View all veterinary jobs
The RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections are now underway for 2013, and ballot papers and candidates details have been posted to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: "At a time when the College is experiencing a period of significant change, it's more important than ever that the Councils have the right personnel to help steer us along the path to becoming a first-rate regulator. The annual Councils elections represent a key opportunity for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to ensure this happens."
This year, 13 candidates, five of whom are current Council members, will contest the six available seats on RCVS Council, and four candidates are contesting the two available places on VN Council, including one existing member. The candidates are as follows:
RCVS Council
VN Council
*denotes existing Council member
For the first time this year, the College is organising an online hustings for RCVS Council candidates to allow veterinary surgeon voters to put their questions to them directly. This will be run as a free, live webinar by 'The Webinar Vet' and will take place on Tuesday, 19 March at 7pm. Questions need to have been submitted in advance as there are too many candidates to hold a debate, but veterinary surgeons can still register to listen to the hustings at www.thewebinarvet.com/rcvs. The hustings will also be recorded and available to listen again via the same web address until the voting deadline.
Votes in both elections may be cast online, by text message or by post, and must be received by 5pm on Friday, 26 April 2013. Details of how to vote are printed on the ballot papers and candidate information is also available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil13 and www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil13.
Anyone in need of a replacement ballot paper for RCVS Council should contact Ian Holloway (i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0727), or for VN Council, contact Annette Amato (a.amato@rcvs.org.uk / 020 7202 0713).
To ensure independence, the elections are being administered by Electoral Reform Services.
The College says the consultation, which closes on 22nd December, reflects its commitment to keep reviewing its requirements for newly-qualified VNs to ensure they remain up-to-date and reflect the standards and expectations of current veterinary nursing practice.
Participants will be asked to comment on a proposed new set of requirements, which is divided into three parts:
Day One Competences: the minimum essential competences that the RCVS expects all student veterinary nurses to have met when they register, to ensure that they are safe to practise on day one.
Day One Skills Lists: the essential clinical skills that veterinary nurses are expected to possess on entering clinical practice.
Professional behaviours and attributes: this encompasses the behaviours newly-qualified veterinary nurses are expected to demonstrate on entering the profession.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing (pictured right), said: “With this consultation we want to gain an effective representation of what the professions desire from future RVNs in term of their range of skills and knowledge and professional behaviours from their first day in clinical practice.
"Any feedback we receive on the proposed new requirements will be vital in helping to ensure that student vet nurses receive the appropriate education and training, and that our RVNs are fully prepared and armed with what is necessary to thrive in and add value to current veterinary clinical practice.
Once the consultation is complete, the responses will be reported to the working group, which will then have a final opportunity to amend and agree the proposals, before being submitted to VN Council for consideration.
The aim is that VN Council will agree to the new version of the requirements in its February 2022 meeting.
The deadline for completing the consultation is 5pm on Wednesday 22 December 2021. A PDF document with the proposed new requirements as well as the link to the online survey can be accessed from www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone.
To take part, visit: www.rcvs.org.uk/VNdayone
This was the sixth time that Mr Warwick Seymour-Hamilton had applied for restoration after being removed from the Register in June 1994, the reasons for which related to the condition of his practice premises and his record-keeping following an inspection by the RCVS. His most recent restoration hearing took place in May 2017.
In his application Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he wanted to be restored to the Register to aid his research into herbal medicines and, during the course of the hearing, he also challenged some of the evidence given to the Committee in the June 1994 hearing. In particular he challenged the assertion that his practice was open when it was inspected by the RCVS as, he submitted that, he had retired three weeks’ prior to the inspection due to ill-health.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he did not wish to return to clinical practice but wished to restore his membership of the RCVS in order to prescribe his own herbal treatments and to obtain peer review that would allow his treatments to be licensed. Furthermore, he produced, during the hearing, a continuing professional development (CPD) record card in which he had logged 1,438 hours of CPD in 2017.
In considering his application for restoration the Committee dismissed his challenge to the details of his original hearing in June 1994.
Ms Judith Way, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has noted that this issue is ancient. It is not for this Committee to consider it. Moreover the finding of the Committee represents a determination which was not challenged by the applicant until one of the more recent restoration applications. He never appealed it. Nor did he attend at the original hearing. It acknowledges that the premises could well have been closed given their condition, but whether they were or not is not for it [the Committee] to decide. It is quite possible the applicant has persuaded himself of the position. This is not an issue which is a persuasive factor in this application."
Regarding Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s contention that he would use his RCVS registered status to further his research into herbal treatments Ms Way said: "The Committee accepted there were no direct public protection issues which caused it concern, although it did retain some anxiety that the applicant’s commitment to herbal medicine could govern the way in which he would wish to care for an animal. A more rounded veterinary approach, which involved a full evaluation of an animal’s condition, a coherent diagnosis and a subsequent discussion about treatment with the client is called for."
Turning to his CPD she added: "His CPD now has a bias for herbal medicine as does his extensive reading. The Committee was not satisfied that his skills are up-to-date and that he could practise veterinary medicine safely. The Committee was not satisfied that he would approach a sick animal with the full and rounded approach required of a veterinary surgeon. Nor did his confidence in this regard allay the concerns of the Committee. He expressed belief in himself on the basis of his practice which came to an end some 24 years ago."
The Committee did acknowledge that Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s removal from the Register had a considerable impact on him and that, not only is he ashamed of it, but he believes it is frustrating his ability to advance the cause of herbal medicine.
In conclusion, Ms Way said: "Taking all these matters into account, the Committee has concluded that the applicant has not satisfied it on all of the evidence that he is fit to be restored to the Register and so this application is refused."
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Kashiv, from Vets & Pets, Broxbourne, denied all aspects of the charges against him. During the course of the inquiry, some heads of charge were not pursued and some he admitted, leaving the remaining heads of charge to be determined.
