarity we were seeking for the public and the profession.
"The introduction of Advanced Practitioner status is a positive move for both the profession and the public, and underlines the College's commitment to lifelong learning.
"It is important to have the profession's support for the direction we are taking in advancing standards across the sector."
The College has also provided some Q&A's concerning the original decision made by Council in 2012, as follows.
Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.
The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.
The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.
The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.
The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.
The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.
The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.
The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.
These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.
Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.
The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.
In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.
"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.
"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”
The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.
It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.
It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.
Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.
Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.
"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.
“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.
"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.
"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.
“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.
"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS has clarified its role concerning new UK veterinary schools, saying that it has no mandate to control student or graduate numbers.
Responding to calls from the profession that it should comment on the desirability of any change in the number of schools or graduates, the College has confirmed that whilst it is committed to setting, upholding and advancing the standards that any new UK veterinary degrees would need to meet in order to be approved by the Privy Council, it has no role in capping student numbers.
The College also points out that the free market and mobility of workers in the EU makes any control at the level of a sovereign state effectively meaningless with respect to workforce management. However, the College says it is committed to ensuring that standards are maintained, and to continue working with bodies such as the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education, which evaluates veterinary degrees across Europe.
The College also seeks to support healthy debate through providing information on the state of the profession - an example of which is the survey that it recently commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies on job availability for veterinary graduates over the last five years.
The headline results from that survey were released in the summer, and showed that increasing graduate numbers over the last five years have so far appeared to have had little impact on veterinary job prospects, with 94% of graduate respondents seeking a role in clinical practice obtaining work within six months of starting to look.
The full RCVS Survey of Recent Graduates report is now available, and also shows that, of the 43% of veterinary surgeons who graduated in the last five years who responded:
The answers were analysed by year of graduation, veterinary school, age and gender, and the full report is available online at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
The annual renewal fee for veterinary nurses to remain on the RCVS Register/List of Veterinary Nurses is due.
Both registered and listed veterinary nurses need to pay the annual renewal fee of £61 by 1 November 2014. All veterinary nurses need to confirm their Register/List details and correspondence address; registered veterinary nurses will also need to declare any convictions and confirm that they have complied with the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) of 45 hours over a three-year period.
Any registered or listed veterinary nurses who have not paid their annual renewal fee by 31 December 2014 will be removed from the Register/List of Veterinary Nurses.
This year both registered and listed veterinary nurses can pay their annual renewal fee and manage their details at www.rcvs.org.uk/login. A list of Frequently Asked Questions about the registration process can also be found on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vnfaq.
Security details for accessing the 'My Account' area have been sent to all registered and listed veterinary nurses. Any veterinary nurses who have not received their annual renewal fee letter or login details by 1 October 2014 should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707.
As of April this year, the annual renewal fee for registered and listed veterinary nurses has also been classed as a tax deductible expense. Details of how to claim income tax relief on expenses are available from the HM Revenue & Customs website (www.hmrc.gov.uk).
Veterinary nurses in need of further guidance on paying their annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Department on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.
The event, to be held at Dovecote Veterinary Hospital in Castle Donington in Leicestershire, is open to all veterinary nurses and employers who are considering, or already have, a flexible approach to working arrangements. It includes a supper starting at 18:15, with the event itself kicking off at 19:00 with a series of talks:
Following the talks there will be a panel discussion involving the speakers and members of the VN Futures Action Group and the opportunity to ask questions.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: "A flexible approach to work schedules provides massive benefits to the practice as well as to the veterinary nurse. Veterinary nursing retention is an ongoing struggle in the profession, and being open to more non-traditional working patterns that can better work around family and other non-work commitments will hopefully mean fewer people leaving the profession and can help employers create a confident, cohesive veterinary nursing team."
To book your space, visit the VN Futures event page: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/flexible-working-how-it-can-benefit-you-and-your-team-tickets-44483739061
For more information, contact Claire O’Leary, RCVS Education Officer, at: info@vnfutures.org.uk or call 020 7202 0712.
The VN Futures Report and Action Plan, which contains a full list of the recommendations and actions that grew out of the VN Futures project, can be downloaded from www.vetfutures.org.uk/vnfutures
The Codes of Professional Conduct for both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses stress the need for effective communication with clients and ensuring that informed consent is obtained and documented before treatments or procedures are carried out.