The charges concerned the treatment of a Scottish Terrier, called Tanzy, whose owner, Mrs Greenhill, brought her in to see Mr Kashiv on 5 March 2015. Mrs Greenhill was concerned about blood in Tanzy’s urine and swellings in her mammary glands. After carrying out a cytopathology test, Mr Kashiv advised Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy would require surgery to remove the mammary glands. There were no further tests conducted, and no alternatives to surgery suggested.
On 13 March another veterinary surgeon at Vets & Pets therefore undertook a right-side mammary strip on Tanzy, discharging her the following day. On 17 March Mrs Greenhill brought Tanzy back in for a post-operative check and was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon, who found her to be in good condition.
On 20 March Mrs Greenhill then became concerned about Tanzy’s deteriorating condition and returned her to see Mr Kashiv. He admitted Tanzy for observation over the weekend but did not conduct any further tests at that stage, apart from radiography on 22 March. The hospitalisation records were of poor quality and substantially incomplete.
On 23 March Mr Kashiv then informed Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy could be discharged, although he recommended an MRI scan to assist in the diagnosis; this was declined on cost grounds. He did not however explain clearly to Mrs Greenhill that Tanzy’s prognosis was bleak, and did not give adequate home care instructions.
Tanzy continued to deteriorate, and on 24 March Mrs Greenhill took Tanzy to the RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital where a veterinary surgeon conducted tests which showed that Tanzy was in renal failure. The veterinary surgeon then called Mrs Greenhill and recommended that Tanzy was put to sleep, which was then performed in Mrs Greenhill’s presence.
The Committee found that Mr Kashiv had failed to conduct the necessary investigations when Tanzy was admitted from 20 to 23 March 2015, being satisfied that, by the time Tanzy had been hospitalised for a period of three days, it was mandatory for a blood test to have been performed, given her marked deterioration.
The Committee also found while Mr Kashiv did express his opinion that Tanzy’s prognosis was poor, he did not give the full explanation required in the circumstances of this case to enable Mrs Greenhill to understand fully the prognosis. The Committee also considered that Tanzy was not in a fit state to be discharged on 23 March 2015, and that he had failed to keep sufficiently clear and/or detailed and/or accurate records.
After full consideration, the Committee found that Mr Kashiv’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct, and was satisfied that his actions fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon in respect of heads of charge 1, 2 and 3 but not 4.
Although it was concerned "about the culture of care in the practice, in particular not having in place proper protocols and procedures and without necessary support from properly trained staff", in deciding on appropriate sanction, the Committee was satisfied that there were "a number of serious misjudgements by Mr Kashiv in this case".
The Committee decided to postpone judgement for a period of two years, whilst recommending that Mr Kashiv agree to undertake a structured programme to benefit his clinical practice including a Personal Development Plan, mentoring, practice visits, additional CPD and regular reports to the Disciplinary Committee.
Non-compliance with these undertakings may result in the hearing being resumed at a date earlier than the two-year period.
Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that Mr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon, as evidenced by the large number of testimonials, and that he provides a valuable service to the community, particularly with rescue animals.
"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that there were a number of fundamental failings in Mr Kashiv’s clinical competence which are required to be addressed during the period of postponement. For the reasons set out above the Committee considers that Mr Kashiv’s clinical practice will benefit from a structured programme over the period of postponement, whilst protecting the welfare of animals, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct."
For the full charges, findings and decisions, see: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.
At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.
The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.
"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."
The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.
In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."
Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."
Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.
Miss Davies faced four charges:
Miss Davies made no admissions to any of the charges.
Miss Davies wrote to the College prior to the hearing stating that she would not be attending and she was not represented.
The Committee found all charges bar one proved.
Charge 1a, relating to the anaesthesia increase, was found not proved due to lack of evidence.
In deciding on whether the proven facts amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that all charges caused risk of injury to an animal or human.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee found that Miss Davies’ conduct indicated an unwillingness and inability to act according to the veterinary surgeons’ instructions/directions.
It noted that Miss Davies acted on at least seven occasions contrary to the instructions given or without seeking direction or authorisation, despite her position within the surgical team.
It also found that Miss Davies had breached multiple areas of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, including the Code obligations that veterinary nurses must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals and that veterinary nurses must communicate with veterinary surgeons and each other to ensure the health and welfare of the animal or group of animals.
It therefore found that, with the exception of administering intermittent positive-pressure ventilation without direction or authorisation, the remaining proved facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
In doing so, it took into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included that the conduct was sustained over a period of approximately eight months and took place during four separate surgical procedures, and that Miss Davies posed a risk to animals on each occasion.
The Committee considered that there were a number of mitigating factors including the fact that Miss Davies had been on the Register of Veterinary Nurses since 17 January 2006 with no previous disciplinary findings against her, positive testimonials from a colleague working with Miss Davies at the time of the incidents, and the fact that Miss Davies had expressed some remorse in a letter regarding her conduct in relation to charges 3 and 4.
Colin Childs, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that the charges represented a serious departure from the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses and also that there was evidence that Miss Davies had put her own interests before the health and welfare of animals either by not following the instructions of veterinary surgeons or by acting unilaterally, in relation to the administration of medicines or the placement of a catheter or feeding tube during four surgical procedures.
“Since the Committee could not assess Miss Davies’ future risk or her insight in her absence, it therefore decided that removal was the only proportionate sanction because any other sanction would not protect animals or the public in the future without those matters having been adequately assessed.
Such a sanction also met the wider public interest.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Davies from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The ‘Introduction to the UK veterinary professions’ is a two-part online course run in partnership with VDS Training, designed to equip vets and nurses with the insight needed to work in the UK veterinary profession.
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the course has been moved online. It includes a series of free online pre-recorded talks from representatives at a number of different veterinary organisations, including the RCVS, VDS Training, the British Veterinary Association, Vetlife, and VetAbroad.