At its January meeting RCVS Standards Committee approved changes to chapter 11 (‘Communication and consent’) of the supporting guidance to the Codes to provide further advice to the professions on matters that should be discussed with clients to ensure informed consent is gained, provide clarification on who can gain consent for a procedure and give some additional guidance on consent forms.
Nick Oldham, Standards and Advisory Manager at the RCVS, said: "We hope that this updated guidance is more accessible, readable and will aid members of the profession in developing a more comprehensive approach to gaining informed consent for treatments and procedures and therefore reduce the risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding which can lead to concerns being raised by clients.
"For example, we have updated our guidance to encourage veterinary surgeons to consider discussing a number of additional factors with a client before obtaining consent. This includes the nature, purpose and benefits of any treatment or procedures, the likely outcomes including potential risks, financial estimates, informing the client when other treatments may have available and checking that the client understands what they are agreeing to rather than assuming the client understands both the potential financial outlay and possible side effects.
"Furthermore, there is now additional guidance for veterinary surgeons on who should be seeking consent. While ordinarily it is expected that the veterinary surgeon undertaking the procedure or providing treatment is responsible for obtaining the client’s consent we know that this is not always practical.
"Therefore we clarify that the responsibility of obtaining consent can be delegated to another veterinary surgeon and, failing that, a registered veterinary nurse or student veterinary nurse could obtain consent provided that they are suitably trained, have sufficient knowledge of the proposed procedure or treatment and understand the risks involved.
"The RCVS Standards and Advice Team is also in the process of producing a series of fictional case studies based on informed consent issues encountered by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee which we hope will further help the profession."
The updated supporting guidance can be found in full at www.rcvs.org.uk/consent
The Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance can also be downloaded as an app for smartphones and tablets at www.rcvs.org.uk/codeapp
Members of the profession seeking confidential advice on matters relating to professional conduct can contact the Standards and Advice Team on 020 7202 0789 or advice@rcvs.org.uk
Amanda Boag, RCVS President, said: "We understand that this is a concerning situation for many in the profession who are worried about the impact of the shortage of isoflurane on both elective and emergency operations.
"We are also concerned to hear that some vets are worried that they may be disciplined by the RCVS for clinical decisions and outcomes that may arise from the shortage, and so we are keen to stress that we understand that members of the profession can only do their best under the circumstances presented to them and that, provided they can clinically justify the decisions they have made, keep detailed notes, gain informed consent and follow the prescribing rules, then there is very unlikely to be an issue of professional misconduct."
If you have questions about the shortage in relation to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, you can contact the RCVS Standards and Advice Team on 020 7202 0789 or advice@rcvs.org.uk.
For further information about the shortage and alternative sources and products, the RCVS recommends visiting the Veterinary Medicines Directorate website: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/veterinary-medicines-directorate.
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Legislation Working Party was set up on the recommendation of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, which considered that in light of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and the deficiencies in the existing legislation, now would be a good time to review the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
The Working Party, which is expected to have its first meeting in May, will be chaired by RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May and will include the British Veterinary Association’s President, Gudrun Ravetz, RCVS CEO Nick Stace, RCVS Registrar Eleanor Ferguson, Chair of VN Council Liz Cox, RCVS Treasurer and Junior Vice-President elect Amanda Boag, and RCVS Council members Kate Richards and lay member Richard Davis.
The Working Party’s remit will be to ensure that the College’s vision for the future of veterinary legislation is given proper consideration so that it can respond to future opportunities to support a new Act; to propose a list of principles on which new legislation should be based; and to make recommendations as to whether the new legislation should be a ‘Veterinary Services Act’ providing an umbrella for allied professionals and exploring compulsory practice inspection.
Professor Stephen May said: "The UK leaving the EU will necessitate some changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act as it currently exists so this feels like an opportune moment to carry out a wholesale review of the legislative basis for regulation of the veterinary profession in the UK.
"Clearly using 50-year-old legislation has its limitations, and while we have been able to make use of legislative reform orders and changes to the Royal Charter to make significant changes to the College – for example, in terms of our disciplinary and governance arrangements – the fact is that this somewhat antiquated legislation is the basis for all we do.