The talks cover a variety of topics such as the Code of Professional Conduct, how to find the right job for you, how to look after mental health and wellbeing, and recognising and understanding cultural differences.
There will then be a number of live Question and Answer sessions across different dates over the coming months [see below], which are also free to attend, so those who have watched the videos can ask further questions from some of the speakers themselves.
Part 2 of the course is an optional practical and participatory paid-for online live communications skills training session run by VDS Training, looking at how to navigate some of the most common pitfalls encountered during client consultations, helping to equip you with the skills and confidence to communicate effectively in practice.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Director of Communications, said: “While we enjoyed running this course in person and meeting veterinary professionals from all over the world, the coronavirus pandemic has also given us the opportunity to look at how we can make this course even more accessible for a greater number of people.
“While there is still a significant live element, albeit online for the time being, the pre-recorded talks enable those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to do much of the learning in their own time, without having to take time off work or travel to London for the day, meaning that more people can engage with this crucial information on working in the UK.”
Elly Russell MRCVS, a consultant at VDS Training, added: “Communicating with clients can be one of the most rewarding, but also challenging parts of our jobs as veterinary professionals. Communication problems lead to complaints, increase your stress at work and can impact the care our patients receive. Join VDS training for a highly interactive, online 4-hour workshop. Work in small groups with our experienced facilitators and role players using realistic scenarios to practise and develop your communication skills. Let us help you feel more confident managing common communication challenges in UK practice: improved communication will help you, your clients, and your patients.”
The dates for the free live 2021 Q&A sessions are:
The dates and times for the paid-for live online communications skills workshops from VDS Training are:
The cost for attending the communication skills session (Part 2) is £150 +VAT per person. It is not mandatory to complete both parts of the course, but those who are interested may choose the part of the course most suitable for them.
For further information: www.rcvs.org.uk/overseas-cpd
A record number of candidates stood in the RCVS Council election this year, and the results were much closer than usual.
Two candidates entirely new to the Council have been elected, one of whom - Amanda Boag - received the highest number of votes. The other - Chris Barker - also did well, coming in third place overall.
Three existing RCVS Council Members have been re-elected for a further four years, and Stephen May, who was formerly an appointed Council Member from the Royal Veterinary College, was also voted onto Council for the first time.
Of the three candidates standing for election to VN Council, one existing Member - Kathy Kissick - has been returned, and one new member - Elizabeth Figg - has been elected.
All successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 6 July 2012.
Turnouts for both elections remained low, with just 3,625 veterinary surgeons (15.1%) and 743 veterinary nurses (7.5%) choosing to exercise their right to vote.
By comparison, in 2011 voting figures were 3,887 (15.9%) and 723 (7.6%), respectively.
Veterinary surgeons' and veterinary nurses' use of online and text voting, rather than postal voting, increased again this year from 25% to 30.6%, and 12.9% to 20%, respectively.
The College says it will be promoting its Find a Vet search tool and its new Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) at the event, which runs from Thursday 4 to Sunday 7 August. It will also be giving career advice for prospective veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The College’s Find a Vet search tool was relaunched earlier this year, allowing users to search for a veterinary surgeon, veterinary nurse or veterinary practice all in one place. The tool also includes new features such as displaying a practice’s visiting information (including opening hours and car parking); enabling users to ‘get directions’ via Google Maps; advertising a practice’s PSS accreditations and awards; and returning individual profile pages for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
To promote the free search tool the College will be encouraging visitors to take part in its Find a Vet dice game, as well as hosting a random draw photo competition which will encourage members of the public to find and photograph one of our veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who will be lost in the grounds of Blenheim Palace.
Another of the College’s promotional focuses is the new PSS. The new PSS is designed to provide a greater focus on how practices use their resources to create a positive outcome for patients and clients, and allows for practices to distinguish the areas in which they excel through its awards system. The College says it is using BBC Countryfile Live to raise the profile of PSS and make animal owners more aware of the various available accreditation levels.
Ahead of the event, the RCVS is running social media competitions to give away 15 free pairs of tickets: on Facebook (/TheRCVS); Twitter (@RCVS_UK); and its new Instagram account (@thercvs). The competitions ends Friday 29 July, with winners being announced that day at 5pm. Tickets will allow entry on Thursday 4, Friday 5, and Sunday 7 August.
This year the College is seeking nominations for six awards:
The Queen’s Medal: the highest honour that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon for a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.
The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award: this award is aimed at veterinary nurses who have had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.
RCVS International Award: this award is for vets, vet nurses or laypeople who work internationally, from either within or outside the UK, in making an outstanding contribution to, for example, raising veterinary standards, veterinary education and improving animal health and welfare.
RCVS Impact Award: this award is for vets or vet nurses who have recently, or are currently, undertaking a project, initiative or similar that has a significant impact on the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.
RCVS Inspiration Award: this award is for vets or vet nurses at any stage of their career who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout. It is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals anywhere within the profession and recognises those who have gone ‘above and beyond’ what may normally be expected from a professional colleague.
Honorary Associateship: this honour is conferred to a small number of laypeople each year, in recognition of their special contribution to the veterinary sphere. It recognises the full range of individuals who contribute to the veterinary sphere including scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.
For this year’s honours and awards nomination period, the College has produced a video using footage from Royal College Day 2018, featuring interviews with those who were recognised with RCVS honours and awards on the day.
The video is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/honours where you can also download further information and guidance about the criteria for nominators and nominees for the awards, as well as how to make nomination.
Dr Niall Connell, RCVS Junior Vice-President, is taking the lead in promoting the awards this year. He said: "Throughout my time in the veterinary profession, and particularly since joining RCVS Council, I have met so many veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons who are truly inspiring individuals.
"The RCVS honours and awards scheme is a perfect opportunity to celebrate some of the individuals that have done or are doing something really special – whether that’s by inspiring their colleagues and peers or doing things that benefit animal health and welfare or society at large.