"For example under the current Act veterinary nurses still lack statutory regulation and protection of title, there is no underpinning for our continuing professional development (CPD) requirements and specialist/ advanced practitioner status and the College lacks the power of entry or similar power needed for compulsory practice inspection.
"We hope that, by giving the legislation a fresh look, we can consider how it could better cover the veterinary industry as a whole and not just the rather narrow definition given in the original Act."
The Legislation Working Party is to meet at least four times and will report to RCVS Council in due course.
Mr Roger faced three charges: that he had failed to provide adequate care, failed to communicate with the owner adequately and failed to keep adequate clinical records for Honey, a Shiih Tzu dog who, it transpired, had hypergycaemia.
At the initial consultation, Mr Roger took a blood sample which showed that there was an elevated blood glucose, an elevated white blood cell count, an elevated ALT and an elevated ALP (which Mr Roger took to be indicative of liver damage secondary to infection).
Mr Roger prescribed a cholagogue (ursodeoxycholic acid), an antibiotic (Synulox) and a diuretic (Frusemide).
In its findings of fact, the Committee found it likely that Mr Roger would have realised that Honey had a potential diabetes mellitus diagnosis with an elevated blood glucose of 28.
However, Mr Roger explained that he had believed the elevated blood glucose was due to the stress Honey had undergone in taking the blood samples.
The Committee therefore accepted that Mr Roger’s actions did not indicate a complete failure by him to notice the elevated blood glucose because he had explained he believed at the time it was due to stress.
Honey’s owner took her back to the veterinary practice that Mr Roger worked at three days later.
A different veterinary surgeon examined Honey and flagged that her blood sugar was high and that her liver was damaged.
She was taken to an alternative veterinary practice for follow-up but died later that day.
Mr Roger admitted failing to ask Honey’s owner if there was a history of diabetes mellitus, failing to take repeat blood glucose tests or carry out urine analysis or carry out additional blood tests, failing to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of the hyperglycaemia and the options for investigation/management and failing to keep adequate clinical records in regard to Honey’s blood glucose levels.
The Committee found the admitted facts proved.
The evidence presented to the Committee included the clinical notes taken during Honey’s consultations, emails sent from Honey’s owner to the RCVS outlining the complaint, and evidence from experts in small animal veterinary practice.
Although the Committee found some matters not proved, it did find proved that Mr Roger had failed to recognise and/or pay adequate regard to Honey’s elevated blood glucose levels, had failed to manage Honey’s hyperglycaemia either by treating it or by documenting an appropriate plan to do so and had failed to communicate adequately with Honey’s owner about the significance of her elevated glucose and the reason for it.
Having reached its decision in relation to the facts, the Committee went on to consider whether the facts it had found proved either individually or cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee found that the charges and particulars it had found proved did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect either individually or cumulatively.
"In its judgment, the conduct found proved fell short of the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon but not far short of the standard which is expected of the reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.”
As a result of the Committee finding that Mr Roger was not guilty of serious professional misconduct on any of the proven charges, either individually or in any combination, the hearing did not proceed further.
Nominations can be made for three RCVS Honours: the Queen’s Medal, the Golden Jubilee Award and Honorary Associateship.
The Queen’s Medal was introduced in 2013 and is the highest honour that the College can bestow upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of those who have achieved a highly distinguished career and outstanding achievements. Nominations can be made by any Member of the RCVS in respect of another veterinary surgeon. The 2016 winner of the award was Professor Randolph Richards who was honoured for his contribution to the development of aquaculture in Scotland.
The Golden Jubilee Award was introduced in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS training course for veterinary nurses and now recognises those nurses who are taking a leadership role within the profession. The 2016 winner of the award was Louise O’Dwyer who was recognised for her pioneering role within the profession. Nominations can be made by either veterinary nurses or veterinary surgeons in respect of a veterinary nurse.
Nominations can also be made for Honorary Associateship which is eligible for those who, while not veterinary surgeons or nurses, have made a significant impact in the veterinary field. Previous winners have included scientists, farmers, farriers, educationalists and journalists. This year an Honorary Associateship was awarded to Professor David Lane for his support in launching the College’s Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice.
Further information about making nominations for each of these awards, including nominations forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours.
The deadline for nominations is Friday 16 September 2016 and all awards will be bestowed at RCVS Day 2017 in July next year.
Those with questions about making a nomination can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.
Each candidate will produce a written reply to two questions of their choice, which will be included on their candidate profile webpage ahead of the start of the election.
The three candidates who are standing in this year’s election for the two available elected places on VN Council are:
The VN Council candidate biography and statements are available to read on www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote24
The two candidates with the most votes will join VN Council for their three-year terms at the College’s AGM in July.
The College says it will only accept one question per person and questions must be decent.
Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will not be passed on to candidates.
You can email your question to: vnvote24@rcvs.org.uk.
The group is being set up to ensure that the College meets its objective of working in the public interest, initially as a 12-month pilot.
Louise Allum, RCVS Council Member and Chair of the Public Advisory Group, said: “Animal owners and keepers play an essential role in supporting animal welfare, and it is therefore not only right, but necessary, that we actively seek to inform the public of our activities and take their opinion into account when making wide-reaching decisions.
“With the profession's help, we are inviting animal owners and keepers from all backgrounds - from companion animal, to equine and farm – to be a part of our Public Advisory Group to help us actively engage with members of the public and to ensure that the veterinary profession continues to meet the needs of clients and animals alike.
"We also hope that, by involving animal owners and keepers in our work, we can improve the ways in which we communicate our messages to veterinary service users."
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, added: “Through the Public Advisory Group, we hope to gain greater insight into the experiences and opinions of animal owners and keepers to determine how we can work together to achieve what is essentially, a joint goal.
"We all care deeply about animal health and welfare and should therefore be united in our mission to uphold high standards.
“We are looking for a pool of around 30 individuals, including, but not limited to, owners and keepers of companion animals, and equine and production animals, to join our group.
"We are asking veterinary professionals to help us recruit animal owners and keepers from all walks of life, by kindly sharing information about this initiative with anyone they feel would be an appropriate, enthusiastic and engaged member of the Group.”
For more information on the Public Advisory Group, including terms of reference and how to apply, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/pag or email Lisa Moffatt on l.moffatt@rcvs.org.uk.
The deadline for applications is 7 June 2023.
The CertAVN was introduced in 2019 as a modular, more flexible postgraduate route for veterinary nurses, replacing the Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing (DipAVN).
The RCVS says the update includes a new programme standard focused on creating a positive learning culture.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS director of veterinary nursing, said the standard is intended to ensure providers foster “inclusive, reflective and student-centred learning environments”, and that it strengthens expectations around academic support, how the qualification should advance knowledge, and the need for institutions to take student wellbeing into account.
For course providers, the changes signal clearer expectations not just around content and outcomes, but around the support structures and learning environment wrapped around the programme. For veterinary nurses considering the CertAVN, the framework highlights what providers are expected to put in place around academic support and student experience.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/certavn
The RCVS is to launch an online quiz this month, testing veterinary nurses' knowledge of their Guide to Professional Conduct.
The RCVS Register of Veterinary Nurses has been live for three years now, and includes over 7,600 registered veterinary nurses (RVNs).
RVNs agree to keep their skills and knowledge up to date by means of continuing professional development (CPD), and to abide by the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
Results from the RCVS Survey of the Veterinary and Veterinary Nursing Professions 2010 indicate that veterinary nurse respondents carry out an average of three days of CPD a year - well above the 15-hour (two-day) annual requirement for RVNs.
But how well do RVNs know their Guide to Professional Conduct?
The College will launch a quiz on the contents of the VN Guide toward the middle of October (following a pilot at BVNA Congress - 8-10 October 2010).
VNs can take part in the 25-question quiz anonymously and, on completion, there will be the opportunity to review answers and check the relevant section of the Guide. It will be available on www.rcvs.org.uk/vnguidequiz for a period of six months.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "It's a great opportunity for veterinary nurses to test their knowledge and see if there are any gaps to be filled.
"When the College issued a similar quiz for vets last year, the average score was 20 out of 25. Surely VNs can do better? The challenge is on..."
Those VNs attending BVNA Congress are encouraged to visit the RCVS stand for a free brain-training game and a chance to help pilot the quiz.