"Across all six awards there really is something for everyone – vets and veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers as well as laypeople are all up for recognition and so I’d strongly encourage everyone to think about someone they know who deserves recognition and get in touch.”
The deadline for nominations is Friday 18 January 2019.
For an informal talk about the awards and how to make a nomination you can contact Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0761.
Nockolds Solicitors was approved as the new administrator of the ADR trial by RCVS Council at its June 2016 meeting at Cardiff City Hall. The company was identified and approved by the RCVS Operational Board as meeting its requirements, a decision which the RCVS says has been welcomed by the Veterinary Defence Society and the British Veterinary Association, as well as receiving lay and consumer support.
The current trial, which was launched in November 2014 and is administered by Ombudsman Services, will come to a close by 1 October, when the new trial with Nockolds will start.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive and Secretary, said: "In order to be able to make an informed choice about how we wish to design and implement a permanent ADR scheme we wanted to ensure that we have as many different options and as much data as possible. It is very important that we get the permanent scheme right and this is why Operational Board made the decision to have a second trial. It was also clear that satisfaction levels from consumers for the previous trial were lower than we would have liked and that we therefore need to explore other options.
"It is important to note that this will not just be a re-run of the first trial with a different administrator – there will be some significant differences between this and our first trial with Ombudsman Services.
"First, this will be a truly alternative process as consumers will be able to access the trial directly rather than having to go through the College’s concerns process first.
"Second, this will be a process of mediation meaning that expert advisors from Nockolds will facilitate communication between the complainant and the veterinary surgeon to try and find a satisfactory solution to the concern."
The trial will be promoted to both the public and the profession as an alternative to the College’s formal concerns investigation process and participation in the trial will be voluntary. There will also still be a panel of veterinary advisors overseeing the trial and helping staff at Nockolds with any clinical queries they may have.
Jennie Jones is a Partner at Nockolds and will head up the trial. She said: "We are committed to providing a service that mediates complaints to find a fair, efficient and proportionate resolution. We are looking forward to working with everyone involved in veterinary profession to develop an effective mediation service that can be accessed by both the public and members of the profession.
"The service will focus on finding effective and practical resolutions. Understanding the root cause of the complaint and re-establishing effective communication are the crucial first steps in mediation and helping the parties to find a solution they can both accept. Over the coming months, we will be working with the RCVS, representative bodies for the profession and consumers to launch the service.
"In addition to mediating complaints, we will share insight in mediation and complaint resolution to inform practitioners and stakeholders and to enhance standards at veterinary practices. This enables complaint analysis to be used to help improve client care, avoid complaints and maintain trust and confidence in the profession."
A bespoke website for the trial will be set up in time for the launch on 1 October 2016.
The RCVS has announced a total of £1 million funding to address mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary profession over the next five years.
The RCVS Operational Board has agreed £100K of funding for the first year of the Mind Matters initiative, with a view to a similar amount per year for the subsequent four years.
Additionally, the College says it intends to contribute approximately £500K over the next five years to the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme (VSHSP). This is a continuation of previous funding, effectively doubling the College's contribution. The VSHSP, independently run by the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, offers a confidential service that aims to combat problems with alcohol, drugs, eating disorders and other addictive and mental health issues. Neil Smith, Mind Matters' Chair said: "I am delighted that we have £500K of new funding over the next five years to dedicate to improving the mental health and wellbeing of the veterinary team, together with the increase to our support for the VSHSP. It shows the College's commitment in this vital area, and is a substantial amount that will really help change lives."
The funding will be reviewed annually as part of the RCVS budgeting process.
Mind Matters activities will fall into five streams:
Mind Matters is supported by a taskforce comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of Veterinary Students.
The ProfCon Investigation Support (PCIS) service is a free, confidential listening and support service funded by the RCVS and its Mind Matters Initiative mental health project but delivered independently by VetSupport.me, an organisation that already offers general support services to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
The service is provided by a group of trained and experienced volunteers who will also be able to offer support to any veterinary surgeon or nurse who is acting as witness.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “At the RCVS we recognise that being investigated in respect of alleged professional misconduct is a very stressful and trying experience that can knock confidence and, in some cases, lead to distress amongst practitioners.
“While part of the social contract of being members of regulated and protected professions is that, when accusations around professional misconduct are made, they have to be fully investigated by a regulator to determine if there is a case to answer. As a compassionate regulator we want to make sure that individuals going through this process can access the help and support they need.
“This service is staffed by a team of brilliant volunteers who already have experience in providing help and support on matters of mental health and wellbeing and have received additional training to augment their ability to provide emotional support to vets and nurses who may be under investigation.
“In our Strategic Plan for 2020-24, one of our key ambitions is to strengthen our credentials as a compassionate regulator that acts with empathy and understanding. The ProfCon Investigation Support Service is an important step in fulfilling this ambition, and I hope that it can deliver help to the people that need it.”
David McKeown, from VetSupport, added: “Whether via a phone call, an email conversation, or a meet-up over Zoom, our team of trained volunteers, all of whom are registered vets or vet nurses themselves, will support service users through the duration of an RCVS investigation.
“Through their support we will aim to help individuals going through this process maintain good mental health and wellbeing and strive to prevent more serious issues arising. The service is completely confidential and no conversations that individuals have with our volunteers will ever be shared with anyone else, including the RCVS. Nothing will be fed back to the College nor be used as part of the investigation process. It is also completely within the individual’s control as to how much information is shared with the VetSupport volunteer. There is no obligation to disclose any information other than perhaps a first name.
“We look forward to working with the RCVS to provide this very important service. Please don’t hesitate to contact us on info@vetsupport.me or visit www.vetsupport.me to find out more about the service and meet our team of supporters.”
The PIC decision marked the conclusion of its investigation into a concern that was raised formally last November involving allegations of bullying at Professor Argyle’s workplace, the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Argyle, who had previously decided to step aside from his JVP and Council duties until the concern was investigated and concluded, said: “Despite this outcome from the PIC discussions, I have now made the challenging decision to stand down from my position at the RCVS. This is to ensure there is no further distraction to the College’s important work and activities and that whoever becomes the next JVP has the full support of Council and RCVS members.
"It is also to reduce the toll this situation has taken on my family, colleagues and students, and on me personally. I am proud and privileged to have served on RCVS Council for nearly ten years and wish it well as it navigates the next chapter in its history."
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “I appreciate that this has been an exceptionally difficult situation and very upsetting for all involved.
"I understand why David has taken the difficult decision to stand down from RCVS Council and would like to thank him for his many years of service to the RCVS since joining Council in 2012.
"I would also like to reassure colleagues once again that, throughout, the College has remained firmly committed to following due, proper and fair process in all its regulatory activities."
Following Professor Argyle’s decision to step down, the process for electing a new JVP for the current presidential year will commence.
As Professor Argyle was a Veterinary Schools Council appointee on RCVS Council, it will be for that body to elect a replacement Council member.
Further details will be announced in due course.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a charge against Nicholas Robert William Horniman MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Cinderford, Gloucestershire, that alleged he was guilty of pet insurance fraud, along with one of his clients, and of dishonestly altering clinical records.The charge was that, between December 1 2008 and June 30 2014, in relation to Cassy, a Labrador retriever belonging to Jayne Bowkett, Mr Horniman:
The Committee heard that Cassy, who had previously been diagnosed with hip dysplasia, had been registered with Pets Barn Veterinary Group in Gloucestershire in May 2008 when Mr Horniman was the Principal and owner of the three-practice group. Cassy was treated at the Cinderford branch of the practice where she received regular prescriptions for her condition.At some point in 2008/2009, Mrs Bowkett had relayed concerns to Mr Horniman that her current pet insurance policy needed to be renewed, that the renewed policy would not cover Cassy's existing hip problems and that she would be unable to pay for any future operations herself. It was alleged that, in response to Mrs Bowkett's concerns, Mr Horniman told her that they could take Cassy off the practice computer and put her back on under a different insurance policy in a different name.Mrs Bowkett took out a policy with Petplan, beginning on 13 August 2009, using her father's details instead of her own. It was alleged that Mr Horniman then arranged for new practice records to be set up in the name 'Cassy Griffiths'. These new records were first used substantively in May 2010 when Cassy returned to the practice with hip problems, following which two separate records were maintained for the dog under 'Cassy Bowkett' and 'Cassy Griffiths'.In August 2010 Dariusz Drozdz MRCVS, a vet who had treated Cassy several times, had been told by Mrs Bowkett that the dog had two separate records. He told the Disciplinary Committee that he queried this with Mr Horniman who suggested that it was a mistake and that they 'RIP' the name Cassy Bowkett. Mr Drozdz disagreed on this course of action but was told by Mr Horniman to 'leave it to me' and the records were then changed to say that Cassy Bowkett had died.Mrs Bowkett alleged that, at some point in 2011, Mr Horniman explained to her that it would no longer be possible to claim for treatment for Cassy's hip dysplasia under the Petplan policy in her father's name. However, the policy remained active, and was transferred into Mrs Bowkett's name upon her father's death.In July 2011 Cassy Griffiths was seen by Jennifer Jones MRCVS, a part-time locum vet at the Cinderford practice, who told the Committee that she was puzzled about why there were very few clinical records relating to the animal. A receptionist explained to her that there were two sets of records for the same dog and that Mr Horniman had instructed her to mark the original pet as having been euthanased and close its records and create a second new record for the dog. Ms Jones tendered her resignation shortly afterwards citing concerns that a pet had been 'reincarnated to ensure continued income from insurance claims'. In November 2011 Ms Jones submitted a formal complaint to the RCVS.During the course of the hearing the Committee heard evidence from Mrs Bowkett, Mr Drozdz and Ms Jones, amongst others.In giving evidence Mrs Bowkett admitted that she had knowingly engaged in fraud but maintained that at all times she had acted with the knowledge and on the advice of Mr Horniman. However, the Committee found that she was unable to remember any relevant material dates and was unclear about the chronology of events. It was suggested on several occasions that she was lying to the Committee, which she denied. However, the Committee believed that she took no responsibility for her own fraudulent actions but merely blamed Mr Horniman and that she had a strong motive to engage in the insurance fraud.In regards to the evidence given by Mr Drozdz the Committee noted that he did not record his suspicions of possible fraud, that he continued to treat Cassy Griffiths after he raised his concerns, and that he appeared to have accepted Mr Horniman's assurance that he had dealt with the issue.The Committee found that Ms Jones was correct in her suspicions that there was only one dog. However, it felt she offered no evidence to support her suspicion that this was part of Mr Horniman's 'scheme to maximise income for the practice' as she alleged in her witness statement.The Committee also heard oral evidence from and on behalf of Mr Horniman who categorically denied suggesting to Mrs Bowkett that she commit insurance fraud and attempting to cover this up through the maintenance of two separate records. He maintained that it was not until Ms Jones voiced her concerns that he realised that Cassy Bowkett and Cassy Griffiths were the same dog.The Committee voiced a number of concerns about Mr Horniman's actions and behaviour and, at times, found his evidence to be unsatisfactory. For example, the Committee found it difficult to understand why 'alarm bells' did not ring that he was dealing with only one dog when he prescribed medication for two almost identical dogs in May 2010 when only one was presented for examination. It also queried why, when he became aware that the insurance policy for Cassy Griffiths was fraudulent, practice records were not updated and no attempt was made to contact Petplan to inform them of this, as is clearly advised by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.Furthermore, the Committee was concerned that, in his correspondence with the RCVS, he was less than transparent, candid and honest. The Committee considered this to be unacceptable behaviour from a professional in dealings with investigations undertaken by the regulatory body.In making its judgment, the Committee had to make a decision on whose account it felt to be more reliable in regards to the first element of the charge.Noreen Burrows, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to its conclusion ... the Committee is faced with conflicting evidence from Mrs Bowkett, who is an admitted fraudster, admits to acting dishonestly and to lying to Petplan. This is in contrast to the evidence from the Respondent, who is of good character, had an unblemished personal record over 23 years and is supported by impressive character references."The Committee found the evidence of Mrs Bowkett to be "vague, lacking in clarity and inconsistent with the facts" and therefore rejected her evidence concerning the first element of the charge. In regards to the second element of the charge, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Horniman had arranged for or allowed the records to be changed as was alleged. In regards to the third element it found that, since it had already rejected the charge that Mr Horniman suggested to Mrs Bowkett that she embark upon insurance fraud, it was unlikely that Mr Horniman would have acted dishonestly in the manner alleged.Noreen Burrows added: "In the light of the above findings, all charges against the Respondent are dismissed."