The RCVS Day held last Friday saw the investiture of Professor Stuart Reid as the new President for 2014/15, the formal adoption of a new Royal Charter that recognises veterinary nurses, and a smorgasbord of awards.
Professor Reid, who graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1987, began by outlining three things he wants to pursue during his term in office:
Jacqui Molyneux then stood down as Vice-President, replaced by Dr. Bradley Viner, who in turn was replaced as Treasurer by Amanda Boag.
After approving of the minutes of last year's RCVS Day and the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for 2013, members of the College were then asked to vote on a motion to adopt the new Royal Charter. The motion, which was proposed by Professor Reid and seconded by Robin Hargreaves, President of the BVA, was passed unanimously. The proposed new Charter was delivered to the Privy Council that afternoon. According to the College, approval should be given later this year or early next.
Introducing the new Charter, Professor Reid said it would better define the objects of the College, provide a clear framework for the existing functions of the RCVS and give Council the power to create new classes of associate.
However, the greatest impact of the new Charter will surely be felt by veterinary nurses, as it formally recognises them as professionals and associates of the College for the first time. Professor Reid said: "Words like 'historic' should be used sparingly, but on this occasion it is justified. We now have some 12,000 veterinary nurses on the books, nine-tenths of them being registered veterinary nurses. Yet the present Charter does not so much as mention their existence.
"The new Charter gives the RCVS a formal duty to keep the Register of Veterinary Nurses and makes the Veterinary Nurses Council responsible for setting standards for their training, education and conduct."
After adopting the Charter, David Bartram, Mandisa Greene and Susan Paterson were formally welcomed on to Council. Amber Richards was welcomed onto VN Council, which Neil Smith is also joining.
Outgoing President, Neil Smith, then conferred a range of awards including:
Nick Stace, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the RCVS, then gave an update on what the College had achieved in the last year. Among the achievements he noted was the introduction of a new system to reduce the time it takes to process complaints; the imminent launch of the new Advanced Practitioner status; and the development of a new Practice Standards Scheme, due to come into force next year.
He said: "In addition, we have listened and responded to fair criticism from the profession, including a very productive evidence-gathering session on 24/7 emergency care, which has resulted in important changes.
"I believe listening and responding is a sign of strength and confidence. We do not seek to be popular but to be sensible in how we regulate and respectful in how we carry out our Royal College duties."
He also outlined how he wanted the RCVS to be a "force for good" in the world by supporting the very best veterinary practitioners and ensuring that the public feels properly protected.
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2015 RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses (VN) Council elections.
Turnouts in both elections rose this year, with 4,838 veterinary surgeons (18.1%) and 1,379 veterinary nurses (11%) voting, which compares to 4,137 (16.1%) and 1,157 (10%) in 2014. The College says these represent the highest numbers of vets and VNs ever to vote in RCVS elections, noting however that there are more vets and veterinary nurses on the Registers. Average turnouts over the past ten years are 17.4% (4051 veterinary voters) and 9% (833 VN voters).
Current members Niall Connell and Lynne Hill were returned to two of the six available seats on RCVS Council, with 2,575 votes and 1,889 votes respectively (the four other current members of Council eligible for re-election will all be retiring this year). Peter Robinson (2,308 votes) was elected again, having previously served on Council in 2013/14.
Joining Council for the first time will be Timothy Greet (2,550 votes), Joanna Dyer (2,383 votes) and Katherine Richards (1,905 votes).
Disappointing news, however, for the RMB brigade this year: Tom Lonsdale scored 374 votes, down 13.5% on 2014, despite the increasing number of voters.
The two available places on VN Council were taken by new member Lucy Bellwood (914 votes) and existing member and Vice-Chair, Elizabeth Cox (630 votes).
Turnouts in both elections rose this year, with 4,838 veterinary surgeons (18.1%) and 1,379 veterinary nurses (11%) voting, which compares to 4,137 (16.1%) and 1,157 (10%) in 2014. These represent the highest numbers of vets and VNs ever to vote in RCVS elections, although there are increasing numbers of vets and veterinary nurses on the Registers. Average turnouts over the past ten years are 17.4% (4051 veterinary voters) and 9% (833 VN voters).
RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey, said: "My sincere thanks to all those who stood for election this year and to all those who voted, and many congratulations to the successful candidates. Once again we have an excellent mix of people joining Council, who will be able to bring a diverse range of skills and experience to Council discussions and activities. I very much look forward to welcoming them to Council at our AGM in July."
Chair of VN Council Kathy Kissick, said: "It's encouraging that voter numbers have risen slightly in this year's election, especially in such an auspicious year where the introduction of the new Royal Charter for the RCVS means that we are now formally regulated by the College and recognised as true professionals in our own right. My congratulations to both Lucy and Liz on their success."
In addition to their usual written biographies and manifesto statements, all candidates produced a 'Quiz the candidates' video this year, where they answered questions put to them directly by fellow members of the professions. Still available to watch via the RCVS website and YouTube channel, the 11 RCVS Council candidate videos have been viewed 2,967 times, and the three VN Council candidate videos 509 times.
Once again veterinary surgeons and VNs could cast their votes by post or online, with the former remaining the more popular method. A higher proportion of veterinary surgeons (30%) voted online than did veterinary nurses (23%).
The 2015 RCVS and VN Council elections were run on behalf of the RCVS by Electoral Reform Services.
The nomination period runs up until 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2017 and, in order to stand, candidates for Council will need to submit a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs two nominators who are registered veterinary nurses who are not currently on VN Council.
Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, said: "With the publication of the VN Futures Report in July there is now huge scope for VN Council members, current and prospective, to take forward some of its recommendations, for example, around clarifying Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and building a structured and varied career path for veterinary nurses.
"As well as VN Futures there is also a lot of important day-to-day work for VN Council members around veterinary nursing education and professional standards and we would really encourage VNs from all areas of practice to put themselves forward as candidates and to have a say on these crucial issues."
Prospective candidates are invited to attend a ‘Meet the RCVS Day’ at the College’s offices in Belgravia House, London, on Wednesday 23 November 2016 where they will have the opportunity to talk to RCVS President Chris Tufnell and Liz Cox, Chair of VN Council, to find out more about the role of the College, its Councils and its committees.
Those interested in attending should contact Emma Lockley, RCVS Events Officer, on e.lockley@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0773. Reasonable expenses for travel will be reimbursed.
The election period starts around mid-March and will run until 5pm on Friday 28 April 2017. Ballot papers will be sent to veterinary nurses who are eligible to vote in the week commencing Monday 13 March 2017.
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective VN Council candidates are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil17.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has called for comment on a new draft health protocol which aims to deal compassionately with veterinary surgeons who have health problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction or mental health issues, while continuing to protect the public interest.
According to independent legal advice sought by the College, such an approach is appropriate and necessary in order for the RCVS to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities - similar systems exist within other regulators.
RCVS President Peter Jinman said: "At present, where veterinary surgeons suffer from health problems that affect their fitness to practise, they may be referred to a formal and public Disciplinary Committee inquiry and stopped from practising. But it is recognised that this is not always in the public interest, which could be protected by a more compassionate approach, involving medical help, workplace supervision and continued practice, subject to conditions."
As a result, the draft Protocol has been developed by the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Advisory Committees. It formalises and builds on steps taken by the Preliminary Investigation Committee in the past to help veterinary surgeons to recover from health problems affecting fitness to practise, without referral to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee. Often those veterinary surgeons are also receiving help from the Veterinary Benevolent Fund's Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme.
The Protocol encourages anyone coming into contact with veterinary surgeons - including other veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses, members of practice staff, clients and healthcare professionals - who have concerns about a veterinary surgeon's health to report those concerns to the RCVS as soon as is reasonably practicable. Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who are concerned about the health of a veterinary surgeon must also take steps to ensure that animals are not put at risk and that the interests of the public, including those of their colleagues, are protected.
A similar protocol would be introduced for Registered Veterinary Nurses when the equivalent disciplinary system comes into force next year.
The draft protocol, together with recommended changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct to support the change, is available online (www.rcvs.org.uk/healthprotocol) and comments are requested by 8 October 2010. The comments will be considered by Advisory Committee and then RCVS Council.
Comments should be sent to Simon Wiklund, Advisory Manager, on s.wiklund@rcvs.org.uk. A hard copy of the consultation document is available on request.