On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.
However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.
In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that:
Routine treatments should not be carried out until further notice.
You may offer your clients advice and consultation services via remote means, including prescribing POM-V medicines where appropriate.
Clients and/or veterinary professionals should only travel to see animals if judged essential to do so.
Animals should only be seen in emergencies or where, in the judgement of the veterinary surgeon, urgent assessment and/or treatment is needed in order to reduce the risk of patient deterioration to the point where it may become an emergency in the near future (ie within the three-week time frame currently laid out by the Government for these measures).
Veterinary professionals should exercise judgement as to when it is necessary for you to see an animal and/or their owner in person. has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here:
The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/
The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care.
The survey was conducted by Mo Gannon & Associates, which asked 2,000 UK adults about their satisfaction with the service they and their animals received from veterinary surgeons, levels of trust in the profession, and whether the service provided by vets represents value for money.
32% of the respondents felt that veterinary surgeons represented excellent (8%) or good (24%) value for money. 38% thought that veterinary fees are fair. However, 29% thought that veterinary surgeons and their services provided poor (21%) or very poor (8%) value for money. The results were very similar to the last time the survey was conducted, in 2015.
Nevertheless, veterinary surgeons continue to enjoy very high levels of trust amongst the public. 94% said they either completely trust (34%) or generally trust (60%) vets. This put veterinary surgeons in third place amongst the most trusted professions, below opticians and pharmacists but above GPs and and dentists.
Satisfaction with the profession was also high. 80% said they were either very satisfied (39%) or satisfied (41%), putting vets in fourth place below opticians, pharmacists and dentists, but above general practitioners and accountants.
RCVS President Dr Niall Connell, pictured right (would you trust this man?) said: "These results clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of good will towards the veterinary profession and the work they do in treating the nation’s animals and serving their communities. The basis of all good relationships is trust, and it is fantastic to see that our clients continue overwhelmingly to trust our knowledge and expertise and remain very happy with the service we provide them.
"The picture on value for money is clearly a bit more mixed, although clearly 70% of the respondents recognise that we at least charge fair fees in terms of our time and expertise. There is, of course, always more work that we can do in order to help the public understand veterinary costs and fees and promote the value of veterinary care, as demonstrated by last year’s joint Pets Need Vets social media campaign with BVA, in which we highlighted the benefits to pet owners of being registered with a vet."
Since 2014 the RCVS has trialled two different ADR services with the aim of helping resolve complaints between animal owners and veterinary practices that do not meet its threshold for serious professional misconduct.
Since October 2016, this has been in the form of the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), administered by Nockolds Solicitors. The VCMS is free for both animal owners and veterinary professionals and cases will only be taken with the consent of both parties.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are very pleased that ADR in the form of mediation has received the unanimous support of RCVS Council members as part of the process for handling veterinary complaints.
"Throughout its trial period the VCMS has very much been complementary to our concerns investigation and disciplinary process. While we are bound by statute to investigate concerns, it has allowed our Professional Conduct Team to 'triage' cases, and to signpost complainants either to the College or the VCMS as appropriate. This has allowed greater time and resources to investigate concerns that could constitute serious professional misconduct.
"We also believe that the VCMS is good for both the public and the profession because it encourages both parties to communicate, find areas of agreement and come to constructive solutions, rather than being an adversarial process that assigns blame and adjudicates remedies."
Jennie Jones, a partner at Nockolds Solicitors which administers the VCMS, said: "The service is here to help veterinary clients and practices find a resolution for complaints that cannot be resolved within the practice. Complaints are referred to the VCMS by clients and practices where the relationship has become strained or communication may be difficult. Importantly the service does not look at who is right or wrong, but focuses on finding an outcome that both parties can live with and bringing an end to the complaint.
"In our experience this has ranged from reassuring clients and helping them to come to terms with what has happened, refunding fees, further explanations, apologies, small goodwill payments, securing procedural changes at the practice and agreement by the client to settle outstanding fees which have been withheld because of the complaint.
"We understand complaints are highly emotional and stressful for both parties, so the VCMS team will not ask parties to speak to one another directly. It is also not about assigning blame but is about moving forward to allow both parties to bring the complaint to a conclusion. When we hear from practices and clients alike that they can now sleep at night, or their relief that a complaint is resolved, I know ADR and the VCMS does help and make a difference."
The College says that during the trial period, 165 of the 870 enquiries received by the VCMS went to mediation. Of these, 129 were successfully mediated with the other 36 remaining unresolved. Of the other enquiries 297 resulted in the animal owner being referred back to the practice so that internal complaints processes could be exhausted first, 93 did not progress because the animal owner did not pursue the complaint, 73 were dealt with through advice, 66 did not progress as the practice declined to engage, 76 were outside the service’s remit and 100 are currently ongoing.
Taking into account the overall feedback received from both animal owners and veterinary professionals and the positive responses on the independence and fairness of the VCMS, Council agreed that Nockolds continue administering the scheme, with a review starting in 18 months’ time to take into account experience and learning as the scheme continues to evolve. During the Council meeting statements of support for the VCMS were also heard from a representative of the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS) and an independent consultant on consumer affairs.
A spokesperson for the VDS said: "The VDS assisted over 150 practices that agreed to participate in the ADR trial and developed a constructive working relationship with the VCMS staff. In the vast majority of cases mediation has resulted in a satisfactory outcome with little or no financial consequences.
"The Society considers this voluntary scheme particularly suited to the many client care complaints that are directed at the RCVS due to public misunderstanding of the College’s role, but the investigation of which creates disproportionate concern to the professionals involved. The independent nature of the VCMS has been a key feature of the trial, although access to experienced, non-judgemental, veterinary advice has provided the necessary professional expertise when necessary."
More information about the VCMS and its processes can be found on the service’s dedicated website: https://www.vetmediation.co.uk/
To contact the service directly call 0345 040 5834 or enquiries@vetmediation.co.uk
The RCVS Council has approved the new Strategic Plan designed to bring the College closer to its vision of enhancing society through improved animal health and welfare, over the next three years.
The Strategic Plan is founded on feedback from the profession and the public about what the College does well and where it could do better, and an analysis of how other leading regulators operate. It includes 35 actions, clustered under five themes, all centred on the purpose of setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.
For example, the College aims to introduce a service charter - for the public and the profession - of rights, expectations and responsibilities for each of its functions.
Nick Stace, RCVS CEO said: "This drive for excellent service lies at the heart of our focus on improvement.
"The concept of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as well as the public, being our 'customers', was one that unsettled the profession when it was first mooted. But I believe that only by ensuring that we focus relentlessly on improving how we interact with our customers will we deliver a service for the profession, the public, and, ultimately, the UK's animals, which is worthy of the name first-rate regulator."
Amongst other things, the Plan also commits to:
The Strategic Plan can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/strategy.
Also at its November meeting, Council approved:
More information on all of these topics will be available in the November issue of RCVS News, online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications.
You can also hear direct from the CEO via his post-Council video update: www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos.
Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.
At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.
Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.
Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.
Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.
The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.
The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.
The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College.
The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession.
In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.
The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:
To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month
Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.
To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.
To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).
To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.
To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.
To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor.
Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.
"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."
As part of its review, the College had planned a series of focus groups of veterinary surgeons and nurses across the UK. However, these have had to be delayed both because of social distancing rules and because of the pressures that practice teams are currently working under. However, the agency tasked with hosting the focus groups is now exploring alternative options and it is hoped there will be a revised timetable soon.
In the meantime, the College says it now plans to commission an additional independent agency to survey veterinary surgeons about their experience of remote prescribing during lockdown.
In March, RCVS Council agreed to temporarily allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe prescription-only veterinary medicines remotely, without first having physically examined the animal, subject to a number of conditions and safeguards being in place.
This position is due for review by 30th June, and the College will be looking for feedback and data from veterinary surgeons about your experience of remote prescribing, in order to determine whether these arrangements can continue, with or without any extra safeguards.
Because remote prescribing is also one of the most important aspects of the planned under care review, feedback gathered now will help inform future discussions too.
RCVS President Niall Connell said: “We recognise the current conditions that veterinary practices are working under in no way represent normal practice life. Most practices will not have been set up to offer remote services and remote prescribing in a way that they might have chosen, given sufficient time and appropriate detailed guidance, if indeed there are any future guidance changes after the review.
"However, we feel it would be remiss of us not to seize the opportunity arising from this current crisis to ask about the experiences – good or bad – of those on the frontline of clinical veterinary practice in providing remote services to their clients.
"Whilst this will be no substitute for the formal evidence gathered by the research agency in due course, whatever data and feedback we can collate from veterinary practices at this unique time for our professions will, I’m sure, be extremely valuable to our ongoing discussions."
Laura Padron Vega was struck off in December 2018 after dishonestly backdating two statutory Certificates of Competence submitted to the Food Standards Agency under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
She was also found to have failed in her duties as an OV because she was unprepared for, and unaware of, the new regulations and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the two people for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
At the outset of the restoration hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted her guilt and made representations that she appreciated the seriousness of her actions and that there was no chance of her repeating them. She also produced a number of testimonials, including some from former veterinary colleagues, in addition to evidence that she had endeavoured to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development while off the Register although this had been difficult due to her financial circumstances.
In considering her application for restoration, the Committee found that Ms Padron Vega had accepted the reasons for her removal from the Register and the seriousness of the findings. It found that she was unlikely to repeat the behaviour and that her conduct had been entirely acceptable since she was removed from the Register. It also considered her financial and personal circumstances, noting the difficulty she had in securing well-paid, full-time employment since her removal from the Register, and the impact that this had on her being able to keep up-to-date with her continuing professional development.
However, the Committee expressed concerns over her efforts to keep up-to-date with the knowledge and skills she would need to return to practice and said she demonstrated “no real appreciation of what she needed to put in place to demonstrate that she can return to work safely”.
In particular it found that the CPD she had undertaken was unstructured and insufficient and that therefore she had not done enough at the present time to demonstrate that she was fit to be restored to the Register, especially as she signalled that, if restored, she hoped to work in small animal practice, an area that she had not worked in for some time.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee did not consider that the applicant was in a position to return to practice at this point, it did consider that if the applicant applies herself to a properly structured and focused Return to Practice Plan and is able to produce evidence of how she has fulfilled the requirements of that plan, then her application could prove successful within a short time.
"The outcome of the plan for a return to practice will need to ensure the continued protection of the welfare of animals as well as the interests of clients whose animals she might be called upon to treat and, most importantly, the public interest which is founded on a belief that the veterinary certification processes are beyond question or doubt."
In order to allow Ms Padron Vega sufficient time to develop this plan, the Committee adjourned the restoration hearing for seven months (until July 2021).
Ms Jones added: “This adjournment will afford [Ms Padron Vega] an early opportunity to reflect on the concerns of the Committee… and to return with a properly supported programme for the future which will show her understanding of the problems that are likely to face her on her return to practice and her proposals to meet those inevitable difficulties.”
This is the first VN Council election since 2017. There was no election in 2018 due to governance changes and there were too few candidates in 2019.
However, this year, 13 registered veterinary nurses have put themselves forward to compete for the two available places. They are:
Samantha Anderson RVN
Jessica Beckett RVN
Kirsten Cavill RVN
Rebecca Clark RVN
Dorothy Creighton RVN
Lindsey Anne Dodd RVN
Emma Foreman RVN
Racheal Marshall RVN (incumbent)
Megan Oakey RVN
Susannah Phillips RVN
Matthew Rendle RVN (incumbent)
Claire Roberts RVN
Cathy Woodlands RVN
The RCVS has uploaded each of the candidates’ biographies and election statements on to its website: www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote20.
The elections will start from Monday 16th March when the ballot papers and candidates' manifestos will be posted and emailed to all members of the profession who are eligible to vote.
All votes, whether postal or online, must then be cast by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020.
As with previous years, the RCVS is also inviting members of the profession to get a better idea of why each candidate is standing by taking part in 'Quiz the candidates' and submitting a question which will then be put directly to the candidates.
Each candidate for both elections will be invited to choose two questions to answer from all those received, and produce a video recording of their answers.
Recordings will be published on the RCVS website and YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos) on the week the election starts.
The College says only question per person is allowed, and any which it deems offensive, inappropriate, misleading, libellous or otherwise unlawful will not be distributed to the candidates.
You need to email your question to vnvote20@rcvs.org.uk or tweet to the College’s Twitter account @theRCVS using the hashtag #vnvote20 by midday on Friday 28 February 2020.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer for the election, said: "After two years without an election for VN Council it is fantastic to see that a record number of veterinary nurses have put themselves forward as candidates. It demonstrates that there is a desire amongst the profession to engage with VN Council and the important issues it decides on around veterinary nursing education, continuing professional development and registration. It is also the first year that the number of veterinary nurse candidates has outnumbered the number of vets standing for RCVS Council.
"We look forward to launching both elections next month and hope to see record turnouts in both elections. In the meantime please make sure to engage with the process and scrutinise the candidates and their views by submitting a question about an issue of interest to you."
The RCVS Charitable Trust Library is marking National Libraries Day (4 February) with an open day and prize draws for library users.
The Library is inviting all vets and veterinary nurses - and librarians, staff and students from veterinary schools, other Royal Colleges and university medical schools - to an open day on Friday, 3 February. Free workshops on how to use and search the bibliographic databases will be run by Trust librarians, and those visiting can sign up for a free three-day trial membership. Refreshments will also be provided.
On National Libraries Day, every member of the RCVS Charitable Trust Library will be entered automatically into a draw to win a free 12-month extension to their library membership. Anyone who uses the Trust's Library services between 30 January and 10 February will also be entered into a separate draw for a chance to win a £50 voucher for Trust Library services.
Trust Librarian, Clare Boulton said: "We have an extensive collection of books and online resources useful to vets and VNs, and income from Library members and users helps us to ensure its continuing stewardship. So we're inviting all our users to an open day and holding two prize draws as a way of saying 'thank you'."
The open day will run from 10.30-4pm on Friday, 3 February. Literature search workshops can be booked by contacting Clare Boulton (c.boulton@rcvstrust.org.uk or 020 7202 0752).
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, considered two charges against Mr Shah.
The first charge alleged that in June 2018 Mr Shah allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised for a castration without having first undertaken a clinical examination.
Then, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, it was alleged that Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.
The charge then alleged that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.
The second charge alleged that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping and communication with clients.
In particular, this related to a reprimand issued in September 2016 by the Disciplinary Committee following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter of 21 March 2018 by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee with regards to circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Shah denied all of the charges.
Nevertheless, the Committee found the following charge one sub-charges proved: that Mr Shah allowed the kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the kitten and/or ensuring that they had undergone a clinical examination by another veterinary surgeon; that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed post-operatively of the details of the said surgery; and that he failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the findings of his examination under anaesthesia, his surgical approach, post-operative communication with the owners and his plan for completion of the castration.
The Committee also found all of charge two proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether or not, in relation to the proved charges, Mr Shah’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of injury to an animal, the contravention of previous advice given by the College, lack of insight, and the previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Mr Shah. The Committee first considered lesser sanctions, including postponement with undertakings and a reprimand and warning. Neither would be sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest and uphold proper standards because Mr Shah had already been given a reprimand and warning in 2016, which appeared, to the Committee, to have had no effect.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Dr Whiting said: "It is clear to the Committee that in this case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of his misconduct.
"In this case, the Committee considers that there is evidence of a harmful deep-seated personal attitude problem so far as the respondent is concerned. His pervasive denial of wrongdoing and lack of insight, in spite of the findings of this Committee, is of grave concern.
"The respondent’s persistent abdication of personal responsibility and accountability for anything that went wrong, coupled with his sustained blaming of the nursing staff with whom he worked, displays an attitude which is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee cannot be confident that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour in the event that suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction and that the respondent is fit to practise after any period of suspension.
"This is particularly due to the fact that Mr Shah has failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS, coupled with multiple previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The Committee has reached this conclusion having regard to the seriousness of its findings in this hearing, and the previous advice and warning given to the respondent, none of which appears to have been recognised or heeded."
The Committee therefore concluded that the only sanction which reflects the seriousness of this case, in the light of the previous findings and advice given to the Mr Shah by the College, is to remove him from the Register.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.